steve colborn
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Anyone who argues that fracking would reduce fuel poverty, obviously doesn't quite have a handle on the ethos of Capitalism. Does anyone really believe that just bacause oil is extracted from the ground in the UK, that UK workers will be offered electricity or gas on the cheap? The people who own the extraction companies will extract the best price for any fuel produced, that they can. If they didn't, their shareholders would not be amused. That comrades, is the world we inhabit.
I'm not jumping on any bandwagon Adam. It cannot be proven conclusively that fracking is safe and by extension, that local water tables are therefore also safe. Highly toxic pollutants are used in the hydraulic fracturing process. Regardless of the claims, there is no surety the fracking companies can give, that the sheathe placed around the fracking site will not "fail". When one understands the enormous stresses and pressures implicit in operating at the depths necessary, then one can see the problems ensuing.Searching the internet, there are many incidences from the USA alone, where problems such as methane contaminating local aquifers have arisen. To add claims of Russian funding of anti frackers to the mix, is merest obfuscation.So from a personal point of view, I will continue to oppose fracking, until conclusive scientific and geological evidence is provided but I'm not holding my breath.
I couldn't care less which energy type Capitalist governments opt for and I'm not going to get involved in campaigns one way or another. My only concern is the effects fracking has on the environment. From what I have read, there is a "significant" risk of ground water pollution and by extension, to the wider environment. Also, if governments make the claim that fracking will lead to cheaper energy bills, they lie. The resultant energy from any fracking will be sold on the "market", without preference to the end consumer. This is Capitalism and anyone who thinks it will act differently, needs to give their head a shake.
twc wrote:I suggest your football team needs far more soul searching than the party.I don't support footy teams, twc. I support my class and the Party I first joined 33 years ago and of course, my family and friends. "I" suggest, that the Party needs to search, not it's soul, but it's "methodology"! If we had been successful in pursuit of our objective, there would be no problem but we haven't been. As AJJ has posited, we need to re-evaluate our way of advocating, "our aim"! We cannot assume that the past and the way we have propogated the case, has been successful, it has not. Ergo, we must look for the "best way" to push our position!twc and others, must put aside there predilection for thinking that the past, is cast in stone. That our "fotefathers" cannot be gainsaid. We have "not" succeeded in forging a "movement" by our methods in the past nor, the present, so as intelligent members of the human race, we must conclude that we need to change the way we put our message across. It is not "heresy" to say that we need to "change"! As Socialists we most assuredly need to open ourselves to the fact, that we need to change our approach.Live in the past, die in the present.
I cannot really see the problem here. Comrades, myself included, have merely suggested that we consider if there is a "better" way to get our message over. Nobody is talking of "ditching" anything, for the time being at least. What I would like to see, is a root and branch appraisal of our methods, language included.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.Nobody should think that anyone is treading on anyones toes, nothing could be farther from the truth. I would take as a truism, that everyone has the movements best interests and success at heart.
For the DOTP, read "Democracy". Pity they do not teach critical thinking and analysis, at the educational abattoirs that pass as "schools" in this pathetic hell hole, called apitalism.
When reading AJJ's posts, I have myself, taken up the challenge he tacitly set, to find a way of getting our message across, in a more robust and successful way. Assuredly, the SPGB have managed to keep Socialism, in the public view, however we must have a bigger target, that of "growing" the movement for societal change.Whether we like it or not, the term Socialism has been distorted, an indisputable fact we must live with and work around. What I believe Alan has begun, is to start a process on the road to this. Not a dissolving of "our" resolve or heritage but to make us a more effective political organisation. Whether or not we are up to this challenge, may well decide the fate of the Party, in the short term, at least!Branches having special meetings to "brainstorm" ideas around this and possibly a special Party meeting, may well be one of the ways to go. Forget "community wealth" as in co-ops etc, our community wealth is what is lodged between our lug-holes and we need to start exploring the possibilities.
Alan, I wish you luck in continuing to add "elements" to the Socialist Crucible. If enough members contribute their own "elemental" ideas maybe, just maybe, some new way of propogating the case, in a more acceptable and workable way, will emerge.Deconstruct, then reconstruct. Analyze then theorise. The more we do, the better chance of hitting the "sweet spot". The golfers ultimate, hitting a hole in one on a long par hole! However, in this instance, it is much, much more important. "Our" goal is the emanicipation of our class and the transfer of the whole world, into our "collective" hands. No mean feat but if achieved?
It is the intent/meaning of Alans sign off signature, that is important. I would not disagree with it's sentiment. As for the rest i, I understand where you are coming from, however, I believe Alan is throwing ideas into the "melting pot", to see if anything useful floats to the surface. We, as a movement and a Party, have to examine and test everything, in our attempt to hit upon that one or two possibly useful ideas/techniques, that would make getting our core ideas across, easier. If something comes of discussion/debate, great! If not, we move on until we hit that "sweet spot", that makes our "job" so much easier.
Actually rodshaw, I would hate for you to keep your "electronic trap shut". There are others who share your opinion about the thread and why should'nt they/you. Lifes about opinions, more so, if you are involved in a revolutionary movement that's out to change society. So please, keep posting your opinions!
DJP wrote:I don't think it's that funny. What kind of impression has been given to those people who have viewed it?Sometimes I wonder if we'd be better off without a forum, it's not like it draws many new posters in anyhow..I think the forum, rather than being offputting, shows the Party in a good light.We are prepared, as a Party and a collection of Socialists, to discuss awkward things, in an open and democratic way. Do we want the under the carpet methods of Labour, Liberal, Tory, SWP etc? "no"! Long may openness and Democracy reign!!!
Why have you been sent email notifications? Did you tick the, "Notify me when new comments are posted" box? If so, them I,m afraid it was self-inflicted. There are those who still have wish things to be explained on this thread. If you personally, find the discussion boring, then don't read the thread, simples : )
I would like to suggest that we "all" take a step back and conclude that it is in everyones best interest, to place the debate engendered on this forum, on the back burner and wait to see the outcome of July's EC meeting!Cheers Comrades, be well.YFSSteve Colborn.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Steve,say a member were to spout racist views, and criticise the party for race treachery? That would be action detrimental and would be them signalling non-acceptance of the principles. Yes, it would depend very much on the manner in which such views were put across. The question of changing the principles is a constitional knightmare (as we've seen before), but in essence one could avocate changing them whilst still accepting the current ones.Your scenario, has nothing to do with the events as discussed. Vin is not an avowed racist, has not gone against the DofP. Has not "called" the Party, either undemocratic, nor homophobic!!!So what now, will be the imagined reason for his readmission to be refused? Stop clutching at imaginery straws and admit, (it will not harm the Party, it may well strengthen it's image), that the treatment of Comrade Maratty, is unjust, unfair and without basis in "fact", or reality. To admit this, would be no bad thing, it would be merely be, "seeing sense".
