steve colborn
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Why dont you go back to the thread that originally encompassed this debate Jonathan? This is 2 threads you’ve migrated this discussion to!
Because one has an inexplicable experience, which causes them pause in their otherwise, so-called, logical view of society, doesn’t mean they are GOD BOTHERERS!IT means just what it says on the tin, they have had an inexplicable experience. If looked into, these experiences may, or may not, have a RATIONAL explanation. It does not, instantly lead to the conclusion that these people, drop to their knees and pray to a GOD, or GODS.
That is why we need this discussion. I do not wish to put words into the mouth of northern lights, but I presume if he were to join the party and subsequently put the case for socialism, religion would be a non-issue. As he says, his religious views, whatever they are, are his PERSONAL views, full stop.
The discussion on religion and party membership is, as has been proved on this thread, a difficult and and oft times, divisive one. On the one hand a non-materialist base for considering society, on the other, a “materialist conception of history” and the world around us. CONUNDRUM.
What we do know, is that it would appear that members of the party and northern lights, robbo and quite a few other non-members, have one thing in common, a detestation of the insane capitalist system and a concommitant desire to end it.
It has not been beyond the wit of man to accomplish the many brilliant things that have been managed over the centuries, with more to come. Therefore, I believe that is not beyond the with of socialists both within and without the party to square, this most troublesome of circles.
This discussion should be used as a base for this. A discussion put, in a spirit of amity and comradeship. With both eyes kept on the ultimate goal, a better society, whatever it may be CALLED.I would just like to echo the sentiments of OGW and northern light. He was my friend and my life was made poorer for his loss. Indeed, The Socialist Party in the N.East was poorer for his death.
An intelligent, thoughtful, gentle man but what a socialist. I wish he was still alive, I miss him.Jonathan, you originally stated;
“And I’m afraid you did suggest that socialism will involve an increase in production on all fronts. That’s what I’ve been questioning.”
You never retracted this false assertion, even though it was proven incorrect and was merely your ASSUMPTION, of what OGW meant.
Now you make up even more delusional clains; “How you interpret OGW’s initial comment is your own business, Steve. In the absence of any qualification whatsoever to his suggestion that Marxist socialism will involve an increase in production my interpretation was valid. My argument has been that socialism will increase production where necessary and reduce or halt useless production. OGW disagrees and wants a socialist society so that we can produce even more useless shite that damages the planet and serves no-one’s interests. Or perhaps you want to argue that OGW didn’t suggest that he’s a socialist because he wants – among other things – to gorge himself on even more Big Macs?”
Your words again, not OGW’s.
But now you will not back up your initial assertion, you have gone from claiming OGW wants production increasing on ALL fronts, to merely an increase in production.
Furthermore, where, anywhere, did OGW want production of, as YOU say, more useless shite. Once again, I have read the previous posts and cannot find a single instance to back up this claim.
Also, you state, “How you interpret OGW’s initial comment is your own business, Steve.”
In actual fact, I did not interpret his words. They were expressed quite clearly, with no need for interpretation. Once again, here are his OWN words,
“I guess noone was interested in the Marxist view of production and consumption. If your motivation is to have a revolution in order to reduce production and consuption it has nothing to do with marxist socialism”
Can you not see, that the insults came from you, in your unjustified assertions of things that were never written? Claiming what was never written and using this to perpetuate this argument, YOU generated.
Stop INFERRING WHAT WAS WRITTEN, OR MEANT, just read what was written.
It is YOU Jonathan, who has been AGGRESSIVE and INSULTING from the outset. Not only towards OGW but to myself as well, a stance, neither warranted nor welcomed. It is you, Jonathan, that has let your bias and prejudice for and towards minimalism, et you to act like a pouncing cat on a mouse. Only these mice aint mice, but intelligent, self-aware SOCIALISTS, who will not be cowed by your, less than polite verbosity.
I do not debate with people who listen to what I say then completely change it. You were wrong, you are wrong, yet you continue to pursue this error with the tenacity of a lemming running for the cliff edge.
QUITE FRANKLY, Jonny Boy, I have better things to do. Whether OGW continues trying to point out your error, is his prerogative, as for me!!! I think I’ll continue trying to get socialism, I’m outa here.
Is there any part of this statement that mentions increases in production, either in singular aspects or ACROSS ALL FRONTS, read it carefully now JONATHAN,
“I guess noone was interested in the Marxist view of production and consumption. If your motivation is to have a revolution in order to reduce production and consuption it has nothing to do with marxist socialism”
Any part at all JONATHAN? thought not.This is not an academic exercise, nor an exercise in semantics. Who can twist and turn like a gymnast the best. No-one is point scoring. I would imagine we all want the same thing? a world that is not Capitalism.
Here endeth the lesson. Lets get over ourselves and get the ultimate over capitalism, IT’S END.What one can infer, by your posts, is that, with your minimalist views you do, in fact, imagine a reduction of production and consumption! Or is that a SHAMEFUL misrepresentation of YOUR views? “it is blatantly obvious from OGW’s statement that he thinks that a socialist revolution will necessarily increase production. I’ve merely suggested that that won’t be the case.” And it is blatantly obvious from OGW’s comment, that neither did he, one way or another.
it is blatantly obvious from OGW’s statement that he thinks that a socialist revolution will necessarily increase production.
Blatantly obvious to whom? You, in your interpretation?Jonathan Chambers wrote:Blimey. This is really straightforward. Leaving aside the fact that neither Sussex Socialist nor myself ever said that our motivation was anything like what we’ve been accused of, it is blatantly obvious from OGW’s statement that he thinks that a socialist revolution will necessarily increase production. I’ve merely suggested that that won’t be the case. And what’s happened? A series of distortions and hilarious ad hominem attacks is what’s happened. ShamefulOnce again, you “INFER”, what OGW meant, or thinks! I think he made it quite plain what he meant. It was nothing like your inference of his written words. Once again, here is his post. No distortions, merely a restatement of what he actually wrote; “I guess noone was interested in the Marxist view of production and consumption. If your motivation is to have a revolution in order to reduce production and consuption it has nothing to do with marxist socialism”What can only be deemed shameful is your presumption, of what he meant. When in actuality, he stated quite unequivocally his meaning and intent! And in post 27, there was no mention of “increasing production on all fronts”, they were your words not his. Or, if you prefer, your inference of his words, not his actual words.Read post 27 again and you cannot disavow the veracity of this statement
“And I’m afraid you did suggest that socialism will involve an increase in production on all fronts. That’s what I’ve been questioning.” This is what you stated Jonathon.
Here is POST 27 in its entirety;
“I guess noone was interested in the Marxist view of production and consumption. If your motivation is to have a revolution in order to reduce production and consuption it has nothing to do with marxist socialism”
Where in this post is EVEN a suggestion that Socialisn will involve an increase in production on all fronts? Nowhere!
Then you, in post 41, had the temerity to say that, “There’s some seriously sloppy reading going on here” and furthermore had the gall to follow up with, “I had thought that a forum peopled by socialists might be a little more considered than the usual bear-pits. Just goes to vindicate what I’ve been saying about human nature on another thread.”
You are the one guilty of sloppy reading and moreover, guilty of putting non-existent words into someone elses mouth. Which is a vindication of nothing, least of all your argument on non-existent human nature.
Jonathan Chambers wrote:“What I’ve referred to as a predilection towards violence – and our aggression as a species along with our prehensile thumbs is one of the things that has ensured our survival as a species – is as much a part of us as our ability to co-operate.”You continue to claim that we, as a human species, have a prediliction, a propensity towards violence. Moreover, you claim that this has helped to ensure our survival as a species! Where is your evidence? that we are naturally aggressive. If aggression is natural and or instinctive to human beings, it must of necessity be that way for every member of the human family and this is clearly not the case.The cases where people have actually let themselves be killed, rather than use violence to defend themselves, is antithetical to your argument. The only way a case for innate aggression in humans could hold up, is if it can be proved that the these,individuals and moreover groups were not, in fact humans but some subspecies!As you said in one of your earlier posts, for something to be human nature, it must apply to ALL humans. And I take the word PREDILICTION to be a case of the human nature argument and it is clearly, as stated,not the case.One last thought. A mammoth is bigger and stronger than a human and has a greater capacity for violence than a human. The only way to kill this animal for food, is to cooperate with other weak humans. To work together. The act of killing it does, in fact, need violence but is this done out of an innate violence, or out of need and necessity?
“And I’m afraid you did suggest that socialism will involve an increase in production on all fronts. That’s what I’ve been questioning.”
Looking at the previous posts, I cannot see where OGW made this statement! Can you tell me the post number?
“The fact that capitalism prevents you from satisfying your needs is, I’d suggest, your motivation for being a socialist. That’s a separate issue to your involvement in the class struggle which is a day-to-day conflict about which you have no choice.”
Surely not being able to satisfy ones needs is, a part of the class struggle and not seperate from it and for many, it is indeed, a day to day conflict and struggle. And furthermore, for many they have no choice becaquse not being able to fulfill ones needs is directly attributable to ones relationship to the means of producing and didtributing these things.
