steve colborn
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Jon, I was also of the opinion that rejection of a membership application was for a very, very limited set of reasons! If one passes the Form A and is not a member of any other political organisation, then, there is no reason why membership should, or could, be withheld. "Manifold" reasons never entered my reasoning and if that is now the case, leaves acceptance, or otherwise of an application, at personal whim and prejudice! I certainly hope this is not the current position!YFSSteve Colborn.
What a cracking post. Any homosexual haters will have a hard time justifying their bigotry as will supporters of Capitalism, in trying to justify the two-faced, double standard nature, of this obscene excuse for a civilised society. Steve Colborn.
If one was to support using troops against striking firemen, the foundation of the SPG, the starting of Britains independent nuclear deterrent, arresting then imprisoning striking dockers, supporting a world war, by fighting in it, for the Capitalists who rule the land mass one inhabits and doing harm to other workers, what would you be deemed as? oh yeah, a working class supporting doyen and grandee. Bennites might not like it, but there you are.So you reckon my line of assertion is ludicrous, that my remark re Benn is utterly moronic, that I am historically and politically illiterate. That I shout at the wind? Well if you persist in talking out of your arse, I will continue to shout at the resultant effluvia that emanates from your rear end.I will let you, go back to kneeling at the shrine of Saint Benn, as he obviously accrued no blame from the anti working class actions, governments he was intimately involved in carried out.It is myself, who has exhibited patience to your overweening worship of your better, Benn. Hope you are happy m8.Steve Colborn.
The whole quote is, "That the history of Labour anti working class actions is irrefutable and part of public record is beyond refute. From using troops to break strikes (firemen), to using legislation to enforce wage restraint, (first time ever), to setting up the police Special Patrol Group to intimidate strikers and use as "snatch squads" to grab "ringleaders" on the picket lines. I could go on but you get the picture. So in my eyes, phoney Benn "is" the equal of Thatcher"Therefore, I was contextually and historically correct to eventually say, Benn is as anti working class as Thatcher. YFS Steve Colborn.
Oh, by the way, just remembered. What of Tones involvement in the locking up striking dockers post war and the acquisition of Britains independent nuclear deterrent. Strange that a self appointed stalwart of the workers would get involved, in any way, with these two bits of anti working class action. Oh I forgot he's not involved cos he can put it down to others and thereby escape an accusation of complicity. Ain't that a doosy.YFS Steve Colborn.
You've obviously heard of paraphrasing and that is what you have done with my words. Your paraphrasing ain't "my" words. Mere interpretation is not verbatim. The truth is oft times inconvenient, in this instant for you. YFS Steve Colborn.
By the way dweenlander, you say "What you actually write is that Benn is the equal of Thatcher, and you just can’t get there without making hopelessly sweeping generalizations that lose all intellectual force and coherence." If you don't mind, I will write, what I actually write, without anyone telling me what I actually wrote, if that's alright with you! YFS Steve Colborn.
You keep stating that my words are "intellectually and historically flawed"! I disagree. Collective responsibility, is responsibility nonetheless. As Minister of Air, in the post-war Attlee government, he must have been aware of The Labour Party use of the Emergency Powers Act, which resulted in striking dockers being arrested and locked up year on year, for having the temerity to exercise their "right", to withdraw their labour. So much for WW2 being a fight for freedom and democracy.It is your opinion that my argument is flawed, historically and intellectually and that my argument is based upon wide sweeping generalisations. If that is the cul-de-sac you want to go down, that is your prerogative. If you are happy with it great. By the way, did good ole tone take part in the decision to start the development of Britain's independent nuclear deterrent? Just arskin!Steve Colborn.
In the Labour Government of 1974–1979 Benn was in the Cabinet, initially as Secretary of State for Industry, before being made Secretary of State for Energy. Are you seriously trying to say that good old Tony shared no responsibility for the anti working class actions of the Labour government? Maybe he fell asleep when these issues were being discussed! or perhaps was reading War and Peace?In the Labour government of 64/70 he served as Postmaster General then as Minister of technology. Are you saying that during this time, he was not complicit in the closure of over 200 pits? Quite a few in the area I live in, County Durham.During the Miners strike of 84, which I spent some time on the picket line, coming from a town, Seaham, which had 3 pits within 1 square mile, I never heard of Benn exhorting his party to come out fully on the side of the miners, nor use his position as a Labour Grandee, to appear in the media, to counter the anti miner propaganda of the Tories or the capitalist media, both TV and print.I am not making Benn the personification of anything, what I am trying to do, is show to people on the left, that Benn was not the affable friend of the workers they and he, seem to be purporting him to be. Steve Colborn.
I entirely agree with ALB, I cannot see any reason why your post was flagged as offensive, for anyone to think so, is churlish and not a little infantile.As to my opinion on your political affiliations, I have no pre-concieved preconceptions. I merely ask because of this," As to equating Benn with Thatcher on the basis of his role in the failure of the Wilson/Callaghan governments to defend “King Coal” versus her government’s (and her personal) desire to crush extra-parliamentary working class opposition through the use of paramilitary police operations and the promotion of mass unemployment, I hardly know where to begin, ".That the history of Labour anti working class actions is irrefutable and part of public record is beyond refute. From usung troops to break strikes (firemen), to using legislation to enforce wage restraint, (first time ever), to setting up the police Special Patrol Group to intimidate strikers and use as "snatch squads" to grab "ringleaders" on the picket lines. I could go on but you get the picture. So in my eyes, phoney Benn "is" the equal of Thatcher.From your quote above it would appear this is not a view you share! Personally, I am not interested in your political affiliations but merely asked as a means of clarification. If my question upset or irked you, I unreservedly apologise, as such was not my intent.YFS Steve Colborn.
That Labour shut more pits than Thatchers tories is indisputable. Whether the claim that pits were worked out, or uneconomic, was used by both Labour and Tory. Neither had the interests of workers at the forefront of their minds.To credit either of these anti-working class organisations with putting workers first first, would be infantile, as this is to easy to disprove.That A W's argument may be seen as "simplistic" is irrelevant. His main crux, is that all of the people he cites, do not have the interest of workers at heart. Benn, Churchill, Hitler, Wilson, Obama, Thatcher, Mussolini, Callaghan, all the same anti working class shit.It is of no consequence, or validity, to say that they are not of equal opposition in their actions against workers interests, the "opposition" is the primary importance.The point being made is, that anyone giving their willing support to Capitalism, deserves our unreserved hostility, and opposition.I do not give a shit whether it is, "friend of workers" Benn, Hardy, Ramsey Mcdoughnut, or avowed opponents of our class, Thatcher, Raygun, Bush, Obama. They are all the same, two faced, rip off bastards, we should oppose.I would ask you, Dweenlander, in view of your post, what are your political offiliations? Left wing of the capitalist supporting plethora, or an anti-capitalist Socialist/Communist? Steve Colborn.
My initial comment on this article; peverley, quite perversely in my opinion, uses stephen hawking as his example, in his misguided hyperbole.how many people, with mr hawkings illness, can afford the "bespoke"equipment needed to continue to do work? how many people, i'll hazard a guess of a handfull at most, can understand the theories he has posited?apart from the expense of eqipment, what of the "cost" of ancilliary services that would be needed to keep this gentleman doing his, "work"?regardless, businesses run to make money! what business man would be prepared to employ a person, if in doing so, it was going to cost them money on top of the diabled persons wages, to facillitate the employment of said disabled person?it is a peculiarly cynical person who posits the ideas peverley posits, about disabled people, when in the same society they inhabit, as does he, we have a situation where 1 million fit and able-bodied under 25's are denied the oppurtunity to "earn" the money they need to have any kind of fulfilled life but rather turn the agenda towards people, many of whom have trouble merely coping with their physical and mental disabilities and attempt by the misuse of the "media" and the governments own spin-doctors, to attempt to label "all" disabled people, as workshy, feckless scroungers and dragoon them into situations they and employers, are quite obviously ill-equipped to cope with. Steve Colborn
‘Everyone is capable of some kind of work’ – Sunderland GP blasts sick note culture </body> A WEARSIDE doctor says some patients are ‘hell bent’ on trying to prove they are really ill. Dr Phil Peverley, who works at The Old Forge Surgery, Pallion Park, said he has even considered putting up a poster of Professor Stephen Hawking with the caption: ‘This bloke is not on the sick’ in the surgery.Writing a column in the medical magazine, Pulse, Dr Peverley, said: “Entire surgeries could be filled with the disgruntled unworking well, full of indignation at being considered reasonably healthy.“We are, as a profession, dedicated to making our patients as healthy as possible, and yet a proportion of punters are hell bent on trying to prove they’re really ill, and need us to confirm it.“The fact is, nearly everyone is capable of some kind of work. I had considered, at one point, putting up a portrait of Professor Stephen Hawking in my consulting room with a caption that said ‘This bloke is not on the sick’.”The renowned physicist has motor neurone disease, which has left him almost totally paralysed and he communicates using a speech-generating machine.An award-winning columnist, Dr Peverley went on to say: “Being found fit for some kind of employment by Atos (the organisation which quizzes unemployed people about their suitability to work), does not mean you’re necessarily capable of being an FBI agent or a lumberjack. However, you might be able to work at a desk on a telephone, or hold a lollipop on a zebra crossing.”He said the benefits of employment are not just financial, but include less depression, greater social contact, increased wellbeing and a decreasing tendency to addiction and social deprivation.Earlier this year, a poll of 4,000 family doctors by the Department for Work and Pensions showed three quarters feel obliged to issue sick notes to patients even when there is no medical need.Since being hired by the Government in 2008, Atos has carried out more than 1.5million assessments on people to see if they are fit for work, but it has led to more than 600,000 appeals at a cost of £60million.Richard Hawkes, CEO of disability charity, Scope, said: “Dr Peverley’s attempt at ‘telling it like it is’ misses the point entirely. Disabled people do want to work, but they need support to overcome huge barriers, such as a lack of skills and experience, confidence and even negative attitudes from some employers.”Sorry, this should have been included in the initial post. Steve Colborn.
By the way Celtic, you may be interested in a post I did on the WSM forum site on the 26th June, added to by Marcos Colome,"For Marx, it was, "the emancipation of the working class, must be the work ofthe working class themselves".For Lenin it was, "the workers can only achieve a trade union consciousness".In other words, Marx believed that workers, by their own efforts and knowledge,moreover their democratic actions, could bring about their own freedom from thetyranny of minority class oppression. Lenin on the other hand, believed workersneeded to be led, like sheep, to their emancipation and did not possess theintellectual nous to affect societal change, without the exterior aid,leadership and intelligence of "leaders" such as, 'surprisingly enough' lol,Lenin and his arrogant ilk.The likes of Lenin, Totsky, Stalin, Mao, Castro et al, have in actuality, setback the cause of 'our' class emacipation, more than all the efforts of theCapitalist class could ever do, by leading workers up the blind alley's of thecult's of personality, leadership and false promised hope.In fact today, Socialists/Communists spend as much time stating what"socialism/communism is not, as they do stating what it is and the realrelevance of these ideas to our fellow workers.You really could not make up this shit if you tried and the Lenist's, Trot's,Maoist's et al, have certainly tried and succeded in their derailment. The voiceopposed to which, has always, since 1904, been the SPGB and earlier the SP ofCanada and after, other companion parties.In which, in my own small way, in every medium, as have others, tried to play mypart. More power, (in the understood meaning of this word) have many, many otherdemocratically minded individuals done the same and power to their elbows.Steve Colborn.— In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "wsmforummoderator" <wsmforummoderator@…>wrote:>> Why do you think that the Leninist are still supporting the so called vanguardparty, and the leadership concept ? The main reason is that, they callthemselves Marxists, but they do not think that the working class can liberateitself, they need leaders, cadres, and the chieftain of the party, that is thebasic concept of the guerrilla fighters and left-wingers activism.>> They think that the workers are like little children who need the guidance oftheir parents, and they must the carry the workers by their hands, and in theirminds like Lenin, socialism is just state capitalism, workers' state, and thedictatorship of the party>> I have said many times, if we have a vast majority of workers willing toestablish socialism and with the proper political consciousness capitalism willlast less than a roach in a chicken nest, and the resistance of the ruling classwould be minimal, even more, they will be forced to go alongside with theworkers>> The Socialist Party has been hitting the nail on the heads for more than 100years and our analysis has been correct since the very beginning that it wasfounded, and our foundation are simple, the best way to learn about us is byreading our publications and the discussions in this forum.>> — In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <stvclbrn@> wrote:> >> > Is'nt funny, that those who traduce, or seek to disparage those, who even inthe smallest measure, would place themselves in the "Marxian" tradition,conveniently forget the Marxian axiom that, "the emancipation of the workingclass, will be the work of the working class themselves"? No determinism there,or any other snide snipes at the Marxian democratic tradition!> > Steve ColbornIt says it all really!Fraternal regards, Steve Colborn.
