It seems to me you are doing what many of your ilk do, casting blame to cover up your own shortcomings. Your Marxist prognostications are not coming to pass, and it is pretty obvious why, because Marx is dead and can no longer lead his followers using the latest data. You are followers of Marx. He is your leader even though you deprecate leaders. I, on the other hand, have no leader, I simply look at what I see around me and calculate what it might take to change it. You would be advised to do the same. Do not follow Marx but copy his process. Copy his logic.
--- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "whichfinder" <whichfinder@...> wrote:
> --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "peter.bryant51" <peter.bryant51@> wrote:
> > It's a bit rich talking about some people "monopolising" this Forum, when the vast majority of WSM members have no interest in it at all. I mean, apart from you two and a bare handful of others, where are all the other 300-odd members of the SPGB? And what about members of the WSPUS and the SPC and the WSPNZ and supporters in Africa and India? See what I mean? The so-called "monopoly" of people you don't approve of only exists because members of the WSM have shown no interest in participating in this Forum. QED. Why not close it down altogether if it pisses you off so much?
> This forum is not the exclusive province of WSM members, since depending on which of the statistics provided is reliable the forum has either 1294 or 705 members or perhaps somewhere in between! Clearly there is no single reason why more members (both WSM and non-WSM) "have no interest in it at all" as you put it; what can be said, however, with a strong degree of certainty, is that many have been driven away over the past year or so because of the monopolising of the forum by "a bare handful". If things continue as they are it won't be necessary to close it down; more and more people will simply not join or visit it.
"Engels somewhere also attributed Owens success to a residual Scottish
Clan ideology of co-operative labour amongst the workforce ..."
Thanks for reference to Scotland and the clan system. You may find recent postings on the SPGB Glasgow/Edinburgh branch blog of interest. The latest is about the Crofters War of the 1880s.
"Under the clan system of land tenure, the land within the area occupied
by a clan, belonged to the clan as a whole collectively, romantically
described by some such as John McLean as "celtic communism". The
clan chief had no exclusive rights in the clan lands. He was given
nominal control of the land for administration purposes, on behalf of
the clan. The clan chief’s position was not hereditary but by the
consent of the clan, and there was nothing to stop the clan from
replacing their chief at any time, if necessary. The clan system was a
communal social system albeit organised on military lines. ....Gone forever was the sense of kinship and loyalty to a patriarchal
leader. But an emotional attachment to territory – an attachment
stemming ultimately back to the clan land of the ancient kin-based
society of the Highlands – continues to be prevalent among crofters."
There is also reference to the current community buy-outs of landed estates in the Highlands by not-for-profit organisations, enabled by a right-to-purchase land reform act of the Scottish Parliament. Strange how the Thatcherites boasted of their council house ownership policies but when feudal tenants got the right to buy they were up in arms about it!!
Others blogs are about the Clearances and the destruction of the Commons in Scotland.
--- On Sun, 13/5/12, Bob Howes (vegan) <robertcircle1@...> wrote:
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]