steve colborn
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I totally agree Ozy. Any chance we have to publicise our case should be grasped. I regularly watch RT and know they do not put the stereotypical view of British Capital that the BBC and the rest do. So lets do as Ozy says. get in touch with RT and get on their channel. Something for the campaign dept to look into, in any case!Nice one Ozy, good thinking comrade : )Steve Colborn.
I'm quite calm Rod. I simply will not interact with any more of this, as I see it, non relevant navel gazing. Got more important things to do, like feed my family, ensuring they are as well provided for, given thelimitations of Capitalism, as I am able to do. Food on the table, roof over head, heating, lighting E.T.C. E.T.C.I'll let the Bon Viveur's attend to the rest, if you don't mind! Steve Colborn.
What is it with you and "pies"? I know for a fact, you are not "Desperate Dan", so lets leave this metaphysical and philosophical, headbusting garbage, where it belongs. Not in my pantheon of things to concern myself about. I'll concentrate on, "food on the table" and heating and lighting on, thanks very much. End of, really, end of!!! Steve Colborn.
Actually LBird, I am interested in Politics, science and many other subjects. I have a degree in the first. Food and cooking for me, at the moment anyway, stops at getting it and putting it on the plate. If society changes and I am afforded the time to indulge, it may well be different! Until then, my focus is on the emancipation of myself and my class. If thats OK? Steve Colborn.
The development of cooking! I'm not in the slightest, interested in this area of study. In fact, "Cordon Bleu is to my mind, merely food for snobs. Moreover, when you state, "In fact, food as art.", I am afraid you have lost the plot.Where I come from and the class I belong to, simply putting food on the table is hard enough, Cordon Bleu or otherwise. In Socialism, we will probably have leisure to explore the rich history of food and it's corollary, how to cook it. Until then, I guess I'll leave both, to those with both the time and money to indulge.Maybe you would be better off, taking this type of discussion to a web site of the Bullingdon Club! They have both the free time and the Gelt to indulge in pointless discussion. As someone trying to get Socialism, I have neither. Steve Colborn.
Vin Maratty wrote:You say my need for food is determined by ideology or philisohpy, I say it is biological and physical. Both of your responses failed to address the question.I totally agree with Vince's appraisal. Food is a "biological" imperative and has nothing whatsoever to do with "philosophy". One can have an interest in science, culture and the art's and still assert that the need for food is a biological imperative, not an occasion for philosophical debate.By the way, whats with the fixation on "pies"? As for rolling in the mud, I'm sure the pigs will appreciate the company, or maybe not, if the pies you are fixated on, are pork pies!!! Steve Colborn.
Thanks, I'll look at the links. It would be good if the Party could send out a press release, directly related to this topic and Camerons comments, in short saying, "this news item validates the SPGB position held since 1904, of 'no profit no production' ".Steve Colborn.
Hi Paramjeet. In a Socialist society we will not have laws, as you know them today but we will most assuredly not have anarchy. What we will have, is an administration of "things", not people. The structure of laws that exist today, do so to protect the monopoly and ownership of the tiny minority (the Capitalists) of the means and instruments for producing and distributing what we need, as humans, to live.What you need to bear in mind and keep at the forefront of your mind, is that Socialism can only be and will only be, brought about when a majority want it and moreover understand it and work to bring it about. On this basis you can see that we will have a "clued up" mass of people, who cannot be duped nor sidetracked. As this movement grows, it will of necessity, have discussed the implementation of societal change and put plans in place for the changeover.No anarchy but class conscious driven change.
Paramjeet, many of your aims were, for many years in the late 19th early 20th Century, targets and objectives for the "reformist" movements in the UK. What we have seen in the last 10/20 years, is that the gains of over 100 years, (made by workers) have been clawed back in these times of so-called austerity!What you and others in India should do, is not call for reforms of Capitalism, which is what you are in actual fact doing, but work to get rid of the cause of the problems you highlight, The Capitalist System. Rather than piecemeal actions, work for the one single objective, the abolition of the wages system and for a society and world that belongs to us all and is run by and in the interests of us all, call it Socialism, or whatever but that is the only alternative.Capitalism cannot be reformed.Steve Colborn.
Nope Ozy, I don't think you are crazy. I think the morons who push and support Capitalism, are "Crazy". As an ex member would probably say, "these 'motherfuckers are trying to frighten us into acceptance of the unacceptable'. Those who accept this insanity, are the insane ones. Going against all evidence, logic and sense. Advocating time after time, a system of society that has palpably proved it cannot work in the interests of the majority! Steve.
On another thread, thoughts have been put forward on how we can progress the movement and what terminology is most useful in this respect!There is, however, another aspect to this, what tactics we should employ? I bring this up on this thread, because it is my opinion, that we could get some useful exposure from people such as Russell Brand. He may divide opinion but what cannot be gainsaid, is the fact that he has reintroduced the word "revolution" into common usage and moreover, in an at least partially, acceptable way.Why can we not invite Russell to do an interview for the Standard. Do it in such a way that is not confrontatory. We can ascertain what Brand actually thinks and advocates. If it is done correctly, we can use the oppurtunity to compare and contrast Brand's ideas with our own.Brand is not, as far as I know, a supporter of any specific political Party and therefore, we would not need to be so aggressive in the use of the hostility clause. We could be concilliatory in approach and method. It is pointless merely for the sake of it, to be hostile to people like Brand, when basically, we do not know exactly where he stands, nor how far along to consciousness he is.The watchword should be, build bridges not burn them!I know I will probably not be flavour of the month, for the above suggestion but what have we to lose? We aren't "virgins" bothered about losing our cherry and I in no way think we would endanger our principled stand by attempting this. Nothing to lose but possibly much to gain!!!
I believe Ozymandias tried to pass him some standards at one time. Or at least I believe it was Ozy. It would be a shame if we did not at least "try" getting in touch with him! I know there are some who do not share this view but nothing ventured nothing gained, is my opinion.
Hi Rod, I appreciate your response and have been thinking about my reply, even before you asked for it! What I can say is, something I have already posted;"We have at least to admit, that up until the present day, we have not been overly successful in growing the "movement" and that, at the end of the day, is what we are about. Not the old military adage of "boots on the ground", more a case of "minds in the crowd". There should be nothing "off limits", in a discussion of this kind. Nothing sacrosanct, no, no-go areas.We should, as a Party, consider "everything", root and branch. As I said in the post quoted above, nothing should be "sacrosanct nor off limits"Obviously within this remit, we do not lessen "our" hostility to Capitalism. We do not lessen "our" opposition to reformism, which plan leaves the cause of the problems intact but merely fiddles with some of the consequences.As a Party of intelligent, informed workers, surely it is not beyond the bounds of reason, that we come together and realise a coherent, workable solution to the problems that Capitalism, by it's very nature, throws up.I am not the "oracle at Delphi", nor do I profess to be but what I do know is, that if hundreds of committed, understanding Socialists, (workers) cannot come up with a workable alternative to Capitalism, I.E. a positive slant on an "alternative" way to organise "our" lives and a constructive and positive way to pass this on to "our" fellows, we are, to coin a phrase, "fucked".So instead of accepting this, let's put our minds together, stop debating who farted and which way the wind is blowing and get on with debating "our" best route out of this hell hole, (Capitalism).Steve Colborn.P.S.Rod, what do you suggest and all our other Socialist brothers and sisters, as an avenue for advancement. As I've postulated before, many heads are better than one, or even two!
In Capitalism the ethos is the quick buck and devil take the hindmost. In Socialism the ethos is, will our actions benefit the majority now and moreover, not effect the future deleteriously. If the answer to both is, "yes" great, if not, then society decides, (me and you and all our fellows), if what we do is to the best interests of "all", both now and in the future!!!
