steve colborn
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The problem with thinking in the abstract, is that one cannot relate, or does not realise, that, one can think in the specific! That parliament is a specific function within Capitalism, is not a given. It is a state of mind, a state of mind, that the "state" would have us believe. We, as a class, can use the functionality, implicit within a "parliamentary system" and turn it to our own class advantage. We can turn it on it's head and use it and turn it, from an instrument of oppression, to one involved in "our" own class emancipation. The power is implicit. It is who controls it, that is the crux!To aver otherwise, is to ignore self-awareness and self-justification as a class and to submit to the self rationalisation, that the "ruling class" would have us accept. Steve Colborn.
Someone get Brand a supply of Socialist Standards. Blow away the fog of reformist pap and maybe, just maybe, we'd have a Socialist on our hands.Steve Colborn.
As one of these "attempted rejoinee's", I can do no other than totally agree with SP! The EC minutes are as follows;(e) Form A for SC (application to rejoin)Some EC members argued that this application should be rejected on the grounds of the applicant's behaviour when he was in the Party. Other EC members did not believe this was relevant in deciding his application.Motion 7 – Browne and Cox moved that the Form A be rejected. Carried (3-2-2).Division – For – Browne, Shannon, CoxAgainst – Bond, BuickAbstain – Craggs, FosterWhat must be asked is, what behaviour? Disagreement with other members of the forum? Disagreement with forum moderation or, in this instance forum immoderation.Or could it be the actions of "members" of the SPGB who, after I left the Party, slagged me off personally, even though they knew, as a now, non-member, I could not defend myself!Accused of, I can only surmise, "improper behaviour" when a party member, specifics not provided! Possibly because "other" members, were complicit in these events but have not been caught up in the "shit storm".The actions of the current EC are exactly what comrade Shannon refers to in his refered to polemic. Indefensable in a democratic party. All I want, is to be allowed back into a party that I have done so much to promote. A party I resigned from, was not ejected from. Did nothing of any difference, than "current members" of the SPGB did but are still within it's orbit.Actions of the type I refer to above will, deconstruct the SPGB but not in the intellectual sense intended.Of course, in the intervening months since my resignation, I have contributed to the SPGB forum and the WSM forum. I have not "kicked off" as infered but have been constructive. So where is this "bad behaviour"?Deconstructing The Socialist Party? why? on this road we will do it to ourselves! Letting personal vendettas and disagreements rule? way to go.I've nothing to apologise for, as I have done, nothing.Steve Colborn.
Thanks for this post SP. It adds fresh impetus to the fact that, even in the SPGB, eternal vigilance is the order of the day. It would be interesting to find out who the author of this document was? Moreover, if he/she are still in the Party, what their opinion is, of the present events within the Party!Steve Colborn.
RT, or Russia Today is ok. Al Jaazeera is ok, however, one must always realise that all, I repeat all, Capitalist news channels have an agenda and in the final analasys it is not an agenda that is "exclusively" for and in the interests of, the working class.Be well, Steve.
What race would you put those from ancient Babylonia, Persia, Egypt etc in? All socially advanced civilisations just not from the Far East Asian stock nor European.As for intelligence levels, did a Kalahari bushman need knowlede of computing, mathematics, history of european thought, to exist in his or her native environment? Or was it, how to construct a "sip well", patterns of migration of animals, where to find supplies of berries, roots etc? Is it not the case, that if you were to attempt to live in the environs these people inhabited, it would be "your" intelligence level, that would be found wanting!It is your "presumption" that intelligence levels are only measurable by westernised methodology, that is in error.Finally, it is not because I am a "humanitarian", (whatever the hell that actually means) that I find your posts, vile, odious and repugnant, it is because, I have yet to read any proof of your racist theory!What would you get if an abandoned "white" child had been raised by, for instance, the above mentioned Kalahari Indians? Well, we all know you would get an intellectually advanced, tea drinking, superior minded member of the european branch of the caucasoid race family. In actual fact, the child would grow and only be differentiated from other "tribe" members by the colour of his skin. That, in a nutshell is what you are on about really, is'nt it, skin colour?Steve.
Dear JDW, with all due respect, an accusation of hostility toward another Forum user is quite a serious matter, especially given events on this Forum some months ago. Ed did indeed say he did not want to say anything else this, however does not nullify his accusation, nor provide proof of the same.I, myself, merely want clarification of this matter! If my words are seen as hostile, I merely want "proof", so I can moderate my written language to a more accetible level. If this proof is not available, an apology, so that my name is not besmirched unfairly and unreasonably.To make an accusation, then refuse to back it up is, to my mind, wrong.Steve Colborn.
"A membership application is subject to E.C. ratification. Since you've become hostile again I have nothing left to say to you."Ed, sorry to be a pain but can you please show, where I have been hostile on this thread? I know I have not been but your accusation labels me! Please show evidence or apologise. I would appreciate a reply.YFSSteve Colborn.PS I think enough time has passed for reflection.
I have not in any way, become hostile, I am merely debating points with you. If you have taken offence, please believe me such was not my intent and I furthermore apologise for any hurt I may have caused, which I assure you again was not intended. YFSSteve Colborn.
By the way Ed, I never made a point about making rules clearer or more specific, you must have me mixed up with someone else. As far as I am concerned the rules are fine as they are. But if "you" are suggesting the rules must be stricter and more draconian, I completely disagree. Are you suggestin this? YFS Steve Colborn.
Okay, got me rule book out……..no does'nt say anything about "the way it stands now is that each individual application is subject to ratification by the E.C., which means they must take into account past behavior and the likelihood of that behavior reoccurring".Past behaviour and the likelihood that behaviour will recur. No…..nothing in the rule book about that, nor in anything I have come across in my 32 year association with the party.The hypothetical situation you posit, is a bit like the last breath of a dying man, an exercise in pointless futility and bears no relationship to the events that were brought up.And as you said, "suspected embezzling" it is a moot point anyway, as suspicion ain't proof. It's a bit like saying "a suspected vote rigger, these are merely hypotheticals. YFSSteve Colborn.
Ed, it was not I who brought up the question re the ex member you allude to. The thread evolved that way due to other contributors.. Having said that however, I must disagree with you. The EC is not a leadership, nor is it a "court", to pass this, or that, edict. The EC exists to "manage" and run the affairs of the Party. It is at all times doing this at the behest of the wider membership through decisions at conference. It has no "power" in or of itself. I will restate the rediculously obvious, it is not the remit of the EC to decide on the merits or demerits of individual membership applications. If an applicant meets the criteria of understanding and agreeing to the case put forward by the SPGB and they have no affiliation to any other political party, there is no reason not to permit membership. It is not, I repeat not, the remit of individual EC members, or the EC as a whole, to make personal "judgement" as to the character or past actions of applicants, or to use "value" judgements in any application.Gnome informs us there are manifold reasons for the rejection of a membership application, I totally disagree. Read the rule book and check for yourself. The SPGB is not the CPGB or SWP, where a central committee pass "edicts". The SPGB is a totally democratic party, perhaps the most democratic party one could come across. It is not run by personal opinion or prejudice, but by a rule book that has evolved, not devolved, over timeThat the form A for this applicant appears not to have been forwarded makes this, at this time, a moot point. What is not a moot point however, is that if and when the Form A is presented and given all the "assurances" the Form A will have no other recourse but to be passed. Any other decision would be undemocratic, prejudiced and wrong, ethically, morally and fraternally. YFSSteve Colborn.
Dear Ed, you asked me a question, I answered it. Furthermore, the heading of this thread is, "Why would membership of the SPGB be refused", in this regard and given the long history that the SPGB has, of free speech and debate, are you really saying the question posited is out of bounds?You state, "I do certainly think the rules could be tightened in some way to make sure there is no confusion over the potential of a member leaving in bad standing then re-applying only a few months later with a clean slate. It could be an easy way to avoid facing a charge of action detrimental". This statement is, to my mind is, not what happened at all, a perusal of facts and incidents from that period clearly shows this to be the case. Injudicious use of and disregard for forum rules, on occasion, I'll grant you. Action detrimental? in no way shape or form. A spat between individual members assuredly, with a bit of illiberal language thrown in for good measure, certainly but it was between adults, or such I thought at the time.Given the fact that assurances have been given, it is more than regretable that a reciprocal mindset is not visible from all.A hand has been offered in comradely good faith, a reciprocation would be fair and just and to the credit of all.YFS Steve Colborn.
In actual fact Ed, I was not. I raised the item because things I have heard disturbed me and were disturbing. Having read the EC minutes on the morning of Fri 20th of Sept, it has in fact proved to be the case.It has been the case that for years, the Capitalist media and their oppo's pro-capitalist political parties, have used unsubstantiated, sweeping generalisations, as dubious backup, to spurious claims. Then I read this in the Sept EC minutes, "Motion 28 – Cox and Shannon moved that the EC thanks the applicant for his interest in rejoining the Party. However, in view of the circumstances of his resignation and the likely reaction from the membership, the EC considers that acceptance of such an application would not be appropriate. Carried (4-3-0). Division – For – Cox, Craggs, Foster and ShannonAgainst – Bond, Buick and Browne"Can anyone tell me where the evidence for "the likely reaction from the membership" has come from? other than from the personal opinion of individuals! Furthermore, what does the statement, "in view of the circumstances of his resignation" mean? Is it to mean that a persons "previous" is being taken into account? Not even Capitalist courts accept this! If a persons "previous" is, being taken into account, regardless of their presently avowed intent to restrain from any actions which may be deemed prejudicial to the Party, then I am afraid, ethically and morally, this is out of order.Does it mean a former member of Labour, CPGB, SWP, Tories etc etc would be denied membership because of their "previous" of wholeheartedly supporting Capitalism and opposing a democratic society? What of members of the SPGB today, who previously left the Party under, shall we say, less than salubrious circumstances! Do we dust of their past misdemeanors and cancel their rehabilitation as forthright Comrades and Socialists?That an individual potential member has been singled out for "special attention", is quite obvious from the following statement, that sums up the disquiet of the relevant committee,"The Membership Applications Committee has discussed the application from BM which you passed on to us and asked us to deal with. Given the history of this ex-member and previous EC decisions on this matter, this is obviously a difficult case for us to deal with. However the view we take is that in considering his application it would not be appropriate for us to take into account past events and we would have to base any recommendation for membership purely on answers to the Party’s questionnaire (and/or discussion with the applicant following therefrom), as we do for all other applicants. If the EC wishes us to go ahead on this basis, we are happy to do so and therefore to contact the applicants and ask him to complete the questionnaire. However, if the EC takes the view that it must consider other factors, then we believe that the decision to accept or reject the application must be made directly by the EC."In an earlier post on this thread, I stated that applications could be at the mercy of "personal whim, prejudice, or indeed dislike of a prospective member". Remembering, as I do, the atmosphere surrounding events on the forum, at that time and the polarised viewpoints of individuals, at that time, it would appear that my fears are justified.We could act like grown-ups and accept the statement of the applicant in this instance or, like "kids in the playground" state that, "that kids not using my footy, cos I don't like him". Vindictiveness for the sake of it, has never been a very appealing characteristic, please, I ask you, in all sincerity, do not let it happen here!YFSSteve Colborn.
If one, and this is the crux, passes the Form A, ie proves an understanding and acceptance of the DofP of the SPGB and is "not" a member of any other political party, then there is no reason whatsoever, that an application should, or indeed could, be refused.The Membership Applications Committee report is, at this moment in time, pending. It has not been passed, accepted, nor even been debated by the wider membership. Moreover, the use of the term "manifold" would, in my opinion, be wholly inappropriate and could lead to acceptance, or otherwise, of an application to personal whim, prejudice, or indeed dislike of a prospective member. Surely this is not the way a democratic political party wants to operate?YFSSteve Colborn.
