[robbo203]

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

I think the main difference between my views and that of National Anarchists would be that I reject the need for a market system, any system of exchange, and any organised system of property ownership.  Therefore, in political economy, my 'socialism' is closer to that of the SPGB, though not quite the same as I would not object to the existence of natural markets or essential individual and collective possessory rights to land, space and buildings.The major point on which I part company with the SPGB is that I would want to see the continuation of organic cultures that have already arisen under capitalism.  This will require borders, therefore some rudimentary concept of territorial exclusivity – both at the macro and micro level – would have to be developed and recognised.

 Ike I am curious about this conception of a possible future society you hold.  On some points there is, as you say, some agreement.  You reject the need for a market system and any system of exchange.  But you also reject the need for “any organised system of property ownership”.  I’m not quite sure what you mean by this. Common ownership of the means of production (which seems to me to denote an “organised system of property ownership”) is what makes possible the elimination of market exchange that you call for.  If you mean simply by this that if everyone owns the means of production this effectively boils down to the same thing as saying no one owns the means of production, then I have no quarrel with this Having just said you reject the need for a system of market exchange you then go on to say: “I would not object to the existence of natural markets or essential individual and collective possessory rights to land, space and buildings.”  I find this all very confusing.  What, in your mind, constitutes a “natural market”?  It seems to me you are confusing a market with a gift economy.  These are two fundamentally different concepts. The purpose of gift exchange is to cement social relationships whereas market exchange involves the dichotomisation  or division of the parties to the exchange into a buyer and seller each pursuing their own self-interest in opposition to the other.  The buyer wants to obtain the lowest possible price; the seller the highest possible price.  In the context of a non-market society of free access and volunteer labour, I fail to see how “natural markets” could arise.  Generalised free access to goods and services based on material abundance kills off the very possibility.  Why buy something when you can get it for free?  I can however easily imagine gift exchange arising in such a society as an expression of our intrinsic sociality as human beings.  In fact socialism has sometime been characterised as a system of "generalised reciprocity" – a sort of “moral economy” in which a pervasive sense of moral obligation will obtain, based on a clear recognition of our mutual interdependence.  With the “right” of unrestricted access to goods and services goes the “duty” to contribute to the social good You talk also of “collective possessory rights to land, space and buildings”.  This is another expression that puzzles me.  Socialists make an important distinction between “possessions" and “means of production” (though there is admittedly a grey area between these two concepts). Your possessions will be yours in socialism, not your neighbours or the local community’s.   This is logically entailed by the concept of free access. “Means of production” on the other hand, are a different matter.  Social or common ownership of the means of production is a logical outgrowth of the socialisation of production itself.   In fact that is where the very word “socialism” comes from. Even the simplist artefact – a pencil, for example – requires the direct and indrect collaboration  of literally millions upon millions of workers right accross the world to produce.  What socialists propose is to bring ownership into line with this socialised integrated character of modern production. This brings me finally to your point that socialism will “require borders, therefore some rudimentary concept of territorial exclusivity – both at the macro and micro level”. I simply fail to see the reason for this.   This whole idea of fixed borders is a relatively recent thing that arose with capitalism and the nation state.   Even a few hundred years ago people could move around comparatively freely.  Passports in the modern sense only appeared in the 15th century in a very limited way although prior to that you did have documentation sometimes being issued to foreign travellers permitting them to pass through a certain territory (which is quite different to the concept of a passport being issued to individuals on the basis of their supposed national citizenship, a comparatively modern concept) I cannot see any reason whatsoever for the continuation of this institution in socialism.  It suits capitalism insofar as, and to the extent that, the basic territorial unit of capital accumulation has historically been the nation state.  But even this has undergone change recently with the emergence of supra-national trading blocs – most obviously the EU – that allow for the free movement of people within these blocs.  In a world in which capital is able to move around freely, the proposal to restrict the movement of labour can only be considered deeply reactionary insofar as it selectively promotes and favours the interests of capital over labour. None of this is to deny the likely continuation of what you call "organic cultures" into socialism.  On the contrary, I would argue that socialism would provide the context in which these organic cultures could much more firmly take root and flourish rather than wither under the insidious influence of capitalist commercialism as they do today.   However I totally reject your suggestion that this requires “borders” and “territorial exclusivity”.  In fact what you are proposing seems the very opposite of "organic".  It seems to be something that is mechanically imposed and bureaucratically enforced.  In short it seems to imply the kind of capitalist mind-set to which you say you are opposed

[robbo203]

IkeSo let me try to sum up what I think you are saying here.  You seem to be saying that any kind of global economic system would need to be “totalitarian” in the sense of a generating a kind of all embracing “total culture” and a common set of values in order to function effectively (a kind of structural-functionalist viewpoint if I read you correctly).  This is the glue that would hold a socialist society together.  Cultural heterogeneity would weaken that glue in your view and that is precisely why you say a “common economic system would struggle with cultural heterogeneity”.  The latter would be dysfunctional for the system and quite possibly cause it to break up As you explain, within this 'total culture', "some groups will develop their own practices and habits.”  According to you “If disparate cultures develop in socialism, you may find that slowly some groups/communities start to evolve in a different socio-economic direction and become socialistic and pseudo-propertarian rather than socialist, or they may come under other influences, perhaps from their own heritage/ethnic past, or whatever”.  In an earlier post you claimed that a “process of statisation” could be “inexorable within world socialism”.  Presumably what you had in mind here is the attempt by a socialist society to assert its authority over its citizenry and to strengthen the centripetal forces at work in such society in order to overcome the centrifugal forces of cultural differentiation you describe above which plainly in your view threaten such a society and possibly represent the “seeds of the system's eventual destruction and replacement with something else”.  Let me begin first of all by saying your use of the term “statisation  is wholly inapt in this context.  A state is an instrument of class rule and signifies the existence of classes. In effect what you are suggesting here is the possible re-emergence of class or property based relationships within socialism.   You do not explain how this is supposed to happen given the voluntary nature of work in socialism and given the free accessibly of goods and services to the populace.  Free access trumps free markets every time unless you can come up with a convincing reason why you think people would prefer to buy something when they could got it for free in the first place.  In other words, you do not explain what leverage some individuals or groups could exert over others to induce, blackmail or otherwise compel the latter to submit to these newly emerging class relationship that you seem to posit inside a socialist society. You talk about some groups possibly evolving in a different socio-economic direction and become socialistic and pseudo-propertarian rather than socialist.   If so then it would not be socialist society in general succumbing to what you call a process of statisation” but rather those groups within it wanting to evolve, according to you, away from socialism and in the process seeking to establish some kind of state like institution to force this through.  After all, a socialist society is a classless and therefore stateless society.  You cannot posit a process of statisation going on in this society unless you can show some mechanism by which common ownership was being replaced by class ownership involving the dispossession of the majority against their will Not only is your hypothetical scenario unsound in the way it is set up or in the way you explain it but it seems to me quite unrealistic.  The whole point about socialism is that represents an attempt to bring the social relations of production into line with socialised and interlinked character of modern production.  Production today is a thoroughly globalised affair,   Every part of the world depends on every other through which it is connected in an incredibly complex pattern of material flows.   You can’t just unilaterally alter the way one part of the world relates to another without seriously rupturing this pattern with all the adverse consequences that flow from that. If there is one aspect of the “total culture” of a socialist society – its set of core values – which we can all agree upon then that would be this idea of mutual interdependence, globally.   It is this that would serve as a unifying force in such a society So yes while I agree that some groups, some groups “will develop their own practices and habits” – in short their own distinctive cultures – in a socialist society, I do not see this as fundamentally problematic at all.   Of course there will be some mutual adjustment going on, and possibly a degree of tension, between the universal culture of a socialist society – what you call its “total culture” – and particular cultures.  However, I think the whole ethos of a socialist society will be quite different in the way it views “the Other”.  Instead of seeing cultural differences as threatening (which is a characteristic of bourgeois individualist thought incidentally – read Louis Dumont on this) such differences will be seen as enriching. Finally,  I think Adam and I were both right to point out that socialism would not some kind of highly centralised system of decision-making.  Though you say you “ completely understand that much of production within socialism will be at the individual and community level, and be essentially self-directed” I think this idea of socialism as some kind of centrally planned economy still lurks in the background and infects you thinking .  This is demonstrated by your reference to “process of statisation” which you claim could be “inexorable within world socialism” and which you describe precisely in terms of the political superstructure becoming “more agglomerated” – that is when its decisions start to take on the characteristics of representation rather than delegation, replacing community directives with what it conceives of as a community standard. In others you think socialism is driven by a centralising dynamic I disagree strongly on this point.  As has been pointed out many times before on this forum,socialist democracy will be multi-tiered and polycentric with the great bulk of decisions being made at the local level.     This necessarily follows, I would argue, from the very nature of a socialist society itself

[robbo203]

jondwhite wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Next January will be the centenary of Rosa Luxemburg's and Karl Leibnecht's murders.It would be an opportunity to publish a pamphlet offering our analysis of their ideas. We have done quite a number of sympathetic and some critical articles in the Standard.We could address nationalism, war, reformism, Marxian economics and political tactics all in one pamphlet, focussing on those two revolutionaries at a time when interest may have grown in their lives and deaths. Ample preparation time for the pamphlets committee…or they can co-opt a willing member for the task and merely do the proof-reading.  

Would you propose this and the other pamphlets through party channels?

 Perhaps a pamphlet specifically on Rosa Luxemburg and the various aspects of her worldview would do the trick.  She certain has a following out there in cyberspace  as I have discovered on my forays into various debate forums I think, as I have said before,  we need more in the way of intermediate-type pamphlets with a narrower focus and a more detailed treatment of the subject matter.  General pamphlets on broad themes such as ecology, war, Marxian economics etc  have their place , of course, but they need to be complemented by this more specific and targeted  kind of approach in my view. The Party also needs to sigificantly step up the output of pamphlets which has slowed down considerably in recent years.  Hopefully we shall shortly begin to see changes in this direction

[robbo203]

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

  Of course, I understand that socialism would not necessarily be culturally homogeneous, but it would still be the same interlocking system the world over and, to my mind, a workable system has to take account fully of different human types and cultural differences. 

 I dont see the reasoning behind this at all.  Why cannot socialism be culturally hetereogenous as well as an "interlocking system the world over"? The "system" is  basically defined by the economic relations that obtain between people with respect to the means of producing wealth.  I really cannot see any problem about the same kinds of economic relationships that typify socialism – common ownership, free access to goods and serices, volunteer labour etc etc – existing right across the world –  but at the same tme , there being a considerable degree of cultural diversity across the world.  Unless, that is,  one takes a reductionist-cum-mechanistic view of culture as a  mere "reflection" of the "economic base".  Thats surely not your position – is it, Ike?

[robbo203]

Ike  Once again I think you are making quite unwarranted claims about the nature of  socialism – in this instance,  concerning the nature and extent of democratic decison-making in a socialist society – based on idealised projections stemming from, in my view – an uncritical application of a few basic dogmas.  What I mean by this is that you seem to be thinking that since socialism means common  ownership of the productive resources of society by everyone, and since common ownership is inseparable from democratic control, this means that everyone  will be involved in all decisions pertaining the production of social wealth. That is clearly nonsensical and impractical Not only is democratic decisionmakiing likely to be far more nuanced, multilayered and polycientric than you seem to imply but there will also be a large area of decionmaking where there is simply no need to  go through some democratic process of  voting on  the decision in question.  I  refer to individual decisionmaking in the spheres of both consumption and production You talked in the other thread of there being a tendency on the part of SPGBers to "give canned responses or regurgitate rigid dogmas" but this is yet another example where your impressions are based on a complete caricature. There has indeed been , at least since the 1980s,  a lot of discussion on precisely the kinds of issues you raise which has resulted in a much more nuanced , thoughtful amd throught-out  positions being reached.   I dont know when exactly you were a member  but did you perchance have the opportunity to read some of the SPGB's internal documents such as the "Production for Use" Committee's report?  Pamphlets have been produced such as "Socialism as a Practical Alternative" which reflect current Party thinking  (see  pamphlets section) I dont wish to rehash old arguments but I did start up a thread over a year ago which more or less deal with the arguments you raise here.  Check this out:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/socialism-and-democracy

[robbo203]

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

+ robboWhile I appreciate the replies, I don't have time to respond now.  Just skimming over what you say (which is all I can now do), I suspect that this is a case of two people arguing from different basic principles, which means you will have great difficulty understanding me because, while I have understood the socialist case and been a Party member, you have not gone through the thinking process that I have.  For one thing, we will be using language in semantically different ways. My concern here is with how ideas translate into practice: the praxis, if you like.  One of the things I have noticed about all ideologies and the more rigid philosophies is that they tend to be idealisations of the wishes of their adherents.  I realise socialism is a little different, in that you are not positing a utopia in the colloquial sense of the term, but even so, I have become convinced that socialism as a practical matter will be very different to what most people on here seem to think.  

 Well, yes, certainly it seems to me we are indeed arguing from quite different basic principles.  You seem to think socialism is something that can only be "imposed" on people in regions outside and beyond the traditional heartlands of capitalism in which the socialist outlook was first forged and articulated.  I emphatically reject that suggestion  You also seem to equate socialism as a socioeconomic sysem with a particular cultural template which, according to you, is unlikely to be assumiated by people of other cultures.  Again that is a suggestion I also emphatically reject.   Cultural diversty is no threat  to a socialist society (or its realisation) whatsoever and, on the contrary, is to be welcomed as aiding the cultural enrichment of everyone. These are the basic points you need to address.   Whilst I am not privy to the thought processes that persuaded you to move away from socialism, we can at least focus on these points in a rational and reasonably objective manner to hopefully arrive at an acceptable consensus, yes?

[robbo203]

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

.  An opposition to enforced diversity and mass immigration is not exclusive to the political Right.  

 How ironic.  And there I was thinking that your main gripe with socialism was its enforced uniformity, not diversity (which could not  be "enforced" anyway in a socialiist society given the nature of such a society

[robbo203]

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

@ Alan JohnstoneYou're doing the classic lefty thing again of assuming superiority because I disagree with your self-reinforcing logic system.  It's a psychological hindrance to debate.  Do you really think that I believe Africans are racially, ethnically and culturally all the same?  If you think I'm that stupid, then I'm surprised you're even giving me the time of day.  It's obvious that I am just using the terms 'Africa' and 'African', etc. for brevity.  Any tupenny halfwit can see that.  I'm not some sort of naif or mangenue who's never looked at a school atlas.  I am a 40 year-old man who has lived abroad and travelled around the world, and can speak a foreign language fluently; I have run several businesses and employed people, and I've known, worked with, employed and been employed by people of all races and from all sorts of backgrounds; and I'm highly-educated and I've read thousands of books; and I've had lots of different life experiences along the way, etc., etc., and so on.  I'm not some ignoramus hiding in a basement, but I assumed that I wouldn't need to make the disclaimers explicit as I'm conversing with intelligent people.What you do is provide the usual stock excuses for why Africans can't feed themselves, which aren't actually on point but instead serve to divert us from asking awkward questions.  I've heard it all before, so let me get to the root of the matter.  My provisional view remains undisturbed.  While acknowledging that Africans have significantly lower IQs than Westerners, and that this is a factor in the inability of Africans to cope under capitalism, I think the reason they have difficulty is the imposition of capitalism itself and the Western cultural hegemony that goes with it.  Africa needs to be returned to the control of Africans, be that for better or ill.  If as a result, they starve, that's terrible, but that's Nature.  If, however, they thrive, then I'll be delighted.  In any event, I do not accept that an imposed hegemonic system such as socialism would avail Africans.  I think it would cause the same problems as capitalism, another Western system, just in a different way.  In both systems, you are telling other people how to live, the only difference with socialism is that the totalitarianism comes with the finest of fine intentions and is rubber-stamped by the formality of "democratic consent", i.e. lots of people turning up to vote.The difference between you and I – or one of many differences – is that I acknowledge that humanity is not one 'race' but several, arguably several different species even, and that a hegemonic solution such as socialism will not address the needs of peoples who do not share our culture.  It will just lead to more dependency and misery. Why do you think you know what's best for people thousands of miles away, on a different continent, with an entirely alien culture in some cases?  And given that you think Africa has unique historical circumstances (I don't agree, but let's accept this is true for the sake of argument), what makes you think the solution of socialism, which arises from a peculiarly European experience of historical struggle, would be translatable to non-European societies?  Isn't your attitude just a little patronising, even imperialist…?

It is difficult to know where to start in addressing this post.  There are so many assertions made in it that are deeply problematic and would probably each require a separate thread to deal with so I will confine myself to just one or two observations. Firstly regarding your comment "In any event, I do not accept that an imposed hegemonic system such as socialism would avail Africans."   If, as you say, you were once a member of the SPGB, Ike, you would know as well as I do that socialism cannot be "imposed" from above on a population that by and large does not want it or understand it.  The very nature of the beast requires that a majority EVERYWHERE want it and understand it I am frankly baffled by your comment that:"itwould cause the same problems as capitalism, another Western system, just in a different way.  In both systems, you are telling other people how to live, the only difference with socialism is that the totalitarianism comes with the finest of fine intentions and is rubber-stamped by the formality of "democratic consent", i.e. lots of people turning up to vote.How do you figure socialism could possibly be "imposed" on our African comrades if they like us elsewhere in the world, actively desire it and seek to bring it into existence?  The word “imposition” is wholly inappropriate in this context since it denotes neutrality, at the very least, if not outright opposition. But a population that wants socialism can hardly be neutral about it let alone opposed to it, can it? Secondly, you seem to think that socialism is a some kind of distinctly western cultural phenomenon which "arises from a peculiarly European experience of historical struggle" and is not necessarily "translatable to non-European societies". Well, if you are going to argue along those lines you will, no doubt, be aware that there is a school of thought that contends that, if anything, socialism or communism in the classical meaning of these terms is closer to the experience of Africans than Europeans because of the tradition of communal landholding in Africa. That tradition is currently under sustained assault from the forces of capitalism in the guise of land grabbing agribusinesses in collusion with African governments. The problem with your argument however is that socialism is not some specifically cultural phenomenon in this narrow sense of the term, let alone an essentially European cultural phenomenon.  Rather socialism is a socio-economic system in the same sense that capitalism is.   Capitalism is worldwide and has been embraced by African countries too, never mind that it might historically originated in Europe.  Yet you seem to think that the historical origins of a system in some essentialistic sense limits the scope of such a system in spatial terms.   But this is demonstrable nonsense otherwise why would capitalism now be worldwide when historically it began in a small corner of the world – to be precise Great Britain which was the world’s first truly capitalist state. Your basic error is to conflate a socio-economic system like “socialism” or “capitalism” with the term “culture” in this descriptive sense as the expression of a certain group’s belief’s, traditions, practices and so on.  You go on about the cultural diversity of the planet and the inadvisability of imposing some hegemonic cultural template on all this diversity. But that is not at all what socialists are proposing. What socialists are proposing is instead is not to eliminate cultural diversity as such but to eliminate one socio-economic system and put in its place another.  A socio-economic system is not the same thing as a culture though those there is an interaction going on between these two things.   In fact, the tendency in capitalism is to constrain cultural expressions and limit variety – tendency noted in the Communist Manifesto which talked of capitalism replacing local cultures with a global culture.  That tendency is summed by the portmanteau word, “cocacolinisation” – a reference to the American soft drink and by extension, American cultural imperialism In socialism, by contrast, the economic driving force behind this sort of cultural imperialism will cease to exist and the freedom that is integral to a society of free access and volunteer labour will permit a much wider variety of cultural forms to express themselves but also to intermingle and in the process make for a sense of cultural enrichment across the board

[robbo203]

gnome wrote:

Received our first new member as a result of the campaign.  Tim H came into contact with the Party after receiving an insert in the New Statesman and then contacted Swansea Branch.  He recently left the Labour Party.The next phase of the campaign will see 70k of our "An end to rationing" brochure inserted into Unison's U magazine.  The total cost of this phase will be just under £4k.

 Are there are any plans to do repeat inserts in publications like the New Statesman?  It will be interesting to see if this results in an increased rate of response if people remember the inserts from the first time round

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

As my resignation has been raised bya sock puppet / psuedonym and the reason for my resignation not fully stated in the minutes. I resigned because I have been deliberately preventet from carrying out propaganda.I am sure it has been said before but it is important that  members' reason(s) for resigning should be shown so that the party may learn and understand why people leave

 Hi Vin Well, personally speaking, I am rather saddened by your decision but respect it.  I think it is a bit sweeping to say you were "deiberately prevented  from carrying out propaganda" as a general statement though it looks as though certain problems did arise in relation to your audio visual work and the Party's twitter acount as far as I can tell  I might be wrong about this but you will no doubt correct me if so. My gut feeling is that a lot of musunderstandings and flared tempers  lie at the root of the problem which could have been avoided with a little patience on all sides.  But you are right about the Party needing to learn about why members leave and I sincerely hope these lessons willl be applied when it comes to the proposed reorganisation of the SPGB this year. The SPGB cannot afford to loose such active members as yourself and I hope you will continue closely collaborating with comrades in the Party and even possibly at some point consider rejoining.at a later stage  For the moment, good luck with the socialist propaganda work you are engaged in!

[robbo203]

Bijou Drains wrote:

 Alan I don’t care what you say, my mother tried, my partner has tried. I’m not eating fucking  Brussels sprouts 

 BD, there are Brussels Sprouts and then there are Brussels Sprouts. Some of these recipes sound postively yummy.https://www.marthastewart.com/275510/brussels-sprout-recipes

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

Major McPharter wrote:

Will Oswald bring his blackshirts with him up to the north east ?

Divint wurry marra. Thail nivver stop wor pie and pee suppa neets. Gannaway wir a  a leek up the jacksey, Mare like  

 I tried "GeordieTranslator" on this but it dinna work.  http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/main.asp So c'mon guys, tell us .  What does "wor pie and pee suppa neets"  mean then?

[robbo203]

Here is a good example of what I think is quite an effective video and something that perhaps needs to be emulated.  Some of the arguments are a bit iffy the presentation is good .  It held my attention  https://www.facebook.com/bbcnewsnight/videos/10154807179391200/

[robbo203]

It is true the shift towards a more vegetarian-based diet would have obvious advantages in a socialist society in terms of raising food output because of the built inefficiencies of converting animal feed into meat products and because of the amount of land taken up in growing animal feed.  The feed-to-food calorie conversion rates – or feed conversion ratios (FCR) – differ from meat product to meat product so that insofar as meat consumption continued to exist in a socialist society, one compromise solution might be to change the kind of meat we eat – for example, less beef and more chicken. However, the advantages of converting to a wholly vegetarian diet are not all one way.  You have to bear in mind that many parts of the world are not amenable to arable farming such as mountainous terrains or places handicapped by lack of water.  In these parts of the world, especially, I think animal husbandry would still have an important role to play.  People would making use of particular ecological niches otherwise closed off to plant crops for various reasons. As far as dryland pastoralism is concerned there is often an assumption that grazing animals in these environments leads to environmental deterioration and desertification.  But this is not necessarily the case.  It depends on context.  Traditional pastoralism depends on the ability of herders to freely move their animals in response to environmental changes.  It is when obstacles are placed in the way of this free movement that you tend to find problems arising e.g political boundaries, land enclosures, the establishment of game reserves etc. There is a study I came across a few years ago which compared grazing regimes on either of the Israeli border.  Surprisingly enough although the landscape inhabited by the Bedouin pastoralists seemed comparatively sparse, the rate of biomass production was significantly higher suggesting a greater degree of ecological resilience Near where I live in Southern Spain there is a permaculture research station perched high up in the mountains above Lanjaron – Semilla Besada  (http://semilla-besada.com/) .  I knew the couple who started up this enterprise.  Aspen sadly died a few years ago and David had to return to the UK but while they were (it is now taken over by new people) they produced a lot of useful material on what are called “brittle environments” (http://managingwholes.com/-ecosystem-brittleness.htm) The point about brittle environments like the Mediterranean which have a long dry summer season is that appropriate land management techniques are radically different to what is required in a temperate country like the UK.  A healthy brittle environment requires active intervention and the use of animals plays a vital role in this – particularly to minimise the risk of fires (now a growing global problem as we have seen this year), keep down unproductive scrub that can reduce biodiversity and generate new biomass Round here we typrically find herds of goats and sheep roaming the mountainside.  The goats which are more prevalent provide milk and meat and I knew a near neighbour Pepe (when I had a little shack up in the mountains) who managed a herd of over 1000 goats.  The stench wafting up from the goat farm a few hundred metres below was more than compensated for by the knowledge of all the good that would come from distributing around the garden a few bags of old fashioned goat manure.  Give me that any day over yer modern chemical muck! 

[robbo203]

Major McPharter wrote:

You tube is a avenue we can all take to put forward our case. For example would people go on and look up  ( the verve its a bitter sweet symphony) this great song has had over 366 Million hits YES comrades 366 Million hits the songs goes  Trying to make ends meet you are a slave to money then you die. How true comrades. At the moment some good socialist banter is goung on but he needs some back up, so come on Please Please get on there.

 Yes it is a good song and quite stirring as well  with good lyrics.  You are right about the potential emotional power of audio visual presentation and no doubt the AV committee will seeking ways to harnesss it.  Do you have any suggetions in mind?

[Author]

Posts