steve colborn

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 841 through 855 (of 880 total)
  • Author
  • in reply to: The Religion word #89325
    steve colborn

    What inflames my rightious indignation and ANGST, is the religious bodies either singular, or collective, claiming that, without religion, one cannot have a, MORAL COMPASS. That the nonreligious are somehow missing out on SOMETHING! That they, in some way, feel sorry for us.I choose to put a different slant on things! I take responsibity for, MY, actions. As a human being I, take responsibility. Whether right or wrong, forgetting the mores or values of the society I inhabit, they are MY decisions. Not good or evil, concepts I dismiss with intellectual contempt.I relate to my fellow human beings as, fellow human beings. Not as the issue of a GOD, any GOD.

    in reply to: Argumentation #89869
    steve colborn

    The things human beings use, to produce what we, as a species, need to live, were laid down tens of millions of years ago.
    The oil, coal, gas etc. Why do certain individuals and collections of individuals, come along and claim the OWNERSHIP of these things, including land! today?
    What gives them, these rights of ownership? Could it be the LAWS, that have grown up within CAPITALISM, to sanctify these minority ownership rights? Even using the clain of, DIVINE RIGHT?
    Capitalists cannot claim, PREGENITOR rights. Their ancestors cannot claim ownership on the basis of, PRIOR EXISTENCE, to the rest of humanity.
    They claim ownership rights on the basis of, the FORCE and VIOLENCE that they, control today.
    On this basis, their, ownership, is based on nothing more, nor less, than the MAFIA boss criteria of retaining ownership and control of HIS, or their territories, by the threat and use of violence to preserve the same RIGHTS.
    The minorities control the forces of violence, whether armed forces or police and use the same to ensure THEIR, ownership.
    To claim otherwise, is to misunderstand the nature of propertied society.

    in reply to: The Religion word #89324
    steve colborn
    steve colborn wrote:
    Are people still calling us, “abstract propagandists?
    gnome wrote:
    Yes, quite often.

     What a pity!

    in reply to: The Religion word #89322
    steve colborn

     ‘abstract propagandism’Haven’t heard that term in years! Are people still calling us, “abstract propagandists?

    in reply to: Billy Bragg #89729
    steve colborn

    I must echo the view of our punk mate. It’s a discussion, nothing more nor less. You are a Socialist and that, to me anyway, put’s you way up in my estimation.
    That we disagree on specific points, is neither here nor there. What we do agree on is much, much more important. The urgent need for a SANE society.
    The vast majority of your posts, I find myself in total agreement with. Be well comrade and please reconsider!

    in reply to: Sick Societies #89699
    steve colborn
    Jonathan Chambers wrote:
    ” The work of Professor Keeley, for example, shows clearly that some primitive societies were predicated on the most brutal violence.”

    But then almost immediately contradicts himself by stating;

    “In fact, it’s probably true that there is simply no paradigm that we can discern with regard to the prevalence of violence or otherwise in primitive societies since what data we have or may yet obtain is just too nebulous to be subjected to any kind of rigorous scientific inquiry.”

    Talk about having your cake and eating it! One cannot, “cleary show” anything, based on “nebulous data”.

    in reply to: Billy Bragg #89728
    steve colborn

    Very nice SS, on the one hand you say;
    1. Don’t swear at me – I find it offensive and unnecessary and it only undermines your own case. as can be seen. Is this a ‘comradely’ attitude? Is the the way to progress discussion and debate?
    On the other hand, you do not do me the same service! I find it offensive that you IMPLY or, INFER, my meaning. When there is nothing to infer, semantically or otherwise! My meaning is plain. If YOUR grasp of the english language is so poor, it’s not my fault, or problem. If people, you in this instance, have mistaken my meaning, then it is, in fact, your fault, the meaning was quite explicit and plain in my posts. But, to back up your argument, the only way was to misinterpret and I think deliberately, the thrust of my words. I can see no other reason.
     You say, “And I have not suggested you were violent or explosive in your case, you did this yourself “, so what does this mean? your words again,       “”Perhaps you make my case for me Steve. If you are admitting that your explanations of socialism have roused other workers to violence in defence of those who rob them, then your whole approach is clearly flawed!” .
    Once again, your inference. Nothing I said in my original post could or should have led you to such an inference. Did I say, “oh my words wound them up to such an extent, that a violent reaction was expected”? NO. You inferred it, MARRA, again.
    You go on to say;       I haven’t met you and so cannot say so as fact. It is an assumption on my part based on your own words, the only course of action available to me.
    Once again, assumption and by definition, inference! Where, in my original post could you make such an assumption? nowhere. You had made up your mind, as to my intent, then written your thoughts to correspond, (back up), your assertion. Read my original post again, please!
    And actually, it was not, “YOUR ONLY COURSE OF ACTION”. You could have asked for clarification! But that would not have fitted into your, preconcieved ideas, would it. Bet it read better the way you imagined it EH? Reality go hang.
    And what do you mean by this?
    “In answer to your own assumption, no I don’t promote Red Wedge and never have.” Could you not even see, through your red mist of self-rightious indignation, that I said I was KIDDING!
    Talk about head so far up your backside. No wonder it is so hard to convince workers of the case for SOCIALISM, when, so-called Socialists can’t even read ENGLISH, or have a sense of humour!
    The anti-Bragg article is not insignificant, nor was his purveying of the, VOTE LABOUR message, to young workers. It had, if you would open your brain and think, a deliterious effect on the Socialist case. Or do you reckon Mr Nothingtobraggabout was, by this expostulation, in some way aiding the struggle for Socialism?
    Finally, you talk about remaining CIVIL? Don’t mean to piss on your, ever so nice parade, but we’re living in CAPITALISM. Since when has civility been a prerequisite? Moreover, you are the uncivil one, making inferences and assumptions, about other peoples posts and meanings, when the meaning of the original posts were, UNEQUIVOCAL!
    Capitalism is not a KIDDIES playground as, I expect, time will teach you.
    Don’t tell me what I’m saying, or what I mean. Don’t infer, if you are not sure, ask. It’s a good way to learn. It prevents misunderstading and pointless argument. Or have they not covered that, in your KINDERGARTEN?
    By the way, it’s my LAPTOP and I’ll SHOUT if I want to! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

    in reply to: Billy Bragg #89724
    steve colborn

    You, SS, are doing as others on these threads have done before, Vis a vis, “Perhaps you make my case for me Steve. If you are admitting that your explanations of socialism have roused other workers to violence in defence of those who rob them, then your whole approach is clearly flawed!”         Why use the word, PERHAPS? You’re making it up as you go along, using your presumption of my meaning.
    Actually, SS, I was talking, as is my norm, in a calm, considered way. That my fellow, WORKERS, got agitated to the point of violence was in no wit, to do with any aggressive exposition of the SOCIALIST case on my part.
    So can I ask, nay tell you and others on this site, don’t fucking put words in my mouth again, and act as if you’ve just proved the existence of some tremendous secret in the process. Quite frankly comrade, I’m getting heartily pissed off with having to  explain the meaning of my posts, especially when these posts are quite, self-explanatory.
    That workers react this way, to someone basically telling them, ‘they have been conned all their lives’, is something we, who put the case to fellow workers on a regular basis have become used to. Mayhap you do not do this on a regular basis?
    I’m not as you say, WORKED UP, over Red Wedge. But I, would ask you, why do you, so vociferously defend RED WEDGE? You worked with this bunch of, two faced hypocritical jokers? Perhaps you’re a promoter organising a NEW Red Wedge tour?
    Perhaps the next person I will publicly pillory for not being a REAL SOCIALIST, is you!!! Only kidding there, as I was when I IMPLIED, you dont put the case for SOCIALISM to fellow workers on a regular basis.
    Not very nice people making unfounded inferences,about what you say, is it? Or putting words in your mouth!!!!!!
    You may cogitate on this, the next time you do the same to me, or others.

    in reply to: Billy Bragg #89722
    steve colborn

    Billy, (nothing really to brag about Bragg) is my class enemy, my political enemy. Red Wedge was specifically set up to get youthful workers to join the, anti-working class Labour party. For this alone, he deserves and has, my antipathy.
    If I wandered into a bar and saw Mr Bragg, I would call him a twat, for the disservice he has done to the working-class and by inference, the case for SOCIALISM.
    Bragg, may not be a Socialist as defined by The Socialist Party but, he has claimed the label of, SOCIALIST. One more distraction from the real fight and case we need to make.
    For this also, he has my complete and utter, disrespect.
    I’m not a SOCIALIST to be nice to my class, or poltical enemas, sorry, enemies! I’m here to expose these politically impotent and objectionable fakers, for the frauds they are. Keeping me and mine in servitude and poverty, whilst the wealthy parasites lord it over us.
    I have, SS, personally had many people, aggressively opposing the CASE I have expostulated. To the extent, that I have expected them to support their masters with violence! So be it. If they are so deluded AFTER, hearing the case for their own emancipation, that they would profer violence in the defence of the PARASITES! well, I’m not a pacifist!
    You can talk and bemoan and expostulate that, BILLY, is  no better, nor worse, than a multitude of others of these, intellectually redundant cretins. Then I will deal, as I have ever, with them as they come along.
    He had a platform, (and it was not a platform of LOVE SONGS, or songs about life) but a platform that he used to encourage young workers along the well trodden and redundant route of supporting LABOUR. He had a platform, and the evidence was out there, for him, as well as me, a worker, to put forward the case for a SANE AND RATIONAL social system. He chose, in ignorance, to further the aims of LABOUR. I learnt of the case for a better world, why could he not? The evidence of the insanty of CAPITALISM, was all around him! Even now, it’s still there, staring him and other workers in the FACE.
    It does not take The Socialist Party to point out this insanity, CAPITALISM.  Capitalism does this for us! Rational thought points it out.#
    If I have one objection to the article on Bragg, it is that it did’nt go far enough in depth, to his absurd support of LABOUR.
    We should expose these shysters for what they are! A hindrance to reaching a sane society.
    Personal abuse, you say, is not the way forward, in dealing with the likes of Bragg? Do you really think, he would avail us, SOCIALISTS, the chance to show his proclivity for LABOUR up, for what it is?
    I think not. So whether you think my, SPLEEN VENTING, is useful or not, I’ll take it. Sure clears the cobwebs and my angst as a, MERE, worker. 

    in reply to: Billy Bragg #89720
    steve colborn

    Oh and johndwhite, I think my post was well mannered, considering what I was actually going to comment about this cretinous moron. And moreover, I,m not representing the party on this site but my own views. If I want to represent the party, I’ll do it on a public platform, at a meeting, or with an article in the standard!
    Enuff said!

    in reply to: Billy Bragg #89719
    steve colborn

    So accordin to you, SS you “don’t believe he has ever set his stall out as a overtly politicised artist pursuing political ends through music.”
    Well thats intereting, as the following suggests,
    Red Wedge

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to: navigation, search


    Red Wedge was a collective of musicians who attempted to engage young people with politics in general, and the policies of the Labour Party in particular, during the period leading up to the 1987 general election, in the hope of ousting the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher.
    Fronted by Billy Bragg (whose 1985 Jobs for Youth tour had been a prototype of sorts for Red Wedge), Paul Weller and The Communards lead singer Jimmy Somerville, they put on concert tours and appeared in the media, adding their support to the Labour Party campaign.

    “Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge”, a 1919 lithograph by Lissitzky
    The group was launched on 21 November 1985, with Bragg, Weller, Strawberry Switchblade and Kirsty MacColl invited to a reception at the Palace of Westminster hosted by Labour MP Robin Cook. The collective took its name from a 1919 poster by Russian constructivist artist El Lissitzky, Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge. Despite this echo of the Russian Civil War, Red Wedge was not a communist organisation; neither was it officially part of the Labour Party, but it did initially have office space at Labour’s headquarters. The group’s logo, also inspired by the Lissitzky poster, was designed by Neville Brody.
    Red Wedge organised a number of major tours. The first, in January and February 1986, featured Bragg, Weller’s band The Style Council, The Communards, Junior Giscombe, Lorna Gee and Jerry Dammers, and picked up guest appearances from Madness, Heaven 17, Bananarama, Prefab Sprout, Elvis Costello, Gary Kemp, Tom Robinson, Sade, The Beat, Lloyd Cole, The Blow Monkeys and The Smiths along the way.
    When the general election was called in 1987, Red Wedge also organised a comedy tour featuring Lenny Henry, Ben Elton, Robbie Coltrane, Craig Charles, Phill Jupitus and Harry Enfield, and another tour by the main musical participants along with The The, Captain Sensible and the Blow Monkeys. The group also published an election pamphlet, Move On Up, with a foreword by Labour leader Neil Kinnock.
    After the 1987 election produced a third consecutive Conservative victory, many of the musical collective drifted away. A few further gigs were arranged and the group’s magazine Well Red continued, but funding eventually ran out and Red Wedge was formally disbanded in 1990.
    So, according to you SS, he never ” set his stall out as a overtly politicised artist pursuing political ends through music.”
    The above proves differently. Gonna have to read up on facts before jumping in with boths bfeet MARRA.
    He used and uses hi popularity to support the anti working-class, pro capitalist Labour Party and gets and deserves my utter contempt. Thick numpty he is.

    in reply to: Materialism, Determinism, Free Will #89735
    steve colborn

    If you can get hold of a copy of Vin Marattys dissertation “Is Marxism a determinist ideology” do so. Its a good read.

    in reply to: The Religion word #89266
    steve colborn

    Having read all of the posts on this thread, I find myself unable to find an instance where northern light lied about their views! Nor misrepresented them for ulterior motives.
    Nor can I find where NL advocates reforms or reformism.
    Why  can’t we take a fellow worker at his word? Lets get back on topic.

    in reply to: Billy Bragg #89715
    steve colborn

    Billy Bragg? mmmmmmmm, the archetypal new working class leader. No understanding of a possible future society, make cash now, by writing supposed working class, anti-establishment, trite, tripe!Good old billy. what, in North east parlence, we call a, FUCKWIT.And BILLY, if you read these posts, we know you’re not a MARXIST, whatever that means, nor a Socialist. Just an ex worker with NEW cash, being a purveyor of crap.Made you rich, so why get involved in the struggle?And a TWEET? keep chirping dick head.

    in reply to: The Religion word #89236
    steve colborn
    Ed wrote:
    Except there must be a rational explanation based in science. The issue is whether the event can be explained within the context of our current level of scientific understanding or not. It would be arrogant of us to think we have reached the pinnacle of scientific discovery it’s also clearly not the case. However, this does not mean that we should resort to primitive reasoning declaring that unknown science is magic or the work of God or spirits.

    Totally agree Ed. Just because our level of scientific understanding is not up to the task at the moment, does not mean that that, will always be the case.As to the end of your comment, all I will say is, that northern light in particular never alluded to, “unknown science is magic or the work of God or spirits”, nor did he want to resort to primitive reasoning.

Viewing 15 posts - 841 through 855 (of 880 total)