alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
America's legal system decides primates are not peoplehttp://www.reuters.com/article/us-new-york-chimpanzees-idUSKBN18Z2LT
The pension debate in Germanyhttp://www.dw.com/en/pensions-become-new-battlefield-in-german-election/a-39170588
If this article is anything to go by, then we aren't the only ones who have adherents challenging principleshttp://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/the-anarchist-revolt-against-the-ideology-of-not-voting-is-finally-taking-shape-in-2017/
Quote:alan has already mentioned the political difficulties for the class conscious revolutionary proletariat in using the term 'People'.I think i made my position very clear in an earlier post that i preferred "THE PEOPLE" to other terms with a hat-tip to Wolfie Smith of the Popular Tooting Front and the SLP journal of the same name.But as an accommodation for you, and move along the debate i acknowledged that other words can be used…humanity …but you previously challenged that usage too.I was also willing to drop the word "self-determined" even though the meaning was clear in the passage. I certainly did not make a mention of any "class conscious revolutionary proletariat" having a political difficulty with the word.
Vin, did i refer to anyone as "comrade" in either of my last two posts and did i retract my opinion that charges should be brought? Again, folowing on what Tim counselled, follow your own advice and keep two separate issues separate. I find it easier enough to do.
I'm not the one who is required to give answers, LBird.You have been quoted not once but twice of stating within socialism, there will be a proletariat, and this is term understood by all Marxists to mean a social and economic class.Socialism is recognised to be class-free. Is this careless or your own idiosyncratic use of language or do you hold that a proletarian class will exist inside socialism as your own reply to me says?I have made my own view clear…when socialism is up and going, there will be no differentiations of people based on social relationship to production. We are all owners and thus non-owners of the means of production.
I'm sure some members will take your view, Robbo and suggest let sleeping dogs lie rather than poke about a hornet's nest…to mix metaphors.Some will say we simply are not in a healthy state of membership to conduct expulsions and reduce our numbers even further. I for one have repeatedly drawn attention to the pessimistic demographic projection for the future and highlighted the need for new members before we reach the tipping point of no longer functioning as a political group and then, even more, members will seek solace elsewhere in the pro-capitalist parties. In one post i suggested that these members may well be symptomatic of a deeper malaise within the Party, that we are losing touch with the Party principles because we are losing contact with each other and it is causing a lowering of morale and a weakening of the Party ethos. More than once i have suggested we devote a special conference to the everything involving the Party, where we presently stand, what we stand for and where our stand should be made in the future. It means questioning our sacred cows even if it is simply to reiterate our commitment to them. I'm on the record of saying our hostility clause should not be focused on like-minded even if rival organisations. But i rather the Party debated and discussed as whole such ideas than for every individual member go off and do their own thing. That is not letting a thousand flowers bloom but a re-formulation of what the party is…becoming more like a World-In-Common informal grouping than a political party with commonly agreed purpose.No-one is suggesting ostracisation for those who do not toe the party-line – there, i have said it, just that if they do not abide by the democratic rules, they have privileges of membership withdrawn ie participation in how we write the rules or run the party. BrianG might be right and taking the issue to conference and party polls might be cutting one's nose off to spite the face
Quote:31. A Branch or member acting in a manner deemed by the EC to be an infringement of the Principles or Rules, or detrimental to the interests of the Party shall be immediately suspended by the EC from all Party business except the matter in dispute. The EC shall forthwith submit particulars of the charge to all Branches and at the same time communicate the charges in writing to the accused and enclose a copy of this rule. Branches shall hold at least one specially summoned meeting to discuss the charge. The Delegates at the next Delegate Meeting or Annual Conference shall hear the case of the EC and of the accused; after which no further circulation of arguments for or against the charge may take place. The Delegates shall submit their findings to a Party Poll and the result of the Party Poll shall apply as from the date of suspension. No parties to the charge or dispute shall be allowed to sit as Delegates or Chair at Conference, ADM or any EC meeting where the case is being reviewed.Let the Party decide and i will accept the ruling of a Party Poll.Put it to the vote, initially of the EC to adjudicate if Rule 6 has been broached and then let the members either accept of reject that view of the EC after full debate
I think i have just answered you, LBird, using your own words in reply to mine, while we were cross-posting.
Damn forum format…it deletes a quote of a quote . I'll re-post the missing section in my previous post which you yourself quoted, so there is no mistaking that you were aware of the context, LBird.AJJ – In the context of existing socialism, are you telling us that certain forms of what is deemed "democracy" will be imposed across the board upon everybody equally. If so who by? By what authority or body? LBird I keep telling you the answer to this question, alan: the revolutionary, class conscious, democratic, proletariat.
Just to reinforce what Robbo said, i made a particular point in defining the period we were discussing so that there would be no confusion. Not pre-socialism, not during the course of the revolution, not during the stage of what is described as the Dictatorship of the Proletariat …but clearly the post-capitalist society…socialism itself. I couldn't have been any clear in my posts that this was the focus of my arguments.
Quote:Are you confusing the revolutionary period where the struggle for class power is still in progress? Whereas i am discussing an already established socialist societyAnd again i made it clear in what context i was speaking and you quoted me in your reply so there is no mistake I will highlight where i repeated myself
Quote:AJJ – In the context of existing socialism, are you telling us that certain forms of what is deemed "democracy" will be imposed across the board upon everybody equally. If so who by? By what authority or body? LBird – I keep telling you the answer to this question, alan: the revolutionary, class conscious, democratic, proletariat.Quote:I think you are rightly angered, but not by our supposed red herrings but because you have not appreciated enough that classes and such terms as proletariat, working class and even workers and social producers and whatnot are made redundant with socialism. We are no longer a divided society but whether you like it the word or not we are now one people, one humanity, one species, no longer artificially atomised and estranged from one another by class (or caste)…There is a new mode of production, so there is no point in still talking of producers as if they are different strata of society because we all are now producers. Within these recent posts of mine, i have ventured to put forward certain generalised statements about how socialism will make decisions. In almost four years, you have scarcely made any attempt at explaining how we will administer socialism. I call you conservative because like a Christian, you keep telling us of the promised land of heaven on earth but make no attempt to determine how this paradise can be accomplished. This was the Marx's criticism of the utopians. Once again, the SPGB have taken what exists in society today and suggest that these can be turned into weapons and tools to use to usher in a new world. Take issue with its analysis, you won't be alone but present your own path.So three members are in the frame.Paula previously supported the nationalist Yes in the 2014 Independence referendum, if i remember correctly.As i said previously, announcing your intention to vote Labour is offering support and therefore is actionable under Rule 6. No proof of actual voting Labour is necessary. I read John Bisset's statement (if that is the only one) and yes, i still say it is actionable.I could say if i was still in the Post Office, a Corbyn-government and its re-nationalisation of Royal Mail may well benefit myself personally but our position as party members, is a class one, not sectional or individual so John's remarks about a possible better NHS helping his health issues is not valid. I will add a caveat that perhaps my own off-the-cuff remark that i would be tempted to vote for Derek Wall of the Green Party may also be an offence. i will not offer a defence here, but i think comparing my statement with John's is apples and oranges.I have stated previously, we should not conflate SC's rule-breaking with this discussion. I have much more to say on his situation but i have chosen not to be drawn deeper into the situation, heeding Vin's advice that the branch and EC are still to act (I suggest, though, that Vin, himself, makes note of the idiom "do as i say, not as i do" and heeds his own counsel to refrain from further comment so that the Party can carry out its procedures)
