steve colborn
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi Hud. I agree with your post 100%. I just hope this is all put to bed sooner rather than later. It is not to my liking to have comrades spending so much time talking about people like me, when they want to be getting on with the reason they are in the Party for, propogating the Socialist case.Be well, Steve.
I have seen the discussion taking place elsewhere and am fine with it, in the main. What I did feel was particularly hurtful however was during the discussion on spintcom re giving help to the election I have just contested. In particular comments that seemed to suggest that I could, or would, use this platform, especially if I had been elected, for some form of self-aggradisement. Showing a complete lack of comprehension of myself as an individual and my complete commitment in the struggle to bring about our common aim, Socialism.A commitment, undiminished for all these years and which will never change. Yours fraternally,Steve.
If as you say, I should begin by acknowledging the faults in my behaviour, I have done this. I have explicitly stated that no one in this sorry incident is free of blame, or for being complicit in it's continuance, myself and yourself, included. What more do you require? I am not Japanese so will not cut off my little finger, as a mark of apology! I, myself, have'nt seen any evidence of others involved doing any of what you suggest above.I have said I want an end to this, to that end, I will end this. No more posts from me that could be seen as problematic. No more rising to take any bait offered, to be re-embroiled in a slagging match. No more pointlessly asking for others do take this action as well but for me to do it unilaterally. An ignoring of comments made elsewhere, with regard to myself, regardless of a wish to respond and defend myself. As I say, an end to this! Yours fraternally,Steve.
Why "better not", Ed? You have a personal grudge against Vin? so be it. Get over it! He has been a good Socialist since 1979, I have the evidence to prove it. That he is frustrated at what has happened on SPGB sites, who can blame him? Are you free of blame, are others? Lets all, in comradely spirit, put this shit behind us. Doing none of us any good, least of all me! My health is such, that if this continues much longer, the "recriminatory crap", I will have to, for the good of my health, walk away.Some may say, good riddance, but it will be one less "class warrior" on the field. One less voice against the avalanche of shit, we workers have to contend with every day.Sort it out boys and girls, sort it fucking out, for our kids and their kids sake.Steve.
Sorry to be so late in my reply! Doing some physio on my legs. One of the things that impressed me and still does, about the SPGB, is their stance on standing in elections. The Capitalists have given us the perfect means to rid ourselves of "class society". Unintentionally perhaps, they have given we workers the shovel with which we can bury them, the vote. It would be churlish of us, as a class, to refuse this "weapon". No one need die on the barricades as the SWP, CPGB, militant et al would have us do. We can merely show our "common will" to rid these parasites of their power, by the power of "THE VOTE". "our vote".No fuss, no violence, no bloodshed. As the Merecats say, "simples". Steve.
Town council result; Deneside Ward of Seaham ParishCandidatePartyVotesElectedALLEN, BrianLabour Party Candidate460ElectedBAIRD, Margaret RoseLabour Party Candidate494ElectedBELL, EdwardLabour Party Candidate499ElectedBLEASDALE, GeraldineLabour Party Candidate426ElectedCOLBORN, Steven Paul 157 3123Electorate:20.97%Turnout: Steve.
Quantatative easing, AKA keynesianism, unless it is computer generated "money"!. Whatever will they think of next? Steve.
I have to congratulate you on a very good and thought provoking post. I will get back to you soon with my thoughts. I think you might have something when you say, "I'm thinking right off the top of my head here, but perhaps we would communicate more clearly if we focused more on what would not be the case in socialism. Maybe some fairly clear and definite statements of that kind might be possible, to get the idea across. I don't know. Any thoughts on that?"This may indeed be the way to proceed. Before I finish, your reference to social approval and disapproval, mirrors my own thoughts that I have had for all of my time around the Party. I can think of few worse punishments in a future society, than being socially ostracised.Steve.
Last first Hud. It does not mean your arguments, nor that of twc are valueless but pay myself and SP the same respect! I am not a feisty soul, never looked at me feet for ages, disability problems preclude this. Moreover, I, myself have no Catholic, nor religious heritage to have a base for comparison. Disavowed that claptrap when I was 9 yrs old.And no, it is'nt fun, when Socialists, me you, twc, SP have to indulge in this type of infantile discourse. Pointless pointscoring is about all it amounts to.And nay sir, prithee do not taint me with an accusation of "vile slander" upon thy good self! I have not slandered thee, nor anyone else. Nay, say simply, that I disagree with thine, oft stated position. Tis not mete to infer that, upon disagreement, people of good will, me and thee and various divers others, cannot see the merits, or otherwise, of the oft opined opinions of others. Thou hast stated thy position, most eloquently, I must say, as have I and moreover SP. That neither SP nor my good self canst claim ultimate truth nor veracity, to our claims, or counterclaims, doth not negate the fact that neither of us can claim, thee nor me, to have won the argument. Unless thou hast lived, thyself, or I have,within the society upon which this diversional argument is placed, then none of us can claim ultimate truth.Lest thou thinketh that I talk, for talking sake! prithee see the writins of Jacob Bronowski, or Dr Richard Leakey who, both as a callow youth of 12, I enjoyed, understood and who presaged my interest in this subject matter.As an aside, I will draw your attention to the prior post, re the 1991 conference resolution on "law" etc. it would be of intellectual and personal interest to ascertain your opinion of the same. Cheers be well Steve.
A quote stated elsewhere by Adam. Quite appropriate to this particular thread wouldn't one think? "That this Conference recognises that rules and regulations, and democratic procedures for making and changing them and for deciding if they have been infringed, will exist in socialist society. Whereas a ruling class depends on the maintenance of laws to ensure control of class society, a classless society obtains social cohesion through its socialisation process without resorting to a coercive machinery. However, in view of the fact that in socialist theory the word "law" means a social rule made and enforced by the state, and in view of the fact that the coercive machinery that is the state will be abolished in socialist society, this Conference decides that it is inappropriate to talk about laws, law courts, a police force and prisons existing in a socialist society." (1991) Steve.
Hud, no straw men applied by me, moreover, it is you, yourself, who disavow anyone's view that does not coincide with your own. No more dogmatic statements from here, than from the other side of the discussion, either. I do have relevant qualifications, a degree in Politics/Sociology. Whilst not in the fields of anthropology or paleo-anthropology, it is, nevertheless in the field of the "social sciences".TWC, you will find it impossible to find any comment, where either myself or SP did not acknowledge the importance of the MCH, it has been stated and re-stated. All we have done, is draw the attention to human "values", in the way we move forward, both as a movement and as a species. Steve.
twc, I do not assert that the materialist conception of history is some kind of holy grail. What I said was "you" use it at such, like a club. The MCH is a theory posited by Marx, one I happen to agree with and moreover understand. Whilst refuting your label of me as arguing from a biological level, I will restate, as well as the mechanistic view inherent in the MCH, I use in conjunction with this a value system, garnered from 51 yrs of being subjected to the abomination Capitalism most assuredly is, and 32 years of learning all about this system and the alternative.That Socialist learning led me directly to Uni, fostered by a need to instil within myself, knowledge and the credibility of Capitalist educational accreditation, is down to comrades in the SPGB. That I have spent 32 years gaining the knowledge to fight for Socialism, is down to the SPGB but I have used my empathy also, empathy with my fellow workers to strengthen my resolve to gain this knowledge, the knowledge all Socialists need for the fight. Steve.
I have read your post quite a few times Alan and on only one point and one point only, can I see anything other than excellent points being made. To quote you, "No amount of pointing to a starving child in Ethiopia will result in a desire and drive for a socialist society." In this I seem to differ and only on this. As a father of two lads, when I see scenes of unalloyed misery engendered in scenes such as Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sudan et al, I am minded, at these times to put myself and my family into this horrific reality. It may be empathy, sympathy or whatever but it makes my determination to bring an end to Capitalism, the cause of these horrors, to as swift an end as possible. In that sense, my empathy, gives my argumentative and debative skills more focus, strength and forcefulness, in my efforts to discuss with my fellow workers the need for societal change. I draw strength and determination from them.It may not be scientific but, for me, it works. It is also the reason, that no matter any disagreements I have with fellow Socialists, I still consider them, "fellow Socialists". Comrades in the fight for sanity, and rationality.Steve.
