# [Sat 19th Nov 2011] "What's wrong with using parliament?" (Leeds - 19th November) (Leeds, LS1 3DL)



## JimN (Nov 16, 2011)

Keith Scholey will start the discussion with a criticism of the stereotypical view that socialism can be legislated into existence. He will follow this up by arguing that electoral activity is a regrettably necessary part of the process of achieving socialism because of the need to control the forces of the state.

Saturday, November 19, 2011, 2:00pm

The Victoria Hotel (Albert Room), 28 Great George Street, Leeds LS1 3DL

All welcome.

Free entry

Full details of this and all SPGB events can be found here:
http://www.meetup.com/The-Socialist-Party-of-Great-Britain/events/39391972/


----------



## Edie (Nov 16, 2011)

Hmm I would quite like to go along to some real life politics rather then just talk about it on here, but 2pm on a Sat is a bit impossible if you have kids.

I don't quite get what he's gonna be talking about tbh. But you don't get many things in Leeds so I would quite like to go.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2011)

JimN said:


>



Traditional to have different people arguing for either side of the question.


----------



## Edie (Nov 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Traditional to have different people arguing for either side of the question.


Is he gonna be arguing against himself then? I think that was what was confusing me


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2011)

Seems to be...


----------



## Edie (Nov 16, 2011)

What would be the situation about taking along a 6 year old kid with his DSi? I'd sit at the back and leave if he started to play up.

Also, what kind of people go to these events?

eta: not at you butchers, at the bloke whose promoting it.


----------



## JimN (Nov 16, 2011)

Edie said:


> What would be the situation about taking along a 6 year old kid with his DSi? I'd sit at the back and leave if he started to play up.



That wouldn't be a problem.


Edie said:


> Also, what kind of people go to these events?



All kinds of people interested in politics. Hopefully people with different views, otherwise there won't be much of a discussion. Keith is only going to kick it off.



Edie said:


> eta: not at you butchers, at the bloke whose promoting it.



He might be there too. You never know.


----------



## JimN (Nov 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Traditional to have different people arguing for either side of the question.



Didn't know you'd become a traditionalist. Comes to us all in the end, I suppose.


----------



## Edie (Nov 16, 2011)

JimN said:


> That wouldn't be a problem.
> 
> All kinds of people interested in politics. Hopefully people with different views, otherwise there won't be much of a discussion. Keith is only going to kick it off.
> 
> He might be there too. You never know.


Thanks for your response. I'll come if I don't bottle it and if I don't tell the husband and say I'm going Xmas shopping , how long does it go on? I'm not a socialist mind, I'm not really anything. Neithers my 6 year old.

Be a bit of a long way for butchers I reckon, which is just as well cos he scares the shit out of me lol


----------



## JimN (Nov 16, 2011)

Edie said:


> Thanks for your response. I'll come if I don't bottle it and if I don't tell the husband and say I'm going Xmas shopping , how long does it go on? I'm not a socialist mind, I'm not really anything. Neithers my 6 year old.
> 
> Be a bit of a long way for butchers I reckon, which is just as well cos he scares the shit out of me lol



All six year olds are anarchists 

It'll last an hour or so, I would imagine. But definitely no longer than two hours.

No need to be afraid. He'd be like putty in your hands.


----------



## Edie (Nov 16, 2011)

JimN said:


> All six year olds are anarchists
> 
> It'll last an hour or so, I would imagine. But definitely no longer than two hours.
> 
> No need to be afraid. He'd be like putty in your hands.


Mine is anyway. Both him and his brother got a joint detention this week for doing the fuckin Vs AT EACH OTHER in the playground 

Have just sent you a PM about the 'normality' of the punters


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 16, 2011)

Edie said:


> Mine is anyway. Both him and his brother got a joint detention this week for doing the fuckin Vs AT EACH OTHER in the playground
> 
> Have just sent you a PM about the 'normality' of the punters



Unfortunately many socialist meetings are full of socially awkward old real ale drinkers so good luck.


----------



## Edie (Nov 16, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Unfortunately many socialist meetings are full of socially awkward old real ale drinkers so good luck.


I think I can handle myself among real ale drinkers lol


----------



## JimN (Nov 16, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Unfortunately many socialist meetings are full of socially awkward old real ale drinkers so good luck.



Don't forget the pipes and tweed jackets. Leather elbow patches compulsory.


----------



## Edie (Nov 16, 2011)

JimN said:


> Don't forget the pipes and tweed jackets. Leather elbow patches compulsory.


On it. My lad loves a pipe of baccy.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 16, 2011)

Edie said:


> On it. My lad loves a pipe of baccy.



Fairplay for a six year old, is that what they teach 'em at prep school?


----------



## Edie (Nov 16, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Fairplay for a six year old, is that what they teach 'em at prep school?


That and how to spot a commie, so we should be fine


----------



## audiotech (Nov 17, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Unfortunately many socialist meetings are full of socially awkward old real ale drinkers so good luck.



Do you specifically mean SPGB meetings, or socialist meetings in general?


----------



## audiotech (Nov 17, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Traditional to have different people arguing for either side of the question.



Really?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2011)

Yes.


----------



## Edie (Nov 17, 2011)

It is a bit make your mind up to argue against yourself, but I guess it's good to be able to see both sides


----------



## past caring (Nov 17, 2011)




----------



## Edie (Nov 17, 2011)

past caring said:


>


 More scary then:


----------



## past caring (Nov 17, 2011)

PB bird


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 17, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Unfortunately many socialist meetings are full of socially awkward old real ale drinkers so good luck.



sounds just my cup of tea


----------



## JimN (Nov 17, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Unfortunately many socialist meetings are full of socially awkward old real ale drinkers so good luck.



And what do the men drink?


----------



## audiotech (Nov 18, 2011)

Edie said:


> It is a bit make your mind up to argue against yourself, but I guess it's good to be able to see both sides



So, on a debate on socialism say, you'd welcome some rich, capitalist to put their side of the debate?

What about workers on strike attending a meeting? Invite the bosses along to a polite debate to hear both sides?

Which side are you on?


----------



## Edie (Nov 18, 2011)

audiotech said:


> So, on a debate on socialism say, you'd welcome some rich, capitalist to put their side of the debate?
> 
> What about workers on strike attending a meeting? Invite the bosses along to a polite debate to hear both sides?
> 
> Which side are you on?


Wtf cos I'm not fuckin 8 and in a playground I dont have a side you prick.

Like I said earlier I don't really understand what the 'debate' is about anyway. There's a guy arguing on the one hand that laws are not needed to bring in socialism (this is apparently the stereotypical view whatever that means), on the other that socialists need to use the electoral system. Don't quite make sense to me but there you go.

So yer to answer your question I would rather there were someone to argue against him. I'd forgotten how fuckin stupid you bastards could be with this bosses bullshit. We're not living in communist Russia all working in the same factory this is Leeds.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 18, 2011)

Those in Leeds, like everywhere else, including Russia, work in a market system that's capitalist.

Bosses do bullshit and you're clearly more of an idiot than I first thought.


----------



## Edie (Nov 18, 2011)

What I actually ment was it would be better if there were two socialists arguing there povs on this debate. But you've just reminded me of this stupid divide between the self employed and team bloody leaders who are bosses and 'your side'. And how pathetic and irrelevant it is.


----------



## Edie (Nov 18, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Those in Leeds, like everywhere else, including Russia, work in a market system that's capitalist.
> 
> Bosses do bullshit and you're clearly more of an idiot than I first thought.


Why don't you tell me where the line is for these folk then I can decide which 'side' I'm on.

A lone trader plasterer.
A staff nurse.
A freelance copy writer for advertising.
A builder who set up his own business and now employs his wife to do his books and 3 other lads depending on the size of the job.
A factory line manager at Nissan whose worked there since 16 and worked his way up.
An MD of a company who set it up himself and now employs up to 20 people.
An unemployed architect.
Two childminders who work together.
A city boy who is currently camped outside St Pauls.


----------



## grit (Nov 18, 2011)

Edie said:


> What I actually ment was it would be better if there were two socialists arguing there povs on this debate. But you've just reminded me of this stupid divide between the self employed and team bloody leaders who are bosses and 'your side'. And how pathetic and irrelevant it is.



It certainly ignores that fucking huge gap between big business and someone running a business with 4-5 employees, who works alongside them.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2011)

audiotech said:


> So, on a debate on socialism say, you'd welcome some rich, capitalist to put their side of the debate?


The SPGB, the organisers of this meeting would.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 18, 2011)

Edie said:


> Why don't you tell me where the line is for these folk then I can decide which 'side' I'm on.
> 
> A lone trader plasterer.
> A staff nurse.
> ...



All selling, or trying to sell, their labour, apart from at first glance the MD, who in all likelihood is a boss.

Do you own any of the means of production, distribution and exchange, or do you sell your labour?

Headingley, Leeds isn't it? The posh end? Trying to crawl up the ladder boss?

So, which side?


----------



## audiotech (Nov 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The SPGB, the organisers of this meeting would.



Example?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2011)

Of the well know open platform the SPGB operate?


----------



## Edie (Nov 18, 2011)

I'm the bosses wife then lol. Which I guess means I'm on the _wrong_ side. Best stick to working for 'the man' in the future instead of doing something for yourself.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Of the well know open platform the SPGB operate?



Well known is nice of you. Example?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Well known is nice of you. Example?


Are you suggesting that this isn't their approach? You'd have to be pretty fucking ignorant to think that. Do you think that?


----------



## audiotech (Nov 18, 2011)

Edie said:


> I'm the bosses wife then lol. Which I guess means I'm on the _wrong_ side. Best stick to working for 'the man' in the future instead of doing something for yourself.



Doing something for yourself under monopoly capitalism is pretty damn hard and you'll find it is getting harder and harder, but keep deceiving yourself boss wife.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Are you suggesting that this isn't their approach? You'd have to be pretty fucking ignorant to think that. Do you think that?



I asked for an example and still nothing.


----------



## Edie (Nov 18, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Doing something for yourself under monopoly capitalism is pretty damn hard and you'll find it is getting harder and harder, but keep deceiving yourself boss wife.


Go fuck yourself, the real world aint divided into the goodies and the baddies you simplistic moron. At which stage would my mate whose a builder and employes his wife and 3 other men become a "boss" in your mind. When he employed 5 other people? 10?

You socialists are a fuckin divisive irrelevance cos the shit you go on about has no meaning today. You can't think beyond "the bosses" and "the workers" like we all work in a fuckin mill still. No wonder there aint much of an audience.


----------



## Edie (Nov 18, 2011)

audiotech said:


> All selling, or trying to sell, their labour, apart from at first glance the MD, who in all likelihood is a boss.
> 
> Do you own any of the means of production, distribution and exchange, or do you sell your labour?
> 
> ...


Why you editing your posts?

I don't understand the questions tbh.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 18, 2011)

So which side?

Edit: Don't bother, I already know the answer.

Edit2: Do you always answer a question with a question and come out with profanities that make you look like an imbecile?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 18, 2011)

audiotech said:


> I asked for an example and still nothing.



Try this.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2011)

audiotech said:


> So which side?
> 
> Edit: Don't bother, I already know the answer.
> 
> Edit2: Do you always answer a question with a question and come out with profanities that make you look like an imbecile?


Have you not a youtube to go to?


----------



## audiotech (Nov 18, 2011)

Edie said:


> Go fuck yourself, the real world aint divided into the goodies and the baddies you simplistic moron. At which stage would my mate whose a builder and employes his wife and 3 other men become a "boss" in your mind. When he employed 5 other people? 10?
> 
> You socialists are a fuckin divisive irrelevance cos the shit you go on about has no meaning today. You can't think beyond "the bosses" and "the workers" like we all work in a fuckin mill still. No wonder there aint much of an audience.



Goodies and baddies? I never uttered such terms. This ain't cowboys and Indians and you call me a "simplistic moron". The real world is divided into classes if you hadn't noticed and if you knew anything about the subject you would understand that socialists didn't and don't have anything to do with this division. Socialists wish to bring about a classless society.

As for the builder and whoever he employs. I'll ask again does he, or anyone in a similar position own the means of production, distribution and exchange?

'Trouble at Mill' is another thread.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Have you not a youtube to go to?



Yes, later, to watch an interesting video on dialectics I've bookmarked and then one on the current crisis. David Harvey debating I enjoy immensely, along with Slovenian philosopher, Slavoj Zizek. This, in between my study of classical economics.

Edit: Oh and studying and playing the guitar, along with music production. I have a busy, interesting life, unlike some others.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 18, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Try this.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Thankyou Louis. I admit my knowledge of such a tiny sect as the SPGB, who you don't see often, is minimal. For most, the vast majority, it's even less than that.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 18, 2011)

If it's OK with the more discerning viewers here, I'm off to play with my new 'Crybaby' wah wah pedal, delivered this morning. Wonder if Edie has one?


----------



## past caring (Nov 18, 2011)




----------



## Edie (Nov 18, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Goodies and baddies? I never uttered such terms. This ain't cowboys and Indians and you call me a "simplistic moron". The real world is divided into classes if you hadn't noticed and if you knew anything about the subject you would understand that socialists didn't and don't have anything to do with this division. Socialists wish to bring about a classless society.
> 
> As for the builder and whoever he employs. I'll ask again does he, or anyone in a similar position own the means of production, distribution and exchange?
> 
> 'Trouble at Mill' is another thread.


Socialists wish to bring about a classless society? Do they fuck. They are obsessed with class, whose in whose out. They have absolutely fuck all interest in increasing or encouraging social mobility. In fact you condemn it 

About the builder question, I don't really understand. If means of production you mean tools and equipment then yer of course, that's how it works. And if by distribution you mean a van, then yes he does. I guess by exchange you mean advertising/ website/ some way to attract clients, then of course.

See, the point is your division of people into 'genuine' working class and 'bosses' is just bollocks. People work hard, they set up on their own, they get more responsibilities or become line managers, or go freelance. How does that fit in with your class analysis? It don't. People wanna be paid more, and they don't give a fuck if that fits in with being working class or not.

So what side am I on?  The fuckin _wrong_ side mate. The side that the vast, vast majority of people fall into which is getting on, doing the best they can for themselves and giving back. I don't know a single person who'd turn down an opportunity of a bigger wage, a nicer house, more holidays if it's offered. If you think I'm sitting round in a back2back doing some shit job just to stay on the right side of twats like you you've gotta be kidding  That's what side I'm on.


----------



## Edie (Nov 18, 2011)

btw do you live in Leeds?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 18, 2011)

Edie said:


> Socialists wish to bring about a classless society? Do they fuck. They are obsessed with class, whose in whose out. They have absolutely fuck all interest in increasing or encouraging social mobility. In fact you condemn it
> .


 
logical problem here. Why would someone who wants a classless society want social mobility? the desired end state is a classless society- one where social mobility is not neccesary because their are no social divisions. Think the levellers. or something (not the band who have one good tune, the old english dissidents from back in the day)


----------



## Edie (Nov 18, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> logical problem here. Why would someone who wants a classless society want social mobility? the desired end state is a classless society- one where social mobility is not neccesary because their are no social divisions. Think the levellers. or something (not the band who have one good tune, the old english dissidents from back in the day)


Oh its cloud cuckoo land. There will always be those that have power and gain wealth. People who are prepared to work harder, risk more to get more. Or gain control, power over other groups.

What I want is for it not to be this bullshit that we currently have. For it to be fair enough to genuinely offer those who want a fair chance to do well, and for those that start from a priviledged position not to be able to walk to the top just cos of their advantage even if they are thick bastards. And for the top 1% not to pretty much control everything, they can be got rid. At the least I want shit to be level enough that there isn't people with not enough to eat, living in shit damp accommodation with high crime. That is just wrong.

I have fuck all idea what this means I believe. But I don't believe in 'we should all be the same', I think it's dangerous, too much control given to the government. So I guess I'm not a socialist, whether thats of Great Britian or any other sect.


----------



## Random (Nov 18, 2011)

Edie said:


> But I don't believe in 'we should all be the same', I think it's dangerous, too much control given to the government. So I guess I'm not a socialist, whether thats of Great Britian or any other sect.


 You can have a classless society without a government. That's why I'm an anarchist.

Anyway, it is a bit cloud cuckoo land to talk about future society. But I thin that what we want in the here and now, and how we work to get it, is just as important, and it affects what we'll get in the future. For example, to campaign to get better accommodation, should we do that by working with house builders and slum landlords? I say clearly not. There's a class divide between those who profit from bad housing and the people who suffer from bad housing. So we have to make these kind of decisions all the time, even in basic campaigning.

Audiotech's off-hand "what side are you on" sounds like lazy posing, though.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 18, 2011)

right leaning social democratic with shades of anti-state libertarian thought.

Thats Doctor Commies diagnoses. I prescribe a dose of _Rights of Man. _a light application of marx and the bible to be administered twice a day


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Nov 18, 2011)

And you're not a very good Stalinist.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2011)

edie said:
			
		

> There will always be those that have power and gain wealth





> There will always be those that seek power and  wealth



Stop them by distributing power and wealth.

See how easy, edie, you've naturalised then justified a social trait. Even if you're reading _is_ correct it doesn't offer a reason why they should be allowed to succeed. The sate of the worlds suggest the opposite - they should be reined in and prevented from achieving power and wealth.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Stop them by distributing power and wealth.
> 
> See how easy, edie, you've naturalised then justified a social trait. Even if you're reading _is_ correct it doesn't offer a reason why they should be allowed to succeed. The sate of the worlds suggest the opposite - they should be reined in and prevented from achieving power and wealth.



It's not the distribution alone that is the problem though, it's how to keep power and wealth in a state of re-distribution.


----------



## Edie (Nov 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Stop them by distributing power and wealth.
> 
> See how easy, edie, you've naturalised then justified a social trait. Even if you're reading _is_ correct it doesn't offer a reason why they should be allowed to succeed. The sate of the worlds suggest the opposite - they should be reined in and prevented from achieving power and wealth.


Yes, I _think_ I agree. People need to be stopped, by force (or compulsorily, you know what I mean) from getting and maintaining too much power and wealth. The problem is then I get into this muddle. Cos then I think, well if that's to happen then it has to be centralised. Government. To re-distribute, to ensure that people aren't living in abject poverty and the rich aint laughing at us. But... look at the government. Is there a good government anywhere? The Government IS the wealthy.

Tbh a few years ago, I wasn't like this. I was more optimistic. Since the cash for questions, cash for Lordships, expenses scandles, seeing the degree of overlap between big business and government. I just hate them now. The whole fuckin lot need to go, it's corrupt from the bottom to the top and that's one thing urban HAS been right on to a much greater degree then I ever believed possible.

Anyway, this isn't very clear. But there's this conflict in me, thinking there is a need for taxes and wealth distribution to a greater extent then now. But not wanting a government with that much power. I dunno what the answer is. But I like what LLETSA posts. He's like, fuck knows but it aint this. I relate to that but it's frustrating.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2011)

TruXta said:


> It's not the distribution alone that is the problem though, it's how to keep power and wealth in a state of re-distribution.


But of course my dear.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 18, 2011)

I'm increasingly uncomfortable with the decline in frothy arguments between us BA.


----------



## Edie (Nov 18, 2011)

The other thing I struggle with is this. I really believe that people who have the nouse to set up a means of making money and take the risks, take the consequences of decisions, work harder, they deserve reward for that. Like my husband, some quarters he's taken less then his worst paid employee (who is still on a decent wage btw nowhere near minimum). Other quarters he's taken fuckin loads. But the buck stops with him. At one point if it went under we'd have lost the house. Even now, if it went down it would wipe us.

So yer I think those that earn way above the average should be taxed harder. But there should be incentive shouldn't there. Otherwise whats the fuckin point?


----------



## Edie (Nov 18, 2011)

I'm all over the shop tbf


----------



## TruXta (Nov 18, 2011)

What shop are you in then Edie? Serious groceries or see-through lingerie?


----------



## Edie (Nov 18, 2011)

TruXta said:


> What shop are you in then Edie? Serious groceries or *see-through lingerie*?


All the way mate. Although y'know, sometimes I do think bout stuff that doesn't involve sex


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Are you suggesting that this isn't their approach? You'd have to be pretty fucking ignorant to think that. Do you think that?



I dont think that.  I dont think not that, either. Am I pretty fucking ignorant?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2011)

Sorry, where did i reply to _you_ and when exactly did _you_ swap _your_ history experience and knowledge for that of someone knocking around on the left for 30 years longer then you've been alive, _Jon_?


----------



## audiotech (Nov 18, 2011)

Edie said:


> Socialists wish to bring about a classless society? Do they fuck. They are obsessed with class, whose in whose out. They have absolutely fuck all interest in increasing or encouraging social mobility. In fact you condemn it
> 
> About the builder question, I don't really understand. If means of production you mean tools and equipment then yer of course, that's how it works. And if by distribution you mean a van, then yes he does. I guess by exchange you mean advertising/ website/ some way to attract clients, then of course.
> 
> ...



Socialists obsessed with class? You're the one wanting to move from one class to another. Are you obsessed?

If you don't mind, I have no interest of becoming the CEO of a corporation that privately owns vast swathes of the means of production, distribution and exchange. I'm referring to the totality here, rather than specific, separate parts and the whole caboodle is owned privately by a very few huge corporations. You and hubby don't get a look in.

I'm not arguing that people should "turn down an opportunity of a bigger wage, a nicer house, more holidays". On the contrary, many socialists over the years have been sacked fighting for these very things. You won't be surprised to hear those doing the sackings are bosses.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Sorry, where did i reply to _you_ and when exactly did _you_ swap _your_ history experience and knowledge for that of someone knocking around on the left for 30 years longer then you've been alive, _Jon_?



It just seemed like quite an all encompasing statement, is all. Ignore my semi-sober ramblings - I'm mixing my first few beers in a week with teh meds and it might be going to my head.

30 years on the left longer than I've been alive? By a reckoning of anyone having a coherent political view before the age of 15 being unlikely, that person is at least 75, _butchers _(ran_dom ita_li_c_s _ft_w, _b_tw)


----------



## audiotech (Nov 18, 2011)

Random said:


> Audiotech's off-hand "what side are you on" sounds like lazy posing, though.



A straight forward question, Leeds stylee. Edie can take it, less of the profanity's though.


----------



## Random (Nov 18, 2011)

audiotech said:


> A straight forward question, Leeds stylee. Edie can take it, less of the profanity's though.


"Stylee"?. It's straightforward, but sounds like 'wanna be in my gang or not?' It's not just down to that, thank god.


----------



## Edie (Nov 18, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Socialists obsessed with class? You're the one wanting to move from one class to another. Are you obsessed?
> 
> If you don't mind, I have no interest of becoming the CEO of a corporation that privately owns vast swathes of the means of production, distribution and exchange. I'm referring to the totality here, rather than specific, separate parts and the whole caboodle is owned privately by a very few huge corporations. You and hubby don't get a look in.
> 
> I'm not arguing that people should "turn down an opportunity of a bigger wage, a nicer house, more holidays". On the contrary, many socialists over the years have been sacked fighting for these very things. You won't be surprised to hear those doing the sackings are bosses.


I guess I'm unsure of where I fit in the bosses debate is all. You going tomorrow?

On the do I wanna move class. Well like butchers has said before I have. No apologies.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 18, 2011)

Random said:


> "Stylee"?. It's straightforward, but sounds like 'wanna be in my gang or not?' It's not just down to that, thank god.



Give over, Edie's sound about it.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 19, 2011)

Edie said:


> I guess I'm unsure of where I fit in the bosses debate is all. You going tomorrow?
> 
> On the do I wanna move class. Well like butchers has said before I have. No apologies.



If it's the match you mean, then no - skint.

No apology necessary Edie, but when the going gets tough remember, Orwell's 1984 character, Winston - 'the future lies with the proles'.

Billy Bragg's impromptu performance in support of the Occupy Movement and Occupy Leeds. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KVuIijfPcU4#!


----------



## Edie (Nov 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Sorry, where did i reply to _you_ and when exactly did _you_ swap _your_ history experience and knowledge for that of someone knocking around on the left for 30 years longer then you've been alive, _Jon_?


I've just been told your an old public schoolboy by someone who ain't got a reason to lie far as I know. That true? 

If it is then FUCK you. Serious. All that fuckin bollocks you've said to me over the years. But also wtf your one of my heroes on here even if you do think I'm full of shit and you can be a cunt sometimes. Cos your probably the cleverest and most knowelegable person I've come across and I admire you taught yourself and made yourself what you are.

So this other person talking shit then or what?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 19, 2011)

Of course they're talking shit - and anyone going around smearing other posters by Pm behind peoples back is a pretty worthless low down dirty dog - and i do hope you tell them that.


----------



## Edie (Nov 19, 2011)

Ain't by PM. On teatime thread for anyone to see.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 19, 2011)

Just someone trying to wind me or you up. Seemed to work with you!


----------



## TruXta (Nov 19, 2011)

That would've made my fucking day if it were true.


----------



## Edie (Nov 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Just someone trying to wind me or you up. Seemed to work with you!


Well I don't know you from Adam do I? You never talk about your background either. Plus the far left is full of ex public schoolboys. Plus you know fuckin loads about everything, from Spanish fascism to poetry construction. 

Oh and yer I'm gullible too


----------



## audiotech (Nov 19, 2011)

Eton (fee for the academic year - £29,862) is full of public schoolboys.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 19, 2011)

No shit Sherlock.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 19, 2011)

Elementary my dear Watson.


----------



## Edie (Nov 19, 2011)

Omg I WENT    After argument with husband and him insisting he come with me (  ), then me saying that would be an epicly bad idea considering the mood he was in the reception he might get from the 'fuckin commie bastards' being a dirty boss n all. So he let me in the end anyway but I was 45 minutes late.

There were 6 of them sat in a back room on a pub. I think they were little surprised to see me  All except one were mature gentlemen. They would like me to point out though that only one was drinking real ale 

They asked me how I'd heard about it cos they want to increase membership, and they couldn't BELIEVE there was a 3 page thread about their meeting. Honestly, I was fuckin lolling so hard inside 

Totally radio rental. Believe there should be a world without money or bartering and no countries. Everything would be produced as it was needed and people would spontaneously exchange goods. I tried arguing that the key people involved in such exchanges would necessarily be in a position of power and what would stop them using that to their advantage. But the answer was just that the goods would be sourced elsewhere. I said what about bottle necks of trade? Or monopolies of particular goods? For some reason I'd brought up tomatoes from Spain being the goods in question, and Keith bless him got a bag of tomatoes out of his shopping bag for the lols at this point  They seemed to have an absolutely touching faith in human nature which explained everything.

Maybe one will be along to put forward the argument better then I could cos I no doubt aint done it justice. If so, evening gents, get stuck in  Thank for taking the time to explain your views, and your hospitality although next time it's your round 

Edie x


----------



## Edie (Nov 19, 2011)

btw though, if this is in ANY way representative of the state of socialism in this country it's a joke. And no offence to you nice fellas at the meeting. But arguing about whether you could establish socialism by getting enough MPs elected to take over parliament when there's 6 of you and no one else has ever even heard of you is laughable.

Depressing.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2011)

Does this mean you'll be joining the squeegees mate? Oh please let it be. i will lol so hard.


----------



## Edie (Nov 19, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Does this mean you'll be joining the squeegees mate? Oh please let it be. i will lol so hard.


Who are the squeegees?!


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2011)

Edie said:


> btw though, if this is in ANY way representative of the state of socialism in this country it's a joke. And no offence to you nice fellas at the meeting. But arguing about whether you could establish socialism by getting enough MPs elected to take over parliament when there's 6 of you and no one else has ever even heard of you is laughable.
> 
> Depressing.



It's not, they're a tiny group and they have questionable tactics at best. One of them (according to someone on here) went along to a demo once with a sign saying "this demonstration is pointless!" Their known as "the small party of good boys" for a reason. Definitely got their hearts in the right place though and their analysis of a lot of things is quite sound


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2011)

Edie said:


> Who are the squeegees?!



SPGB, the party who organised the meeting you went to


----------



## Edie (Nov 19, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> SPGB, the party who organised the meeting you went to


oh I seeeee 

Nah. They are just too nice. And not being funny but this is why capitalist bastards run the world and folk like this while away some time in the pub being lovely.


----------



## jesuscrept (Nov 19, 2011)

Bit late now. Never mind.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2011)

Edie said:


> oh I seeeee
> 
> Nah. They are just too nice. And not being funny but this is why capitalist bastards run the world and folk like this while away some time in the pub being lovely.



Just you wait


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2011)

Edie said:


> oh I seeeee
> 
> Nah. They are just too nice. And not being funny but this is why capitalist bastards run the world and folk like this while away some time in the pub being lovely.



well if we listened to the squeegees nothing would ever get done you're right. they've been around since 1904 ffs  they're also quite pissed off because the party i'm in stole their name


----------



## Edie (Nov 19, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> well if we listened to the squeegees nothing would ever get done you're right. they've been around since 1904 ffs  they're also quite pissed off because the party i'm in stole their name


Are you in the International Socialist party by any chance?


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2011)

No, I'm in the SPEW


----------



## Edie (Nov 19, 2011)

Socialist party of england and wales?


----------



## Edie (Nov 19, 2011)

Oh mate seriously. Give it up. The world just aint that nice a place.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2011)

Edie said:


> Socialist party of england and wales?



Yep.

And I know it isn't, that's why we argue for a series of well-argued transitional demands which will ultimately lead people to question why these cannot be realised under etc etc 

seriously tho mate, i know the world is a shit place, you dont have to tell me that, are you saying its a waste of time to do anything about it!!


----------



## Edie (Nov 19, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Yep.
> 
> And I know it isn't, that's why we argue for a series of well-argued transitional demands which will ultimately lead people to question why these cannot be realised under etc etc
> 
> seriously tho mate, i know the world is a shit place, you dont have to tell me that, are you saying its a waste of time to do anything about it!!


Basically yes.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 19, 2011)

Honesty is a virtue.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2011)

if everyone thought like that, then we would still be living in fuckin caves by now.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 19, 2011)

What've you got against caves?


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2011)

Nothing, I just don't particularly want to live in one


----------



## Edie (Nov 19, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> if everyone thought like that, then we would still be living in fuckin caves by now.


Hasn't the majority of scientific advance and technology occurred under capitalism?

According the SPGB cavemen were lovely people who took care of the disabled, young, sick and old. And for that reason there is no reason to doubt that basic human nature can be trusted.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2011)

Edie said:


> Hasn't the majority of scientific advance and technology occurred under capitalism?
> 
> According the SPGB cavemen were lovely people who took care of the disabled, young, sick and old. And for that reason there is no reason to doubt that basic human nature can be trusted.



How did capitalism come about?


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2011)

Without people wanting to do something about stuff, and without a class/s fighting for its own interests against an archaic, corrupted and oppressive hierarchical system which had completely outlived its usefulness and any gains there could have been made under it, there would have been no capitalism. Capitalism did not just develop naturally, the industrial bourgeoisie and their at the time allies had to lead a revolution to replace feudalism with capitalism and to completely break the feudal system and the power of the aristocracy. (I am aware this version of events is simplistic, but capitalism did not just develop "naturally"). Of course the world is not a lovely place ffs but your arguement about capitalism is actually contradicting your views that there's no point doing anything.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 19, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Without people wanting to do something about stuff, and without a class/s fighting for its own interests against an archaic, corrupted and oppressive hierarchical system which had completely outlived its usefulness and any gains there could have been made under it, there would have been no capitalism.



So now you're cheering the bourgeoisie?


----------



## Edie (Nov 19, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Without people wanting to do something about stuff, and without a class/s fighting for its own interests against an archaic, corrupted and oppressive hierarchical system which had completely outlived its usefulness and any gains there could have been made under it, there would have been no capitalism. Capitalism did not just develop naturally, the industrial bourgeoisie and their at the time allies had to lead a revolution to replace feudalism with capitalism and to completely break the feudal system and the power of the aristocracy. (I am aware this version of events is simplistic, but capitalism did not just develop "naturally"). Of course the world is not a lovely place ffs but your arguement about capitalism is actually contradicting your views that there's no point doing anything.


Am I wrong in thinking that the rich have always had power?

Also, I never really understood what bourgeoisie means?


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2011)

TruXta said:


> So now you're cheering the bourgeoisie?





Nah mate. Just pointing out that capitalism didn't just arrive out of kings, barons, etc, one day deciding, "I'm tired of all this feudalism stuff" - It had to be fought for.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 19, 2011)

Edie said:


> Am I wrong in thinking that the rich have always had power?
> 
> Also, I never really understood what bourgeoisie means?


1. No.
2. It's a shibboleth.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 19, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Nah mate. Just pointing out that capitalism didn't just arrive out of kings, barons, etc, one day deciding, "I'm tired of all this feudalism stuff" - It had to be fought for.



Pft, don't try and deny it  you fucking love'm. Wouldn't be here without them and you know it.

But srsly. Many of those kings and barons etc actively, positively and willingly participated in the construction of capitalism. And why not? That way they could be richer than ever before.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 19, 2011)

Please join the SPGB edie. I think I would actually heamorrage from my sides if you did.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 19, 2011)

From laughing, crying or both?


----------



## Edie (Nov 19, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Please join the SPGB edie. I think I would actually heamorrage from my sides if you did.


Wheres the online membership form?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 19, 2011)

TruXta said:


> 1. No.
> 2. It's a shibboleth.



no it isn't, it's a descriptor for a certain elemnt of any given capitalist society and rightly languishes in jail under Hugo 'the don' Chavez


----------



## TruXta (Nov 19, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> no it isn't, it's a descriptor for a certain elemnt of any given capitalist society and rightly languishes in jail under Hugo 'the don' Chavez



I was taking the piss you drunken little boy.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2011)

Edie said:


> Am I wrong in thinking that the rich have always had power?
> 
> Also, I never really understood what bourgeoisie means?



you're correct that "the rich" have always had power coz with money copmes power, but the old feudal aristocracy by and large don't have real power any more.

The bourgeoisie are the class that replaced the feudal class basically. They are wealthy capitalists and industrialists basically, owners of businesses, factories, in the times im talking about merchants etc.

Many were dispossessed during the civil war and the following years - the system of feudalism of one person having all the people in a village working for them, the system of patronage etc which it relied on, in this country at least is completely gone. The feudal lords may have some wealth but most are completely irrelevant. Feudalism as a system doesn't exist in this country, and even in the places where it still survives the economy is based on capitalism and not feudalism.

this is a crap way of explaining it, sorry!


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Pft, don't try and deny it  you fucking love'm. Wouldn't be here without them and you know it.
> 
> But srsly. Many of those kings and barons etc actively, positively and willingly participated in the construction of capitalism. And why not? That way they could be richer than ever before.



Yeah, you're right, we wouldn't be here without them. There's no contradiction between that and saying that capitalism needs to be replaced now tho


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 19, 2011)

Now I'm googling to try and find out if the squeefies were part of the first international


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2011)

They were the first to announce that the russian revolution had degenerated.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 19, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Now I'm googling to try and find out if the squeefies were part of the first international


 Not without a time machine.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 19, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> They were the first to announce that the russian revolution had degenerated.


Bakunin had noticed it 50 years before...


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Pft, don't try and deny it  you fucking love'm. Wouldn't be here without them and you know it.
> 
> But srsly. Many of those kings and barons etc actively, positively and willingly participated in the construction of capitalism. And why not? That way they could be richer than ever before.



The freedom of trade etc set up by capitalist social relations and the increasing power of the bourgeoisie (dontcha just love em ) as a force to which feudal laws were a hindrance or did not apply (many of them living in towns etc or having made their wealth through being merchants etc) might have been attractive to many kings, barons, etc, but to a lot it was actively threatening - why do you think the english civil war, the french revolution etc happened?


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Bakunin had noticed it 50 years before...



I thought they said so in 1918?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 19, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I was taking the piss you drunken little boy.


 
observe my trollface


----------



## TruXta (Nov 19, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> The freedom of trade etc set up by capitalist social relations and the increasing power of the bourgeoisie as a force to which feudal laws were a hindrance or did not apply (many of them living in towns etc or having made their wealth through being merchants etc) might have been attractive to many kings, barons, etc, but to a lot it was actively threatening - why do you think the english civil war, the french revolution etc happened?



I'm not saying you're wrong, I think we're both right. I'm waiting for a bollocking from butchers. Any second now.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 19, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I thought they said so in 1918?


Bakunin said it 1877. Loads of people said it in 1917 and loads said it 1918. The SPGB always say they were first on the left - they weren't though. Not by a long shot.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 19, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I'm not saying you're wrong, I think we're both right. I'm waiting for a bollocking from butchers. Any second now.


Nothing from me tonight sorry, i'm just passing through...


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2011)

yeah, i got a lot of this from watching "Cromwell", so I'll probably have a bollocking as well


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Bakunin said it 1877. Loads of people said it in 1917 and loads said it 1918. The SPGB always say they were first on the left - they weren't though. Not by a long shot.



Ta do you have a link? This is really bad but I wasn't aware that there much going on in 1877 ...


----------



## TruXta (Nov 19, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Ta do you have a link? This is really bad but I wasn't aware that there much going on in 1877 ...



It was a whole year in history. Innumerable events took place.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 19, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Ta do you have a link? This is really bad but I wasn't aware that there much going on in 1877 ...


The battle between bakunin and marx in the first international was what i was really on about, but B's side is nicely summed up here


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2011)

I meant in terms of anything going on re: signs of revolution in Russia ...


----------



## TruXta (Nov 19, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I meant in terms of anything going on re: signs of revolution in Russia ...



Sorry, I'm being very facetious today.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The battle between bakunin and marx in the first international was what i was really on about, but B's side is nicely summed up here



thanks! that's really interesting, ta


----------



## Edie (Nov 19, 2011)

Quick am debating with husband and he just  at me for saying capitalism has only been around for 300 years as a political system, cos it's an economic system. Is he right? Can you have capitalism without democracy? Is that China?

Sorry if that's stupid


----------



## TruXta (Nov 19, 2011)

Capitalism came before democracy. And China is as you say an example of state capitalism. You're right, he's wrong. Give him a slap from all of us at P&P.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 19, 2011)

he probably thinks any form of market exchange equals capitalism, one of the basic fallacies. 'ah but how would you get anything done under communism when a man can't sell his fish?! Stick that in your red pipe and smoke with a lighter provided BY CAPITALISM, you fucking hypocrite'


----------



## audiotech (Nov 19, 2011)

Deep joy.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2011)

Edie said:


> Quick am debating with husband and he just  at me for saying capitalism has only been around for 300 years as a political system, cos it's an economic system. Is he right? Can you have capitalism without democracy? Is that China?
> 
> Sorry if that's stupid



Of course you can have capitalism without democracy; that's what capitalism has been for most of its history.


----------



## Edie (Nov 19, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Deep joy.


Can't help feeling slightly set up by you bastards


----------



## TruXta (Nov 19, 2011)

NEVER


----------



## Edie (Nov 19, 2011)

You'll fuckin love this  Other half is sat next to me reading a mag called EN the magazine for entrepreneurs.

There is one article called GETTING RID.

Actual quote, and I shit you not  


> An underperforming worker can affect your bottom line: why should you pay someone who is not doing their job properly? Their salary could be ploughed back into the business, or you could use it as a deposit on a new Range Rover.



Evidence: http://www.enforbusiness.com/feature/getting-rid


----------



## Edie (Nov 19, 2011)

Meanwhile I am reading Socialist Standard that I got off the blokes in the pub and urban. Socialist standard is dull tbh. Not a single lolquote


----------



## Edie (Nov 19, 2011)

From the magazine for entrepreneurs: Going public



> Many a bootstrap-pulling entrepreneur has slaved tirelessly to ensure their offspring have access to opportunities they never had, such as the kind of top-class education that will give the little darlings their pick of university and career. This has the twin benefits of providing the kids with the best possible start in life while giving you many happy years of regaling them with tales of your toil and how they don’t know they’re born.



You couldn't make this shit up could you


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2011)

good old bourgie mags lol, i went for an interview about six months ago and they had the magazine for the CBI in the waiting room, it had similar quotes in there ...


Edie said:


> You'll fuckin love this  Other half is sat next to me reading a mag called EN the magazine for entrepreneurs.
> 
> There is one article called GETTING RID.
> 
> ...


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2011)

Edie said:


> From the magazine for entrepreneurs: Going public
> 
> You couldn't make this shit up could you



Are you taking the piss?


----------



## Edie (Nov 19, 2011)

No  http://www.enforbusiness.com/feature/going-public

OH reckons it's a good read, alongside Invest China which is always next to the bog. I guess you lot would probably support that though


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 19, 2011)

Edie said:


> From the magazine for entrepreneurs: Going public
> 
> You couldn't make this shit up could you



You're bullshitting us!


----------



## Edie (Nov 19, 2011)

OMFG!!!  it's got a section called redtape about avoiding annoying laws designed to stop you making money. I LOVE this publication


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 19, 2011)

Edie said:


> You'll fuckin love this  Other half is sat next to me reading a mag called EN the magazine for entrepreneurs.
> 
> There is one article called GETTING RID.
> 
> ...



The thing is that doesn't even make any sense...

It would make sense if it said the salary could be invested in a better harder working cheaper worker for instance, but it surely couldn't be simply ploughed back in.

Either bad writing or bad understanding of how basic business works.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 19, 2011)

Edie said:


> Meanwhile I am reading Socialist Standard that I got off the blokes in the pub and urban. Socialist standard is dull tbh. Not a single lolquote



To be fair most political literature of any stripe is dull most of the time


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The thing is that doesn't even make any sense...
> 
> It would make sense if it said the salary could be invested in a better harder working cheaper worker for instance, but it surely couldn't be simply ploughed back in.
> 
> Either bad writing or bad understanding of how basic business works.



buying pens i suppose, or fountains to go on the lawn


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 19, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> To be fair most political literature of any stripe is dull most of the time


 
Sometimes though you can detect a certain frisson of gloatiness that makes you happy. Zizeck, meiville, zipes.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 20, 2011)

Will you ever spell Mr. Mieville's name correctly Dots? And it's Zizek.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 20, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> To be fair most political literature of any stripe is dull most of the time



I learned more involved in a thirteen week strike than the sum total all of the political literature I had read up to that point. It's political activity that's important, rather than reading political tracts.


----------

