Forum Replies Created
So your answer is yes — you are in favour of boring from within. I’m not – on the grounds that I think it dishonest to join an organisation whose aims one does not agree with.Such membership of course might also be seen to be incompatible with membership of the Socialist Party.alanjjohnstone wrote:My view has been pretty much consistent and has been expressed on our blog and by several posts on this list (which i note from a previous post, Hollyhead, you are deign to read due to their word-length).
If by “deign” [=think fit, condescend] you mean “reluctant” then yes that’s true. I did, however, read your 2,900 word posting but gave up about a quarter of the way through the 14,000 word link you provided. I don’t consider it compulsory to complete such tasks. It’s true that I have pleaded for brevity (both here and on other party forums). I am of the opinion that logorrhoea to which many Party members are prone makes for poor communication of socialist ideas. Excessive length fails to persuade.Internet forums are not (in my opinion) the place for lengthy expositions of the party case for socialism. Better by far to have short, snappy, exchanges. Three thousand word postings are not the way forward — they’re difficult for many of us oldies to read I suspect.
So your answer is yes — you are in favour of boring from within.I’m not – on the grounds that I think it dishonest to join an organisation whose aims one does not agree with.Such membership of course might also be seen to be incompatible with membership of the Socialist Party.alanjjohnstone wrote:My view has been pretty much consistent and has been expressed on our blog and by several posts on this list (which i note from a previous post, Hollyhead, you are deign to read due to their word-length).
It’s true that I have pleaded for brevity (both here and on other party forums). I am of the opinion that the logorrhoea to which many Party members are prone makes for poor communication. Excessive length fails to persuade.Internet forums are not (in my opinion) the place for lengthy expositions of the party case for socialism. Better by far to have short, snappy, exchanges. Three thousand word postings are not the way forward — they’re difficult for many of us oldies to read I suspect.alanjjohnstone wrote:Socialists must be present and vocal within Occupy to combat such reformism masquerading as revolutionary before it takes root.
How? Surely not by joining and boring from within??
Hear, hear. Let’s not mire an interesting exchange with name calling and back-biting.
And should really be from Knockipedia…
I’m not convinced that Robbo’s religious socialists exist in the large(?) numbers he claims. In the 40+ years I’ve been a member I can recall fewer than ten such. We are certainly not turning away potential members in droves. In my experience as a member of the Party’s Inquisition the few I have had dealings with have not proceeded with their applications to join — they have put their religious and/or spiritual convictions before their socialist ones.Jonathan Chambers wrote:Edgerton doesn’t argue that at all, as it happens. (Incidentally, the whole book is available online. You could have saved money but unless you can cancel your order with Amazon it’s too late!)
So I’ve misread the extract?Quote:One of the important things that Edgerton does in his book is to point out that anthropologists have all too often not only omitted evidence but have also fabricated it in order to grind their particular axe. We need, I think, to be clear that anthropology is in no way a science.
Nevertheless it does provide us with useful evidence that things are not everywhere, and have not always been, like this.Quote:The point I’d want to make is that we are a partly-evolved pattern-seeking species that is – at best – only partly rational.
We are also a problem-solving species and I suspect that our (partial) irrationality is the price we pay for having emotions.northern light wrote:HollyHead wrote:Some people with religious views may well understand the case for socialism but cannot be said, in my opinion, to have socialist understanding.
I do not know what you mean. Can you please put some meat on the bones
My apologies for being so cryptic that my meaning was lost. (I was leaving plenty of room on the thread for Robbos long postings )By people who understand the case for socialism I mean those who:1.] recognise the class nature of capitalist society and that this gives rise to irreconcilable conflicts of interest;2.] agree that capitalism cannot be run in the interests of the majority; and3.] are persuaded that production solely for use (that is the abolition of buying and selling) would overcome the problems distribution. Such people may agree with points 1. to 3. but not agree that revolutionary democratic political action is necessary / possible because:1.] they believe it to be “against human nature” – socialism is an utopian dream2.] they don’t think it achievable by majority democratic political action;3.] they do not accept historical materialism.That is they lack socialist understanding. If it to maintain it’s object intact membership of the Party must be open to convinced socialists only.robbo203 wrote:Besides, as I say, there is a simple solution to all these hypothetical situations which is to simply ensure that the Party remains strictly secular. Ban the expression of religious views in Party propaganda but don’t ban religious socialists from joining the Party. End of problem
How? Are you suggesting that we add a censorship clause to the D of P perhaps? Would we really remain a revolutionary organisation were we to allow reformists to join providing they agreed not to advocate reforms? Some people with religious views may well understand the case for socialism but cannot be said, in my opinion, to have socialist understanding.
I take it she resigned / was fired?northern light wrote:Hello HollyHead, You said, ” Why then jump to a supposed Creator which is beyond the scope of normal objective investigation.”Well HollyHead, if you are a Scientific Socialist, perhaps you might find some credence in the words of these scientists.
No I’m afraid I have very little time for argument from authority. I prefer to consider argument based on facts, and theories that claim to explain things as they are.Quote:Heinz Pagels, whose field of work was Quantum Field Theory, and Cosmology said, “the unthinkable void converts itself into the plenum of existence – a necessary consequence of physical laws. Where are these laws written into the void? What tells the void that it is pregnant with a possible universe? It would seem the void is subject to laws, a logic that exists prior to space and time.”
“Plenum of existence”? I had to look that one up. (It means a space containing matter.)This, to me, reads like so much mystifying mumbo jumbo. I take it to be a “profounder” form of the “Why is there something rather than nothing?” poser — which is interesting in itself but a bit of a time waster in the field of political action.And how can a void be pregnant?? (That’s a rhetorical question btw).Quote:I can find no reference in the Object and Declaration of Princibles, to the fact that people who have a religious faith, are barred, in fact the last line at the bottom of the text reads, ” The Socialist Party calls on every worker to support these efforts in any way they can. “
There is no mention of our opposition to reformism, or to capitalisms wars, either — they are logical inferences from our Object and D of P.Quote:I close my case.
Does this mean they are going for the commanding shites of the economy?
Almost as obscene as: “…is it ethical to use DU [Depleted Uranium] ammunition on the battlefield?” http://worldpol.wordpress.com/2007/11/19/depleted-uranium-ethics-of-the-silver-bullet-by-iliya-pesic/
Kudos to the comrades responsible for doing this work.September 11, 2012 at 7:12 pm in reply to: “Keith Joseph smiles and a baby dies in a box on Beasley Street” #89133pfbcarlisle wrote:(Subject title courtesy of John Cooper Clarke’s magnificent song ‘Beasley Street’).
Ah! Salford’s own Bob “Desolation Row” Dylan.