steve colborn
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
No YMS, in this instance, you are totally and utterly wrong. What you suggest would create an organisation that could not change. However Vin "never" criticised the Party! He criticised a certain event, at a specific moment in time. He felt, as did others, that certain actions at this time were "wrong" and did not reflect the spirit and ethos that the Party is rightly renowned for. Furthermore, I personally would not consider even criticising the "Party", as justifying the claim from you, that this would indicate non acceptance of the D&P, far from it.The history of the Party is full of times when a member or members have disagreed with the Party, which disagreement has of itself, led to change "within the Party". You must know that the Party is not neolithic in nature but is open to "change" but what you posit above, is the antithesis of growth and change. It is stagnation and eventually extinction.
By the way, firstly these are my views "not" Vin Marattys. In actual fact, when Vin was talking about non democacy, he was, I believe, referring to only one aspect that kept cropping up and not about the Party in toto, nor about individuals. Nor do I believe when mentioning "homophobia", did he call the Party homophobic but a particular episode, when these kind of views were expressed which were not, at the time of the incident, challenged by others present. Which I can assert categorically, would have been the case if I, or any of my acquaintences had been present.So the claim that the applicant for membership, had called the "whole Party" undemocratic and homophobic if factually incorrect. Merely one aspect that occured and one "incident" that happened.now that is clarified, I will step back and leave this matter to unwind, in due course!
So you are making a mountain out of a molehill and by bringing up what somebody may or may not have said or done in the heat of the moment just before or just after they resigned and which the person concerned regrets you are opening old wounds. Most members, I think, are prepared to let by-gones be by-gones and get on with positive socialist activity. "Most members, I think, are prepared to let by-gones be by-gones and get on with positive socialist activity."Hi Adam, what you say is most probably true, most are prepared to let by-gones be by-gones unfortunately, most members are "not" on the EC and three members who are, appear not to be as charitably inclined as you, or indeed, many other, Party members!
Well YMS, at least your post above, is a move forward. For that, at least I,m grateful.Your Comrade Steve Colborn.
"there are those who think that given similar circumstances he could well do it again." There it is again, "think it could happen again. No proof just "gut feeling", that is no way to base a decision on, especially in a Party, where openness and logic are so valued.Also gnome, you are aware that it is not Vincent Maratty placing these posts, so why would you say that your "fellow branch members might be right after all"? Are you now to base conclusions re Vin, on the posts of "others". "Others" in this instance, who are not even branch members!This is getting more and more surreal but in a funny way, clarifying what is, in fact, going on!!!
"I don't see a conflict of interest, ED has nothing to gain nor lose: he simply has an opinion, and has acted upon it. "Yes YMS, Ed did have an "opinion" but, however, an "opinion" is not fact and as a member of The Socialist Party, I expect decisions to be based on "fact". Not feeling, possibility, could happen whichever term one wants to use. As I said in an earlier post, if one was to use "previous", or supposed "previous" on which to base decisions, ex members of other political groups, applying to join, would, in light of this recent application refusal, have to be refused membership. I.E. one could say, "I am not sure that the applicant would not revert to his former political stance of supporting Capitalism and this could, in my opinion, happen on a Party platform and reflect badly on the Party.". In a nutshell, that is what is being said about the recent applicant. It is just supposition and not based on any evidential proof.So YMS, do support decisions made on opinion and inference, or on proof and evidence?
Read with interest the reason/reasons given by the EC member, for voting against readmission. To put it bluntly, claiming that there may be the possibility of future misconduct, is a subjective opinion, not borne out by fact! How could it be, the future is not yet written. Are we to extrapolate and say, that any ex member of a different political grouping be refused admission, because there is the "possibility" the applicant may go back to his former political beliefs and start spouting say, Tory or Labour propoganda at a Party meeting or on a Party platform?The EC members rationale is flawed and I would say, based on a clash of personality, not conclusive proof or evidence.The rejected applicant, has contributed to this forum for a considerable number of months, with some good and helpful hints and contributions, without exhibiting the actions claimed of him. I think it is about time the past was placed firmly in the past and that we move on.The successful Euro election cmpaign and the sterling efforts of Branches and members notably, I hasten to add, Kent and Sussex regional, deserve no less!!!
I will, as Mod 1 suggests, refrain from answering such hurtful, harmful remarks, in the spirit in which they were given."Tag Team"? never been a Hulk Hogan, although played Rugby for 19 years, does that count? Mr EC member? By the way, I do not need to drink and have not tonight, to know when my plonker is being pulled.
Hi Vin,I too, would like to have put it all behind us however, it is obvious, that this is not a generally accepted viewpoint. In this regard, all "bets" are off. If certain individuals want to use "their" personal circumstances, as excuses for "wrongful behaviour", I will do the same.Comrade Mann, you have impacted deliteriously, on my mental health. You have made both my mental, as well as physical health, worse. Please "stop". I will not ask again!I suffer from Multiple sclerosis , IBS, Diverticular Disease, Mental health problems! These impact badly upon my life, made worse by the tripe on sites such as this, I, originally refused to raise this but seeing as how others use this, I will, not "use" this but inform other forum users of "my" health concerns.
Comrade Mann, cites the "behaviour" of former Comrade Maratty when leaving the Party!!! I have the posts, "all of them", from the particular threads, relevant to this issue. You would do well to remember, that on the internet, "all" information is retrievable! The misbehaviour of comrades, was not just from Comrade Maratty's side, I have the posts.Comrade Mann would, moreover, be advised to take into consideration, that before both, (not Mr Maratty's but "Comrade" Maratty's) Form F was accepted and "mine", we were asked to reconsider our position! Hardly the "wreckers", that some alluded to, at the time, or reaction to the same, if such was the case, why were we asked to "reconsider", our resignations?He did not resign before he was charged with "action detrimental" did he Ed? He resigned because of the way the "forum" was being run! Do you remeber "your" posts on the forum? I not only do, but have them saved.You, "comrade" are making this a "personal issue". Why say this, "On a personal note I no longer feel safe to post on these forums regularly or on the party's social media outlets due to the months long bullying campaign that was led against myslef and other members by the former member and his relatives. I would also hate for something like that to happen to anyone else." You Sir, are obfuscating the issue. You Sir, are accusing others of "bullying" where none existed. To say that you "no longer feel safe to post on these forums regularly or on the party's social media outlets due to the months long bullying campaign that was led against myslef and other members by the former member and his relatives", is a lie, because I am Comrade Maratty's brother in law and have never "bullied" you, nor anyone else and neither did "Comrade Maratty".I have mental health problems, as well as my physical disabilities and would not use these as an excuse to berate others, as you appear ready to do! Regardless of my physical and by extension, mental health problems, I would not, nor do not, use them as excuses to traduce others, nor to try to "defend" myself against justifiable accusations of bias and wrongful assertions.All I would add to the above, is that you "grow up" and that this post is filed away, as are all of the posts from a year or so ago and that, lets be "comradely" for a change!!!
"Why would membership of the SPGB be refused". The title of this thread. Read the post below and one is even more confused, not least because against all "reason" a Form A has been refused and once again, no reason, nor explanation has been given!!! 4. Forms A and FMembership Applications Committee recommended acceptance of Forms A fromLewis Hayward-Hopkins (EU election leaflet), Darren Williams (SocialistStandard and website), Kieran Isaacson (Internet and elections) andVincent Maratty (ex-member).Application to rejoin also received from John Bathurst (ex-member).Motion 6: Craggs and Cox : “That the Form A from Lewis Hayward-Hopkins beaccepted“. Agreed. “That the Form A from Darren Williams be accepted“.Agreed. “That the Form A from Kieran Isaacson be accepted”. Agreed. “Thatthe Form A from John Bathurst be accepted”. Agreed.Motion 7: Mann and Cox mobed “That the Form A from Vincent Maratty berejected”. Carried 3-2.Division. For: Cox, Mann, Shodeke. Against: Buick, Craggs. I had to read the minutes twice, before I could believe my eyes! All applications accepted, with the exception of ex Comrade, Vincent Maratty.As Comtades will notice, not "one" reason, by way of explanation for the turning down of this Form A has been included. Even if this is not "required procedure", one would have thought common "decency" would have compelled those of a comradely disposition to provide an explanation!Obviously, being a member of a "Socialist" Party, does not require those within it, to act in a way which would set them apart from the run of the mill, biased and partial member of the working class, that inhabit the environs of Capitalism.A sad day for The Socialist Party, indeed for a Party that professes to espouse the ethos of "Social"ism.There is, as far as I can see, no logical reason why the Form A should have been rejected.There is one consequence, those who voted against acceptance should consider. It will now be much harder for positive Socialist activity to once again take a foothold in the North East.. When taken in conjunction with Kent & Sussex Regional Branch, conference motion, that Rule 9 be implemented in full, one can see the obvious outcome, the fledling North East Branch being "stillborn".From the report of the Conference discussion, around this motion and also the interpretation of some contributors to the same, that their appeared to be an "air" of animosity,indeed aggression, towards North East Branch one can only conclude, "objective achieved".Finally, it is most interesting to note, the three votes against Vincent Maratty's readmission, were all from the same Branch.
I must gainsay this! These "revolutions" did not, nor could not, topple Capitalism. The lack of class consciousness, and the economic reality of the time, vis a vis, being unable to meet the needs of the population, made this outcome impossible to achieve. It is meerest fantasy to suppose that the intellectual, or material conditions existed circa WW1, for a Socialist revolution to succeed. Fantasize all you want, the objective, class emancipation was an impossibility.
Hi SP, hope you are OK! Your post is, as far as I can see. spot on. North East Branch did not, in fact, overeach nor oeverstretch itself. It did exactly what was written on the can. At "that" time, there were a number of totally committed Members/Socialists.SP and John Bisset in the forefront. We, as a Branch, carried out humungous efforts on behalf of, not the Party, but of the cause for Socialism.What needs to be addressed, is the maximum amount of publicity, propoganda and activity that can be squeezed from such a small "base"! I, and others, think it is considerable, time for "members" to prove us right!!!
