steve colborn
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The N.E area, has the most experience in the way Brian considers election activity should be carrired out! As I have opigned before, the most important thing is a firm propoganda base. Letters, press notices, posters and general activity within an area, considered for contestation. This can be done with a "bare minimum " of members, if those members are committed. However, if it is decided, for propoganda purposes, I.E. an election broadcast, that constuencies are contested that do not fill the criteria, then try and make sure these constituncies are adjacent to areas where propoganda has been undertaken, to at least get some, "spill off" from previous and ongoing efforts.The North East area has been carrying out electioneering and the concommitant proganda, for something like 20 years, so that the case is widespread and "understood", there is no reason that this "model", cannot be transposed to other areas.If I can be of any assistance in this endeavour, I'm here and willing! I do, of course, put my name forward as a candidate, in the constituency that I have stood, upwards of 20 times and which I have put the Socialist case. Steve Colborn.
LBird wrote:We've spent months trying to discuss what Marx means by 'materialism' (and I've suggested 'realism'), but we've now regressed (appropriately enough on a religion thread) to simply accepting the master's word, as written in The Text.As I've said before, this is yet more evidence for the theory that 'Scientific Socialism' is a religion.I see little point in continuing a discussion, when one of the participants refuses to accept what was written by the person oft quoted in the thread, Marx. It is not a case of "simply accepting" but more, not trying to put ones own "interpretation" of what someone else has already stated. As for claiming Scientific Socialism is a religion! I do not adhere to being a "Scientific Socialist", I am a Socialist, end of. Moreover, I don't "do" religion, in any shape or form, so your epithet is ill aimed.
What part of Marx stating he was a materialist, did you either not accept and or, not agree with? Horses mouth eh?Steve.
What a totally shambolic way to run a Party, that has as it's aim, bringing about a totally different way of organising society. We should all be rightfully ashamed of ourselves, that this issue has not been "put to bed". Well, onwards and upwards, I had hoped but now? who knows!Steve.
"I can think of one very good reason. The local branch, despite the best efforts of several comrades, is still not a functioning unit of the Party. I may be wrong but a recent online meeting of North East branch was inquorate." Indeed it was Dave but as you, yourself recognise, N.E. comrades are trying to rectify the situation of meetings being inquorate. Rather than pouring cold water on these attempts, comrades should be encouraging N.E. Branch members and giving all support possible to return N.E. Branch to functioning viability. Up to and including, urging and facilitating all Socialists in the area, who are not currently members, to join.A statement of intent, that applications will be looked upon, on merit, and not on and with some "remembered history", would be a step towards this end.Do we want Socialism, or don't we?Steve.
The problem Brian, is that as of the latest Branch meeting, we have not yet had a quorate meeting! It has been suggested, that Vin apply to rejoin the Branch, at an E.Meeting and if accepted but inquorate, the acceptance of said Form A could be ratified at the next quorate meeting. Vin is of the opinion that this clould appear an underhanded way of rejoining a Party he has put so much of the last 37 years into and continues to do so. Whilst I understand his reticence and viewpoint, I urge him to reconsider.He has good ideas for following up the Party success with the PEB. Indeed, he has posted a few of his ideas on this site, which were well recieved. This aside, there is a branch of opinion, opposed, for whatever reason, to Vin's readmission, a quite (at times) vocal branch of opinion. The mess, some two years ago, that led to this sorry state of affairs, is continuing to hold sway over common sense.Please ,can we not put this behind us? We are, after all, supposed to be "Socialists". If we cannot put this kind of thing behind us in the here and now, in furtherance of our aim of getting rid of the greatest threat we, as workers face, Capitalism, how can we presume to claim that in Socialism we can and will work together to make a "new" society work?Steve.
I must echo the sentiments of Alan in post 169 above. His view on how to preceed are spot on. Lets be pro active for a change. After what members did during the Euros, this appears the perfect time to do this!
"Actually, i did suggest on a thread we stop playing the nice guys…so all the defeated candidates can send off a letter implicitedly NOT congratulating the winner all as the usual custom is at these results but instead vilifying them all as undeserving victors!"As individual candidates and as a Party, we should be pushing the line that the results of this election merely continue the minority ownership of society by a infinitesimally small section of society and as a censequence, leaves we, the vast majority, in varying degrees of poverty, insecurity and want and that this is nothing to congratulate the "victors" on.AJJ is moreover right in urging all the candidates to keep the Party name in the spotlight, with letters to the press etc.Finally, well done to each and every member on your efforts. It has been a pleasure to see all of the posts on the activity carried out over the last month or so. : )
"But Christians are bothered about corporeal existence, are they not?" Indeed they are Robbo but the question is why? The answer! they, as do followers of other reigions use the corporeal existence, to ensure an eternity of "spiritual existence". Or do you deny this. This being the case, why would they enthuse over the short term when, in the end, this, as far as they are concerned, is merely transcient? "But Christians are bothered about corporeal existence, are they not? There is a whole damn elaborate theory formulated by Max Weber on the subject of the "protestant work ethic" which tries to account for the rise of capitalism in terms of an ascetic mode of thinking encouraged by certain forms of Protestantism – particularly, Calvinism. Its a questionable theory but nevertheless it is an undeniable fact that some religions today do seem to want to justify the wealth of the wealthy in religious terms – visit the Bible Belt of the USA – whereas others equally clearly attack it. Sheesh, Steve you really should widen your reading list, mate."Last first, I studied Weber and his writings on a "protestant work ethic" at Uni and precisely, religion uses these kind of arguments to "justify" Capitalism and the inequality engendered within it. Reminded me a bit, of "The Divine Right of Kings" arguments. I put no store in the writings of Ole Max then, nor do I now.Secondly, religions in the USA bible belt, do try to justify the wealth of the wealthy in religious terms. Seeing as how this "Christian Fundamentalism" holds sway, in large swathes of the US, I do not think our US comrades would be happy to allow these people into the movement, just as I would not be happy if this were to occur here.As for atheism being a requirement for membership, no it's not. There is merely a requirement that prospective members believe that "our" destiny, as humans, is in our own hands and does not succeed or fail at the behest of a God figure. That a non belief in a GOD figure is the accepted criteria, is fine by me.Finally, the incongruity of pushing a "materialist" objective, whilst continuing to believe in the "spiritual", should not be lost on anyone. They are antithetical, one to the other. That, my friend, is the crux of the debate!!!The discussion so far, has seemed to ignore other religions and focused on Christianity and to my mind, this is a mistake.
What is getting ridiculous, are those who believe in a life hereafter, that they would even give a toss about this ephemeral, tiny lifespan, compared with "eternity" in "Heaven". People, workers, need to understand that our lifespan, here on good old planet earth, is all we've got. Get over yourselves. Don't wait for pie in the sky when you die!For Robbo to say, "The fact of the matter is that holding religious beliefs per se has precious little bearing on whether one might be a socialist or not", is to miss the crux of the matter, that just as the Jihadist Islamists believe that dying for "the cause", will get them into paradise, why should Christians be bothered about corporeal existence, when the "promised land" of heaven, lasting as the religious tell us, forever, will be the reward for beliving in "Christ"? Give your head a serious shake! A religious belief is, a serious impediment to being a "Socialist". Moreover, if one understands the arguments, an insurmountable one.By the same token no, we cannot believe that "atheism is necessarily the path to enlightment, peace. brotherhood and an ethic of selflessness"! Without an understanding of the world, based on a class perspective, of our interests as individuals and as a "collection" of human beings, with a shared interest in getting a society run in the interests of "all" humanity, atheism is as big an irrelevance as religion and will be as redundant, in a sane society. It is "class consciousness" that is the deciding factor.For at least 99% of the worlds population, this is the only thing that matters. Having "our" interests as human beings as paramount. Not as "human units", seen as nothing more than suppliers of "rent, interest and profit, for a few! This is our focus and our goal!!!Steve Colborn.
Just sent this letter to the Oxford Mail;Dear Sir or Madam, you recently published a correction with regard to mixing up the logo of Militant Tendency with that of The Socialist Party of Great Britain. In it, you stated the following; "To set the record straight, here is the Socialist Party of Great Britain’s logo. Some things never change, and its good to see factionalism in Britain’s left is one of them. Your remark re factionalism, is wide of the mark. The "Left" organisations including Militant, to whom you refer, have one glaring difference to the SPGB. All these groups believe that you can "make" Capitalism a bit nicer, that you can get reforms to "humanise" Capitalism. Running the slaughterhouse in the interest of the animals, springs to mind. Moreover they are "nationalist in outlook.The SPGB do not advocate reforms to Capitalism but it's replacement, lock, stock and fetters, with Socialism. They are, moreover, a totally internationalist Party. Wanting a world without artificial national boundaries.Not "factionalism" but a totally different political ethos!!!
Pretty sure Jo Coburn simply said she might dispute the notion of 'human nature' being put forward. I think even members of the SPGB could disagree on 'human nature'. I could'nt "disagree on "human nature", because simply put I do not believe in it's existence. It's a catch all term used, in my opinion, to justify the most spurious of arguments and hypothese.
Couldn't agree more SP. More facile prevarication from our broadcasting betters, or so they see themselves!!!
