norm_burns
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
World of Free Access was co-written by Paul Breeze and my elder brother Ian Burns. Both had been SPGB members active in a Stoke-on-Trent branch that i believe they had formed. They did indeed feel that the terminology we use had become a burden in the light of most peoples' preconceptions about terms like 'working class'. I always thought they had resigned, but maybe they were expelled?
Heres a link to a version by the writer, Eric Bogle. Interesting, as some of the verses are sung in German. Apologies if it's all old hat to most of you.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUzQ6Am-bbc&feature=youtube_gdata
Thought the advert was particularly striking. Pity about the name.No doubt you know this, but the 'Leader' digital version can be seen here:-http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk/Launch.aspx?PBID=6e6791f3-1f34-46e4-8072-e4e1fd19e277
ALB wrote:norm_burns wrote:But it's not 'our' revolution, now, is it? If it was, he wouldn't be on radio 4, now, would he?Not a convincing argument on its own. Otherwise why we were invited to appear on BBC2's "Politics Show" ?
Yes, i forgot about that! I was thinking more historically, we've not been as popular as sliced bread, have we? They've not usually come rushing to us for our views on 'revolution'. The ones worked out and honed over a 150 or so years, the practical, concrete, realisable ones that don't involve taxing corporations or asking them to be 'nicer' but taking them under common ownership and democratic control. Mind you, we haven't got his stage-presence or speaking abilities, (as far as i know) – it's all about the show, isnt it. But i just don't get the fuss, from this party i mean.
But it's not 'our' revolution, now, is it? If it was, he wouldn't be on radio 4, now, would he? And he wouldn't have loads of followers, would he? Just like we're not and don't. And if he wasn't a celebrity, wouldn't we be castigating this quote by 'black robin' of Brand's 'revolution' – "reduction" of the profit motive, "heavily taxing" corporations and putting extra "responsibility" on them to be green." – as hopeless reformism? In fact, shouln't we be? Double standards?
This that he says of Brand is correct "You do not call for the abolition of the state or capital. You want a "reduction" of the profit motive, "heavily taxing" corporations and putting extra "responsibility" on them to be green." I heard him say just that on Radio 4 Monday morning. It's populism, as the guy says. If Brand wasn't a celebrity, an 'important' 'convert we think we might get to peddle our views behind, we'd all be putting his non-revolutionary 'revolution' down as the same old same old it is. Wouldn't we?
