SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The history of popular culture in this country is littered with banned contributions from musicians, artists, film makers etc. Without fail, the censored items seem to generate more interest than they may otherwise have generated without the censored tag.The lesson we see going way over the head of Admin is, if you want to draw attention to something even more, censor it.So I expect this thread will see a reemergence of interest.I couldn't write this stuff.
I think the fact that Admin has locked an entire thread on this forum, that was set up to discuss treatment of party members past and present and so disallowing an entire subject, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that censorship does indeed exist within the hallowed precincts of the SPGB.Imagine if the SWP get a whiff of this hypocrisy.
Steve and OGWUnfortunately it looks like I was right about the party being in a bridge burning mode of late. Seems the two of you are now officially SPGB "renegades".I haven't yet figured out why party members seem more adept at burning bridges than building them? I am leaning towards the hostility clause as the possible source of infection.Now, what did Marx say about history repeating itself? I'm sure I read it somewhere recently.For reference, this is very much on topic and is way less inflammatory than being called a mofo.
EdI am sorry for being a bit snappy on my last post. I have a flu like illness right now, I feel like shit and suspect it will lead to a chest infection and medical intervention. The joys of Cystic Fibrosis.
EdI may not be a Marxist intellectual, but I am not stupid and I most certainly can read. What did you think the reference to burning the bridge before setting a foot on it, refers to?If some think it worthwhile approaching Steve Coleman for assistance, I think it very, very foolish to slag him off before hand. Wouldn't you agree?
Essentially the Tories are using every trick they can come up with to dismantle the welfare system as quickly as possible. The case of the Philpott's are an extreme case, yet are being rolled out as an example of what the benefits system leads to. The Tories would like to see a return to Victorian, workhouse values. They are in essence social Darwinists. If you are at the bottom of the shitpile, you are there because you are of inferior stock and are therefore worthless.The irony of the Tory attack on the benefit system is that what we have today is a result of Thatchers capitalist love affair from the 1980s. She systematically destroyed UK industry, (the trade union movement with it) and set the UK up as a "service economy". With most of the wealth concentrated in the south east of England.In areas of high unemployment, people were encouraged to sign off the dole and on to the "sick", helping keep the the unemployment figures under control.Whole regions in the UK were left to rot. Once thriving communities, decimated by continual high unemployment. New generations born into poverty and low expectations with little chance of improvement.The truth is, the Philpott's are an indictment of capitalism.So given the fact the Tories helped create families like this, it is the Tories that should be held accountable. Yet they are playing the moral high ground, using these people to attack the welfare system and the working class of this country are slurping it up.The Tories, must be laughing all the way to the bank, knowing how easy it is to fool the average worker.I feel sick to my stomach!
I have been checking out the site that is referred to (SPopen), seems that burning bridges is becoming a SPGB habit of late. Only In this case the bridge is being burnt before a foot has been set upon it. Makes no sense!
ALB wrote:He's also a practising Roman Catholic and is engaged in bashing the poor just as much to win votes as to save money. The new pope has said he wants to help the poor. So will he excommunicate him? Of course not. The both of them are hypocrites. Not of course that it would make any difference either way. Even if Duncan Smith was sincere or a saint he would still have to do what the economic laws of capitalism require him to do as capitalism can't be made to work in the interests of the majority. Still, it's all grist to our mill.Thanks for the link Adam.Maybe we are being too hard on that fine upstanding christian. Maybe old Smithy boy is helping to fulfill core christian tenets."Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." and "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth."As free thinkers we know that contradiction equates to, "If you are poor, shut up, stop moaning about it and you will get your reward when you are dead".Ian Duncan Smith, the righteous christian, merely doing The Lords work. Saving us lowly workers from our inability to resist the temptations of Mammon.Gawd bless 'im, I say.
Hi kohara66Would you be able to post a link. I have had a look and found what I thought was the petition, but I was hesitant in giving my email details. If you provide a link and it is the same as I have found I will sign it.Ultimately it will not change anything, but it would be good to think it could damage the pleasant chaps career if enough people sign it. Always a pleasure to see politicians fall on their own sword.
Marx said "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."He forgot, "Then ad infinitum as the social Darwinism brigade." Those things are so blatantly inhuman in their thinking and spouting.But the ultimate tragedy is that, the working class who hold the real power, let the parasites get away with it every time. How many times can ya fall for a suckerpunch before ya twig on?
I agree with a lot of what you say in post #59 Alan.
Alanjjohnstone wrote:That is the task for socialists. Other members know from past contributions that i have sought to argue for greater co-operation and collaboration with what is called the “thin red line”, various anarchist and Left Communists, who constitute the non-market, anti-state sector. But as some of us have problems with them and some of them have problems with ourselves. It will be enough not to be hostile to them, IMHO.I too think the SPGB are too aloof regarding some of the other revolutionary groups out there.I was pointing to that type of attitude on the "the labour movement must be a safe place for women" thread. Imagine if we could build bridges with other groups, find common ground with some? ( I apologise for using "we", I keep doing it, habit I guess) I know some party members are trying very patiently to build bridges with other political groups, but as Alan points out there is historical hostility. Could well be an in built consequence of the hostility clause in the DoP? Admit it or not, that little bit of history influences big time.
"The grandaddy of them all, though, is Matthew Parris. In 1984, Parris, at the time a freshly elected Tory MP flushed with enthusiasm for the Thatcherdom, agreed to try living for a week in a Newcastle bedsit on £26.80, the supplementary benefit paid to a single unemployed man.For the Benefit of Mr Parris, a World in Action documentary that drew a record 13 million viewers, showed "the comfortable Tory MP for West Derbyshire", as Julian Barnes called him in an Observer review, informing an audience of Tory ladies that unemployment "should be uncomfortable", in order to sharpen the appetites of the jobless for work.Since the government of which he was a member had just cut benefits by 5% and was presiding – as Parris himself wrote – "over an economy in which whole forests of jobs in manufacturing were falling to the monetarist axe", a lot of people wanted to see how he would survive his week. He didn't.The programme showed Parris arriving on Tyneside and signing on. He spent £11 on food, £2.50 on a terrace ticket for a Newcastle United game and 72p on a bus ticket to get there. And, as Barnes observed, "with two days to go he was down to his last 61p, and his plan to save £3 out of his £26.80 had collapsed. On his last evening the gas and electricity ran out and he loitered in a working men's club, unable to afford a drink."Parris, who acknowledges his week-long flirtation with poverty launched his subsequent successful career as a full-time writer and broadcaster, conceded he had not survived as well as he hoped, but refused to admit benefits were too low or that society, economics or politics could be blamed for individuals' problems."http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/shortcuts/2013/apr/02/iain-duncan-smith-mp-living-on-benefits
Ed wrote:I am interested in both Socialist Punk and Alex's opinion on what a Socialist should do if elected to either a council seat or a parliamentary seat? I should add there's no set party position on this. Rather it would be debated and put to a vote when the candidate is elected. Just interested to know where you guys would stand in that debate.Hi EdApologies for the delay in replying, wanted to get on sooner but personal stuff has a habit of interfering.I have given the matter some thought, it is not any easy one and this will be a bit rough around the edges.Ultimately, in a socialist society councilors and other "political bodies" would be 100% public servants and as such must represent the views and wants of the democratic majority. But in the event of the first socialist candidate being voted in, within capitalism, they would find themselves "against the grain". The only thing that could be done is for the elected socialist to keep the voters fully informed about the realities of what their political masters are up to at that level. Try to encourage voters to get involved with as many issues as possible. It is what real democracy is about. Most people are more than capable of it, so the elected socialist would need to help to nurture that within the community.They would be there to represent the people, but in the event of the electorate wishing the elected socialist to act against their socialist principles, well…………..?But having an elected socialist councilor or whatever, suggests a lot of hard graft, connecting with local people, would have been undertaken. And that as they say, is another story entirely. But one I will have a stab at later.
Hi EdThat is all good stuff you mention, excellent.You may well be aware from previous threads and posts that I was heavily involved with North East branch activities in the nineties and we did pretty much the same things as well as a good amount of electoral activity. I know first hand how much hard work, time and money goes into activity not to mention the frustration of seeing painfully slow progress. So I hope I am allowed to speak about what I experienced, good or bad.I am not seeking to offend or dishearten anyone. I see the same effort being given by others like yourself, with the same results and I get disheartened still. Somehow we are not reaching, for want of a better term "everyday" people. Campaigners and activists, are potential fertile ground, especially in these times, but they are a minority in a sea of frustrated, scared people.Maybe I am looking for a magic formula.Actually I think the reality is that it just takes bodies and even more hard work in as many areas as possible, over and over again.I have some ideas, but I think it best to transfer this discussion over to the "Future Election" thread, as this one is veering off topic slightly. But before I end it here, I just want to say it only got this far here because of a few less than constructive comments that demonstrated the aloof attitude I and others picked up on in this thread.No stone left unturned, no burning bridges. Words are powerful things and the wrong word in the wrong place can do a lot of damage to the WSM image among potential sympathisers.As Steve very aptly puts it:
Steve Colborn wrote:It's not exactly a case of, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", but anyone who has grievances with aspects of Capitalism, or Capitalism in it's entirety, is surely more fertile ground for Socialists to put their case to, than those who accept Capitalism, unequivocally.
