SPGB
- Thread starter Proper Tidy
- Start date
Hi Louis, thanks for the appreciation, of am I missing something?
As for those "damnable lefties" I can't help imagining that if all of those lefties had been Socialists, you know had campaigned for the end of the wages system, for common ownership, democratic control, from ability to need, the society Marx among others worked for, and had got together in one organisation, we would probably have grown up with Socialism and my grandchildren would be living it.
Am I wrong?
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
00
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannysp View Post
OK then you vote for your national capitalist party, I guarantee you will get fucked up the arse but they might, just might charge you a little less and you never know, they could offer you some subsidised lube. That'll be so much better.
Fantastic race the capitalists, fantastic.
Quote: Proper Tidy
Whereas by abstaining, you still get fucked up the arse, but you don't have even the slightest say in who fucks you up the arse, how hard, and how fast.
World of difference, that.
When you put a mark next to the preferred pederast on your ballot paper, being fucked up the arse is no longer rape it's consensual. You are in effect putting your head between your knees puckering your freckle and pointing it skywards. When I get a ballot paper and there ain't a Socialist Party to vote for, I write through the boxes where I'm supposed to put my cross www.worldsocialism.org. In writing that I'm saying I know I'm being violated, and, I'm not prepared to submit to or legitimise those perverts who seek to violate me and my fellow workers.
Unlike you Proper Tidy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannysp View Post
OK then you vote for your national capitalist party, I guarantee you will get fucked up the arse but they might, just might charge you a little less and you never know, they could offer you some subsidised lube. That'll be so much better.
Fantastic race the capitalists, fantastic.
Quote: Proper Tidy
Whereas by abstaining, you still get fucked up the arse, but you don't have even the slightest say in who fucks you up the arse, how hard, and how fast.
World of difference, that.
When you put a mark next to the preferred pederast on your ballot paper, being fucked up the arse is no longer rape it's consensual. You are in effect putting your head between your knees puckering your freckle and pointing it skywards. When I get a ballot paper and there ain't a Socialist Party to vote for, I write through the boxes where I'm supposed to put my cross www.worldsocialism.org. In writing that I'm saying I know I'm being violated, and, I'm not prepared to submit to or legitimise those perverts who seek to violate me and my fellow workers.
Unlike you Proper Tidy.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Wow, it's all coming out now. How easy to lift the rock.
Thanks Louis I see it all now, again thanks.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
Good analogy stick with it; I don't think you could put the 'case' any more clearly.
Louis MacNeice
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
Not the foreign ones surely; 'I have seen with my own eyes what excess and uncontrolled immigration actually does to communities. I feel nothing but disgust...'
Have you met dannysp? You could swap opinions on mass immigration and anal sex; it would make for an edifying and illuminating exchange.
Louis MacNeice
p.s. perhaps GD could chip in with something on 'hysteria'?
Hi Tom
As they say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" so where is this proof of the "supernatural"? Which is of course a one word oxymoron, well none as far as I can see.
I'm quoting selectively again, you wrote "and if someone wishes to believe in the existence of supernatural or spiritual forces, then this could be considered an entirely rational position" you then go on to say "It's 10 o'clock at night and I'm knackered, so please don't expect me to start itemising the circumstances when it's OK to believe in what you and I know is a load of old cobblers".
You seem to be contradicting yourself again. To believe and to know are to different things entirely, why should the Party let anybody join when the applicant believes in a load of old cobblers? The question we should ask is, where are all these religious committed Socialists? They're not being turned away from the Party in droves I can assure you. Let's put it this way, the more we identify with the spurious, the less we identify with reality, the more we identify with a god or gods the less we identify with humans.
Hope you got a good nights sleep.
So I spun it.[/QUOTE]
The problem is, Proper Tidy, the S.P.G.B. does not live in the clouds. The idea that it is aloof and detached from the class struggle is a misunderstanding of the Party's case.
Proper Tidy
Arsed
Yet a prevalent one. So, is that a problem of how the party and its members come across, or everybody else?
You know the answer. If you don't then re-read the contributions on here.
dennisr
the acceptable face
I think folk have been waiting for some examples - well, even one - for most of this thread.
Danny,
I have not said there is any proof of the supernatural, spiritual, or religious. I hold both a theological and a scientific position. I hold that there is no god or other similar supernatural being. There is a large body of science to support this position, but no proof.
As I stated earlier, I accept that the pattern of scientific, historical and anthropological inquiry would seem to suggest there is no kind of god, and that most religions are political ideologies. This does not mean there is no god, only that there is no serious evidence for the existence of any god, and furthermore, there are other historical and materialist reasons why people might believe in god, and those reasons are quite separate from the belief itself.
As there is no serious evidence for the existence of any god, then there is no particular reason why I should believe there is a god, and as it happens, I do not believe in god. That does not mean there is or is not a god, only that I do not believe there is a god and I have reasonable grounds for my belief, or absence of belief.
Against this background, I would be surprised if anyone were to suggest that atheism is an irrational position. Likewise, I must concede that belief in a god can be a perfectly rational position. In the end, neither position can be falsified at this time. That is not to affirm faith over reason. Quite the opposite. It is to assert the importance of reason and inquiry in determining the basis and value of belief systems. I am happy when religionists assert that belief in God is non-falsifiable, for they place themselves in the realms of science and reason. The only remaining question then is, which belief system is closest to the truth?
On the specific issue of religious people joining the S.P.G.B., I don't have a particular problem with it. I think there would be a strong movement towards spirituality within a socialist society. I take a scientific view of these things and I am not a spiritual person, as I am keen to emphasise, but it would be arrogant to deny the possibilities presented by other perspectives and other means of inquiry. The human brain and mind are still not understood at any significant level. An analogy with our knowledge of the great forests and oceans is apt. We have barely tapped our potential and its possibilities.
You are right that Party members do often come across sometimes as brusque know-alls in debate. I apologise for my own failings in this regard. I am now in a (very dull) debate with Danny on the admission of religious people to the SPGB, and I'm starting to feel like I've been called in to see the fucking headmaster. Maybe there's some lube waiting for me.
Hi Tom, GD, Robbo
When it comes to insults, the crowd on here should sharpen up their knives if they want to draw blood, here's something from the May 74 Socialist Standard they might find instructive.
In 1943 the West Ham branch of the Socialist Party of Great Britain challenged the local branch of the Communist Party to debate the respective objects of the parties. A reply from their branch secretary dated the 23rd February stated that "the Communist Party has NO dealings with murderers, liars, renegades or assassins. The Communist Party of Great Britain refuses with disgust to deal with such renegades. We treat them as vipers to be destroyed".
Got to go some to beat that.
When it comes to insults, the crowd on here should sharpen up their knives if they want to draw blood, here's something from the May 74 Socialist Standard they might find instructive.
In 1943 the West Ham branch of the Socialist Party of Great Britain challenged the local branch of the Communist Party to debate the respective objects of the parties. A reply from their branch secretary dated the 23rd February stated that "the Communist Party has NO dealings with murderers, liars, renegades or assassins. The Communist Party of Great Britain refuses with disgust to deal with such renegades. We treat them as vipers to be destroyed".
Got to go some to beat that.
Proper Tidy
Arsed
You are right that Party members do often come across sometimes as brusque know-alls in debate. I apologise for my own failings in this regard. I am now in a (very dull) debate with Danny on the admission of religious people to the SPGB, and I'm starting to feel like I've been called in to see the fucking headmaster. Maybe there's some lube waiting for me.
You have my sympathies, really
I jest. In all fairness, I think part of the problem is the nature of the case the S.P.G.B. are trying to make.
It's not easy telling the truth. I'm often surprised when people complain about dishonest politicians. Politicians are meant to be dishonest. It is the politicians who are honest who are never listened to. The dishonest ones are feted and admired. There's a reason for that, a weakness all of us share, which is a resistance to the truth.
Herbert Agar, an American journalist, distributionist and popular historian wrote this line:-
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear".
Or, as another sage said - "The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off".
I think at least part of the reason many don't like the S.P.G.B. is, if anything, a reluctance to confront reality.
It's not easy telling the truth. I'm often surprised when people complain about dishonest politicians. Politicians are meant to be dishonest. It is the politicians who are honest who are never listened to. The dishonest ones are feted and admired. There's a reason for that, a weakness all of us share, which is a resistance to the truth.
Herbert Agar, an American journalist, distributionist and popular historian wrote this line:-
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear".
Or, as another sage said - "The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off".
I think at least part of the reason many don't like the S.P.G.B. is, if anything, a reluctance to confront reality.
You are right that Party members do often come across sometimes as brusque know-alls in debate. I apologise for my own failings in this regard. I am now in a (very dull) debate with Danny on the admission of religious people to the SPGB, and I'm starting to feel like I've been called in to see the fucking headmaster. Maybe there's some lube waiting for me.
Sorry if I read like a headmaster because the last school I went to had one who was an alchoholic religeous nutter who liked beating boys.
The "lube" jibe is cheap and uncalled for, as I and the SPGB wish to scew no one.
Write out one hundred times "I must in future reread and think about wot I done wrote, before hitting the 'submit reply' button.
Proper Tidy
Arsed
I also think quoting obscure branch releases from 1943 is unlikely to change the image significantly
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
Gravediggers
New Member
I find it hard to get my head around the assertion that a belief in God is non-falsifiable?
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
You get the insults you deserve danny and it's pointing and laughing in 2010.
Louis MacNeice
There is another one that I quote from memory, "It is extremely difficult to change peoples minds when maintaining their way of life and sense of self relies on them not changing it.
People have egos, tell them they're a wage slave, therefor bred to be servile, no matter how gently put, tends to as the saying goes, piss them off.
People have egos, tell them they're a wage slave, therefor bred to be servile, no matter how gently put, tends to as the saying goes, piss them off.
whichfinder
New Member
Danny
Has it not occured to you that the Party is not turning away these religious committed socialists "in droves" for the very simple reason that the vast majority of them simply dont bother to apply. So you just dont get to hear of them. Once they get wind of the religious ban, thats it - they're off. Or at least the great majority of them. Ive actually made a point of trying to contact some of these people before they disappear into the ether. There are quite a few of them Ive encountered over the years and this is only me - one person - limited to internet contacts. There must be many many more out there. Maybe the Socialist Standard ought to do a survey to find out how many of its readers are religious. You might be surprised.
OK so religion is irrational but dont you think it is equally irrational to turn away people who clearly want and understand socialism and are therefore fully committed socialists. It is unnecessarily restricting the growth of the party for the sake of a dogma. All the necessary safeguards are in place so that if perchance someone's religious views did induce them to move away from a socialist outlook this would "come out in the wash" so to speak. The religious ban is totally superfluous and unneccesary.
If religion really is the great enemy of socialism as it is made out to be then clearly the great majority of people will have to be converted to athesim before you can have socialism. This is simply not on the cards. Whats more it makes an extremely difficult task appear even more difficult.
Far better to take a pragmatic view on this issue. Drop the ban on religious views but ensure that the individuals applying are fully socialist in their outlook. If the SPGB had done this from the start I have no doubt that it would be several times larger than it is today. Of course the religious ban is not the only reason why it is small - probably the major reason is what i call the self perpetuating small party syndrome - but any restriction on its growth that can be removed ought to be removed.
cheers
R
Similar threads
