steve colborn
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
DJP, I think using this example is to unfairly disparage Brand. Brands call for "revolution" to be at the forefront of the agenda, isn't, or doesn't appear to be some half arsed appeal to spirituality. Lets call an orange an orange and compare like with like, not what someone would "like" it to be. Ca fucking piche, as Brand would no doubt say.
I'm impressed by the ongoing work comrades are doing in this area. Consitency and succinctness, well done!
By the way, forgot to ask why would the working class lay claim to ownership of the idea of "The Work Ethic or "The Dignity of Labour", when the outcome of both, merely strengthens the chains with which workers are bound?
YMS, in an earlier post, you said that workers "consciously" support Capitalism and that "they have rejected Socialism, or at least our case. Moreover, you say that millions have been exposed to our case and rejected that also. So how is it that now, you state, "When they vote, they mean it. It's irrelevent whether they have heard our case or not." Previously, as you have said, millions have heard our case. Is it a conscious rejection based on a definitive understanding of Socialism or not! Is it a rejection after the briefest perusal, or not!Do they vote "for" Capitalism on a conscious level, or not! Do they vote for Capitalism because, for many, "it is the only game in town"?You state "Our resentment to the capitalist class is that they don't work". "My" resentment to our masters is more than that. It is that, as a class, we do all of the tasks and contribute all of the production and distribution, our masters steal this, then have the temerity, not only to tell us we should be grateful for the crumbs of this, but that if it weren't for the "Master Class", we wouldn't even be able to do this. Moreover, they use members of the slave class, us, to enforce their rights to this and laws, that they have set in place to enshrine these rights, and their propaganda to convince the slave class, us, that this is right and properSo more than one bone of contention. 1/ The spurious assertion that somehow, the "work ethic", or the "dignity of labour", was an idea espoused by the slaves and is not an invention of the Master Class. (Not really Labour anyhow, merely employment).2/That workers have "rejected" our case for Socialism even though, apart from a brief perusal, not millions but thousands of workers only, have been exposed to and moreover consciously understood where and what we stand for.3/That workers "consciously" give their support for Capitalism, rather than that, the tacitly give this support, because they believe it is the "only game in town", and that they have been fed the belief, that they have a "choice", Capitalism, or what passes for Socialism, (in the un-conscious minds of the vast majority of workers, or indeed, an alchemistic mixture of the two.To my mind, it is the last, that is the most important to address. Nevertheless, the "Three" points above need addressing!!!
YMS, the idea of the "work ethic" in no wit comes from workers? It is only credible as way for our betters to hornswaggle us into a mindset which suits "their" class interests, one of exploitation of the majority.When the workers took on board this idea it had another and equally significant impact, that of turning workers against each other. Employed workers were encouraged to view non-working members of their own class as idle, feckless scroungers. As we can all see today. For 15/20 years, this has been the narrative, as I said in an earlier post and has proved so successful in action, that workers themselves have run with it. It took some time, but the effects are all around us. Not only has it taken some time, but effort as well, effort carried on by all of the propaganda means at the disposal of the master class.Quote:A brief perusal of the case for Socialism, is the most that can be given to the claim of the, "heard and rejecting our case".And most people stop there So YMS, you consider a brief perusal as sufficient to both understand, then reject, the case for Socialism! Well I don't. Going back to the topic of the "work ethic", as I'm sure you'll agree, it isn't, strictly speaking, a work ethic. It is an employment ethic Which terms, work/employment can be, and usually are, mutually exclusive. Moreover, if these supposed millions are as "clued up" as you suggest, at least to the extent of rejecting Socialism and consciously supporting Capitalism, they would know and see, the difference and contradictions implicit there. There is no evidence to support this.
By the way, forgot to mention, it was 18th/19th century Protestantism where the idea of "work ethic" comes into being. An idea imposed upon, rather than developed by and within "our" class.It is an idea touted in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism amongst others and is no more believable for being set in print.
"I stand by the claim that many workers have heard and rejected our case, and that they stand consciously by capitalism,". I'm afraid my experience is diametrically opposed to the above statement. Not only do I not see a case for saying "many workers have heard and rejected our case," it is quite the reverse! "It seems like a good idea but it will never work", is about the most charitable statement giving conditional support for our case, then putting the boot in, in the next breath! Conversely, the rejection of the Socialist case is not exactly on the intellectual level. That's an insane idea. It will never work, it goes against "human nature"!A brief perusal of the case for Socialism, is the most that can be given to the claim of the, "heard and rejecting our case". The vast majority of our class never having "heard the case", more apposite.As for the claim our fellow workers "stand consciously by capitalism", as in the case above, this is simply not true. To consciously stand by capitalism, gives voice to the claim that workers are aware of the intricacies of the same and in the overwhelming contact with my class, the exact opposite is the case. Statements such as "it's always been this way" point the way to the level of understanding of "Joe Public". Don't even bother trying to talk of production for profit, variable and constant capital, where rent interest and profit are derived from. Or, more importantly, their position in society!I stand by and agree with SP's claim of workers being "conditioned" by our masters, through the use of the total propaganda machine within Capitalism. Which is not to say that workers cannot throw off Capitalisms "straight jacket", members and sympathisers of the Party are proof of this, at least!
Well the Party isn't better known in the North East, with it's full name. From the early 80's comrades had well over 1500 letters published in the area, using "The Socialist Party", the vast majority I still have in a series of letters books.Not to be unhelpful, I'm pleased this isn't left to you, as there are quite a few members who would oppose this "regression"! Me at the forefront.
I see we are onto the old chestnut of the "work ethic"! It is a qestion I have commented on ,quite a bit of late. I have to say, I agree with SP, in that it is an idea pushed by the Ruling Elite, who opine the view that non employed workers are bone idle, scrounging, low lifes. Moreover, this narrative has been pushed in all areas of the Ruling Elites propaganda machine (Press, Media, even Political ideology) over the last 15/20 years, to such an extent that Workers themselves have picked up the ball and now run with it.As someone who participates in online loca newspaper forums, to comment on letters and news of the day, I see first hand how workers do the work of the Wealthy for them.This "deliberate" policy has resulted in workers "accepting" this new "paradigm". No longer one of Social Welfare but of the "undeserving unemployed". Of sustained and continuos austerity for the many, whilst unreported by the propaganda machine, the wealthy continue, even in these so-called times of austerity, to enrich themselves!The heading of this thread is "Can the workers ever be wrong?". The answer! undoubtedly!!!
Someone should tell Dave Osborn that the epithet Patriotic Socialist Party, is a contradiction in terms
Yeah, I'm acquainted with the meaning of the term. It describes a form of delusional belief often presented in patients suffering from bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Knowing something of the latter, I've never come across the term in relation to schizophrenia. Oh well, must have missed it in my 30 year association!!!
I cannot disagree more. Whatever else, I dont see Brand seeing himself as a "new messiah". I guess gnome, you dont set a great deal of credence to the letter, refered to, from Steve Coleman, re Brand! But given your previous posts re Steve, why am I not surprised.So thats Brand and Coleman in, as they say, your demerit book, well hallelua brother and up the revolution. OOps, I've used the R word, naughty me!!!
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?Tell the truth norm, the term "followers" merely refers to those that follow his posts on twitter etc. He's not really some sort of messiah you know! And, as a matter of fact, it is "our" revolution, the workers that is, unless someone reckons Brand can bring about a new society by his lonesome!
