ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
You are mixing two things up — the fact that money does not measure the usefulness of what is for sale and whether using money is a good or a bad thing. Nearly everyone accepts that money does not measure usefulness but comparatively few want a society in which money would be redundant. You are the ORIGINATOR of neither.
It would have to be self-financing (as it wouldn't be) and not take resources away from the Socialist Standard (which it would). And it would require a Conference resolution (unlikely to get through) .So it's a non-starter. It's not a priority.and would only be a vanity publishing. Another of the thousand blooms flourishing here that will wither in the face of reality.
These were activities (indoor and outdoor meetings, selling the Standard door to door) organised by the Party in the 1960s and 1970s. It was also the title of a supplement to the September 1967 Socialist Standard which carried articles from all the Companion Parties. The 7 days were the week 3-10 September. But this wouldn't have been the only one. Here's the report on that one:https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1960s/1967/no-758-october-1967/week-meetings-londonThe Irish party organised one in October 1963, in fact this might be where the idea came from:https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1960s/1964/no-715-march-1964/letter-irelandSelling the Standard door to door (canvassing) died out years ago as has selling it in pubs though that lasted a longer into the 1980s.
Prakash RP wrote:I expected some comments from yoy all on the content of my last post. It passes my comprehension why you all are silent on the SIGNIFICANCE of the THESIS that money canNOT measure the worth of a commodity.It will be because it's a commonplace observation which we, and most other people, agree with. Of course we go further and say this situation should be ended by bringing in a society based on common ownership and production for use instead of production for profit which would make monetary calculation and evaluation and money itself unnecessary.
I am afraid Joel Sobel is right, as we pointed out in the discussion of the other thread you started –it isn't you that is the first to point out that money doesn't measure use-value (only exchange-value) and that this was known at least as far back as Adam Smith. As he wrote to you:
Quote:Joel Sobel Oct 25 to me: Dear Mr Prakash, I agree with the comments of the distinguished people who have replied to your message. The monetary value of an object does not measure worth. This idea, however, has been known since (at least) Adam Smith and the references to the diamond-water paradox are appropriate. So I believe your insight is sound, but not novel. Best wishes, Joel S.The present situation is flexible enough. 1986 Conference passed the following resolution which is still in force and applied:
Quote:This Conference resolves that the New Pamphlets Committee, while continuing to be a sub-committee of the EC, should have the authority to produce pamphlets and leaflets on subjects which have been approved by the EC without having to submit the texts to the EC for editing; quantities and expenditures to be agreed by the EC.Its current terms of reference say:
Quote:To edit and produce pamphlets and leaflets on subjects decided by Conference or approved by the EC.So the position is clear: the subject of a pamphlet is decided by Conference or the EC; after that the Publications Committee produces it in the same way the Editorial Committee produce the Socialist Standard.Having said that, it is a bit surprising that nobody has raised the question of whether printed pamphlets are things of the past and have been superseded by online publications. I say that as a pamphlet reader and collector who doesn't like reading things online, but is this the view of, how shall I put it, more modern readers?
Personally I'd prefer the self-employed option, but we've set up a committee to go into the ins and outs of all this. Let's wait and see what they come up with. The rather succesful survey was only the first, introductory part of their work.
jondwhite wrote:Are 'No reformation' and 'No promises' suitable slogans for WSM companion parties?"No promises" is certainly ok. We often emphasise that ourselves when we stand at elections. "No reformation" (which presumably is the Indian English for "No Reforms" or "No Reforming". I don't think they mean they are opposed to the Reformation that took place in Christian Europe 500 years ago; that was a good thing as it made the development of capitalism, a precondition for world socialism, easier).Could be misleasing if interpreted as meaning that we are opposed to reforms whereas our position is that we don't advocate them.
Quote:Is 'self-defined needs' correct, shouldn't it be 'class-defined needs'?"Self-defined needs" is a term we have been using for some time now to emphasise that in socialism the individual decides what their needs are. Could be misleading if it is interpreted as meaning that they can have whatever they want whereas they can only have free access to what society has decided should be produced. "Class-defined needs" is certainly not an alternative as there won't be any class, including the working class, in socialism. "Society-defined needs" would give the impression that individuals wouldn't decide what they need. I suppose, to be strictly accurate, we would have to say something like "individuals would have free access to what they decided they needed out of what society had decided should be produced". A bit unwieldy.
Quote:Are there any other speakers at Spring schools past or present?Will there be an agenda with motions submitted from a variety of sources for conference and has there been in the past? Are past conference decisions available?Is a treasurers report available?All their Minutes and accounts are published (and recent ones posted here). Remember that we are dealing with a party the size of one of our branches.
Quote:Will 'History of Universal Suffrage' and WSPI pamphlets be open to make use of by companion parties?Why not. Their pamphlet on the History of Economics is available from Head Office, price 50 rupees + 2nd class postage stamp. Can also be ordered on line here: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/catalog/non-party-publications/world-socialist-party-india-history-political-economy
Quote:Where is the link to the WSPI discussion forum?Seems to be here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/328364997178353/about/%5B/quote%5D
The obvious thing is to have a stall outside the entrance. It's in the North London branch catchment area.
robbo203 wrote:I would not go along with this idea of some kind of mass cull, or weeding out, of non active members at all, Alan. I think its a terrible idea to be perfectly honest. I think it would be utterly devastating in its pschological impact on the Party. The loss of morale would be incalculable and it would set in motion a vicious circle of decline. (….)The fact that many members are not active does not mean they are not socialists and fully entitled to remain members, The focus is completely wrong here. All organisations display a spectrum of membership participation – from the hyperactive to the inactive. Its just a fact of life and we shouldnt expect the SPGB to be any different. What we should be looking for instead is ways to increase the particapitation rate. Instead of looking to prune away the "dead" leaves or, more literally , the dead branches, we should be looking to see how we could encourage the green shoots of growth among the currently inactive part of the membership.Precisely. Couldn't have put it better myself or so politely.I'm afraid, Alan, you are becoming a caricature of yourself. The good news is that, although you are a moaning minnie, you are not a cassandra.
Brian wrote:The returns to the survey/questionnaire, as of 15th Dec 2017, totalled 87 (41 post and 46 email).That's good, isn't it?
jondwhite wrote:At the last conference when employing staff was on the agenda, I was told the party employed a member full time presumably as an IT consultant which must date to the 1990s or 2000s. I was shocked to hear this.It seems that all sorts of urban myths about Head Office are circulating up North! The Party never employed anybody full time in the 1990s or 2000s. That would have required a Conference resolution and the money, neither of which existed. Even the Head Office Assistant only receives travel and subsistence expenses for being there part-time, for two-and-half days a week
Bijou Drains wrote:I don't get to HO as often as I would like. But the last time I called in apart from ADM, I tried to get hold of information such as a list of members and contacts in the NE region. I was told by the then Head Office Assistance that no central data base for any of that information existed (I think Brian might be able to elaborate on the difficulty in getting hold of info for the current survey).Well, you were told wrong ! It is easy to get a print-out of members in the North East and also of contacts there by North East post codes (or anywhere else, for that matter). I can do this tomorrow when I'm at HO if you still want it. Won't take 10 minutes. We are not that incompetent !Head Office supplied the Survey Committee with the addresses, as printed labels, of all members and what email addresses we had and could get for members.But to come to the point at issue, I agree that employing or engaging a non-member to do essential admin work is a non-runner for the reasons mentioned by Robbo. On the other hand, employing/engaging a Party member to do the work of General Secretary/Treasurer/Central Organiser is a sensible way forward. Whatever impression some members may have got, there is a coherent strategy. Following a Party Poll on the matter, we are investing the money from legacies surplus to immediate requirements in an investment fund (to get 5% interest instead of 0.5% in a deposit account) with a view to using the interest towards paying a full or half timer.The only problem that remains is finding a suitable member.
Bitcoins do have a use-value (that of being a means of payment, a store of value, and for speculation). If bitcoin transactions are going down (but are they?) this would be a fall in their use rather than their use-value. That their price is going up reflects demand for them (for these uses, mainly speculation it seems). They don't have a "value" in the Marxian sense since they are not products of labour. Having said that, it does take a lot of time and energy for computers to "mine" them.
