ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Vin wrote:During my enquiries, I learned that BBC political Interviews cannot be used by political organisations.
I'm prepared to believe that if asked this question directly that's how they might be obliged to reply but I'm not convinced they would not and do not tolerate it in practice (unless it was implied that the BBC endorsed the views expressed which of course nobody watching a political interview would think).All political parties do this. For example:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFKIot9UNAkhttps://youtu.be/YEyrw1CgqAUhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8e_jPQx9jIWe'd be completely stupid to take our election interviews and broadcasts down.
I can't see anything relevant on that link about who the "we" is. Maybe it's my browser.I still don't really understand. Is it the case that, because someone unwisely ignored the advice that "if you don't want to know the answer, don't ask the question", we now cannot use the various election and other interviews we have had over the years? Insisting on taking these off our sites would seem to be a case of "cuting off your nose to spite your face." If so, I would have thought that the EC made a sound decision in refusing to go down that road.
Quote:the BBC replied:"Our BBC research team can’t find any mention of this interview in the news library database. It might be something that just hasn’t been kept"and when they did find it:"We have approval from BBC News to licence the footage on the following proviso – If they remove the straps and do not reference the BBC it should be fine to licence."There are two things I don't undersatand here.1. Is the second quote a direct quote from someone at the BBC? If so, who is the "We" who have approval?2. Have or have we not got a licence? If we have, why the need to take the video down? All we would need to do is remove all references to the BBC.
Pity the whole graph doesn't show (but it will if you click the link). It seems to be about the growth of money wages in ten year periodsrather than pay levels. I see that it's from the person who writes and speaks about Fully Automated Luxury Communism. After listening to a podcast he did last year for the New Economics Foundation I tried to contact him to see if he would do a talk for us but he didn't reply if someome wants to tweet him to try again. Mind you, I don't think William Morris would have thought much of the idea.and of course socialism/communism does not depend on full automation just on the common ownership of the means of production whether automated or not.
The famous 1911 reply to W.B. of Upton Park was largely of symbolic significance since what a minority of Socialist MPs should or should not do was not an immediate issue (and still isn't) and, when the situation arises, they will do as democratically instructed and we can't anticipate or dictate now what this will be. The reply wanted to leave open the option of them being instructed to vote under certain circumstances for some measure proposed by others. In this sense it was a declaration that the Socialist Party was not opposed to all reform measures on principle even though it was against proposing any itself. How could we be, however insubstantial or temporary the improvement might be? Otherwise we'd just be a party of the idea of socialism and not that of the material interest of the working class.
Another illustration of how capital can't do without labour — and how British capital, outside the EU, won't be able to either, so (im)migration is not going to stop:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/business/economy/denmark-jobs-full-employment.html?_r=0Looks as if King Canute has learned his lesson in his home country but not (yet) in his British domain.
In his SF book The Stone Canal, Ken Macleod imagines (p. 175) just such a scenario:
Quote:The next day the government lost a no-confidence motion (due to the abstention of only five MPs, the three Workers' Power and two World Socialists) and fell, to be replaced by a more radical coalition drawing in support from the smaller parties. Neutrality was affirmed.I can't remember whether the fall of the government was a good thing or a bad thing. Macleod is familiar with us and may have included this because he was aware of the sort of discussion we are having now.
This discussion has been going on in the Party since at least 1911:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1911/no-83-july-1911/socialist-party-and-reforms
Quote:Mr. Bostock is, therefore, completely in error in assuming that in showing the unsatisfactory nature of reforms in themselves, and their utter futility as solutions of what is called the "Social Problem," the S.P.G.B. is necessarily hostile toward all reforms, and considers them as being in every case inevitably "detrimental to working-class interest."Other members took a different view:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Propaganda_League
Quote:In February 1910 a letter from "W.B. (Upton Park)" was sent to the Socialist Standard asking,“What would be the attitude of a member of the SPGB if elected to Parliament, and how would he maintain the principle of ‘No Compromise’?”The perspective of this small group of members was that no reform of capitalism could ever be supported by the party claiming to represent working-class interests as it was not the job of socialists to take part in the running of capitalism. Any attempt to do so would run counter to the famous ‘hostility clause’ of the Party's Declaration of Principles. The Standard’s reply on the matter, backed by the Party’s Executive Committee, stated thateach issue would have to be looked at on its merits and the course to be pursued decided democraticallyThis did not satisfy the members who had raised the question, who formed a ‘Provisional Committee’ aimed at overturning the position espoused in the Standard’s reply and who set their case out in an ‘Open Letter’ to Party members, arguing that socialists were required to oppose measures introduced by capitalist parties on each and every occasion. This was again rebutted firmly by the EC who contended that it would be ridiculous for socialists, by way of example, to oppose a measure designed to stop a war in which the working class was being butchered.There is a difference between saying that capitalism can't be reformed to work to the benefit the working class (your, valid, point) and saying that some reforms can be obtained even if only on a temporary basis as long as they dont "threaten capital's ability to expand itself". There are even some reforms that benefit workers that actually do help capital's ability to expand itself, e.g. education and health provisions. It's not a black and white situation. But, as Robbo has pointed out, this is not a case for Socialists advocating any eform measures (but might be for a Socialist MP or councillor voting for some). .
Four turned out to run a stall and distribute leaflets to the mainly health service trade unionist protestors. About £15 worth of pamphlets sold and hundreds of general introductory leaflets given out. Interesting to note from its leaflet that SPEW is now calling itself "Socialist Party formerly Militant" which should help dissipate the confusion but it didn't stop some of their out-of-London members thinking our stall was theirs.
So youse two wanted to dissolve the constituent assembly! What would be worrying would be a Party member ending up as neither a menshevik internationalist nor an anarchist
In 2003 a pilot scheme for electronic voting took place in ten councils, including Norwich. At the time we wrote to the authorities protesting that there was no provision to not vote for any of the candidates. The correspondence must be somewhere at Head Office. In any event, the upshot was that e-voting was not proceded with.Here's an extract from amusing account of how a comrade in Australia struggled with electronic voting with no option to not to vote for anyone and where voting is compulsory:
Quote:This informal voter subsequently wrote to the Federal Electoral Commissioner of the AEC asking what provision was there, in the Federal Electoral Act Regulations pertaining to electronic voting, for a deliberate informal vote. I will not bore the reader by dwelling on the reply I received from the Electoral Commissar, suffice to say that like a non-vote, it was a non-answer; however the last paragraph of the letter contains an eye opener for it says – that if an elector made an informal vote by not selecting any candidates or by not allocating preferences to all candidates, then the electronic voting system alerts the elector that the necessary number of selections have not been made. So potential informalites be warned that unless you express a vote for a candidate on the electronic device, you will be stuck in a quarrel with a machine telling you that 'your vote is invalid, please try again'. (No doubt after three attempts the Polling Station electronic device will start flashing a light to alert Electoral Office Rottweilers to the fact that there is an un-Australian in their midst and they should take appropriate action!).That's the point at which you walk away.
I came out as a "Menshevik Internationalist", i.e, a Menshevik opposed to Russiam participation in WWi. I thought I might be.
We've had this doscussion before. If there's is no provision to not vote for any of the parties or candidates, then the only alternative is to "spoil" the voting machine, i.e., start the process of voting and walk away without completing it. The polling clerk will then have to do something before anyone else can use that machine. I can add that when I voted in Belgium once they did have a provision to cast a blank vote (and to do that in either French or Dutch).
