[ALB]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

What about passing a single law that said corporations and business were not people legally (in the USA that means overturning citizens united, AFAIK).and didn't have the rights of people. this is something that might pass in the US, and people keep keep trying).

This would be tantamount to abolishing limited liability. Capitalism used to exist without this (until the middle of the 19th century), which meant that capitalists were only individual persons or partnerships of persons who were wholly liable for their business's debts. If it went bankrupt they lost everything including their homes, their personal possessions and savings and could end up in a debtors prison. Then capitalists really were risk-takers !Capitalism today could not exist without limited liability companies because of the growth of the amount of capital needed for a capitalist enterprise (as Marx writing at the time saw and saw would continue), which shows that the individual private capitalist has become functionally redundant (as Marx also pointed out).But it also shows that a capitalist company or corporation is a legal construct. Anarchists and other "direct actionists" don't realise this and advocate taking and holding workplaces while these constructs still have the backing of the state. They seem to think that capitalists possess means of production in the same way that they possess their clothes and their tooth brushes and that all that needs to be done is to organise and use brute force to take these off them.Socialists are more realistic (and more direct). We advocate winning control of political power (through elections) and using it to end the legal status of these corporations. Then they no longer have the protection of the state and in fact no longer exist. As YMS points out, then there is no obstacle to the socialist-minded  worker majority taking possession of the workplaces that formerly belonged to the corporations.

[ALB]

To play along too. Declare all stocks and shares, bills and bonds, property titles and incorporations of companies null and void. The state would then no longer uphold the basis of capitalism and productive resources would become the common heritage of all. That would be the end of capitalism and the beginning of socialism. But of course it would require majority understanding and participation to bring about. It couldn't just be imposed by a minority, however well-meaning.

[ALB]

You haven't really done that, have you Vin? I hope not as it would be completely irresponsible from the Party's point of view.  It would be like a member caught fly-posting and disowned by the EC insisting to the authorities that they did have Party authorisation. Besides, the facts are wrong. Only the first 3 on your list are from the BBC, 2 are from another TV channel, 2 others are not from TV channels and nobody will be able to guess where the last one came from. If you have approached the BBC please don't make things worse by approaching Channel 4 too.

[ALB]

Test

[ALB]

Here's something on this from our pamphlet What's Wrong with Using Parliament?:

Quote:

Because MPs themselves say they are representatives and not delegates, some anarchists have felt compelled to draw a rigid distinction between “representation” and “delegation”: “In a democracy it is natural that we will appoint people to do certain things – this is a vital division of labour that must be used. But this appointment should be on the basis of delegation not representation. Delegates unlike representatives are subject to recall (if they don’t do what they were asked to do by the assembly, they can be relieved of their mandate and their actions reversed)” (Parliament or Democracy?, p. 41). “…delegate democracy  . . . strongly contrasts with representative democracy (such as Parliament) where, an MP having been elected, he/she then takes decisions on personal, party and ultimately ruling-class grounds, with little reference to the working-class part of the electorate” (Anarchist Federation, Against Parliament. For Anarchism, 2000 edition, p. 54). This is broadly a valid distinction, but it is a distinction rather between accountable and non-accountable representatives. It seems an over-narrow definition of “delegate” to say it is someone given a single specific mandate; this may be the case in some instances but we don’t see why delegates need to refer back to those who mandated them for every decision – that would be as unworkable as direct democracy without any delegation.

So, what do you understand by "delegate" in the term "participatory delegate democracy" that you introduced?

[ALB]

lindanesocialist wrote:

But the SPGB cant be charged for the Intro Video as it was disowned by the EC.

Lucky they did it then, like we used to disown, for the record, members caught bill-posting

[ALB]

I don't know if anyone else noticed it, but someone has posted in another section here that the BBC are charging £1000 for every minute of material from their archives:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/events-and-announcements/dennis-skinner-filmDon't know if it's the case. Hope not.

[ALB]

ChristieAl wrote:

The last hurdle for me is to pay for some archive footage that I want to use (the BBC wants over £1000 a minute!),

That's rather disturbing. Is this their general policy? If so, can you let us know where to find this ruling as it's something we've been discussing too. Thanks.

[ALB]

"Participatory delegate democracy" is not the same as "direct democracy" (where everybody votes on everything). It's where everybody gets a chance to elect a delegate to pursue the mandate of the group (community, workplace, etc) of which they are a membe and where the person elected is answerable for their decisions to that group and who can be recalled by a vote at any time.This could have existed long before the invention of the internet. It doesn't rule out some issue requiring a yes or no answer being but to a referendum, but this is not appropriate in all cases since in most cases there are more than one possible answer and so best decided by a committee of elected delegates.

[ALB]

Subhaditya wrote:

Anyway I was reading the article on Alexander Kollontai,  I am confused about Red Love, what does it mean… is there anywhere I can find more details about it.

I don't know if this is the same as she meant but here's an article from the Socialist Standard in 1910:https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1910/no-76-december-1910/case-free-love-some-capitalist-hypocrisies-exposed

[ALB]

Still talking about bonobos, etc and still from a male perspective.

[ALB]

Bit of a change from the usual caricature of a capitalist as a fat man with a top hat smoking a cigar.

[ALB]

They were all there of course. Outside the Woolgate Centre in Witney. The Tories, Labour, LibDems, UKIP, Labour and the Greens, even the Elvis Bus Pass party (advocating "Better daytime television for those on Benefits"). Not present was the National Health Action Party which is also standing a candidate.We arrived late and had to set up next to the Tories. Which was unfortunate as we were handing out a blue-coloured leaflet with Cameron on the front. (I don't know who thought up this idea but it was counter-productive as more than one refused it as they thought it was a Tory leaflet). The Labourites packed up early and the Tories and Ukippers thought that we should take over their space as "the Socialist Party" had taken over the Labour Party. We smiled but didn't.The LibDems are making the biggest effort, no doubt because if they can't beat Labour under Corbyn for second place (their leaflets specifically denounced Corbyn) their credibility will remain damaged. Labour came second at the general election, with the LibDems 4th behind UKIP.. You'd have thought that Labour would also realise the importance for them of beating the LibDems, but they didn't seem to be making much effort. We were told that their candidate was an anti-Corbyn Blairite. Maybe this explains why we didn't see any of the young, enthusiastic new members Corbyn has attracted to the Labour Party. Anyway, enough of conventional, capitalist politics.Although our main effort was to distribute "The problem" leaflet before it became outdated, we still sold three pamphlets. One person immediately recognised us as "The Socialist Party of Great Britain". Another had received our leaflet through her letter box the day before, liked it and wanted to know more. Most of the conversations were about socialism, though there were a couple who had voted Brexist (in the minority here as the constituency was one of those that voted to stay in) and wanted to discuss this (they assumed that as socialists we would have favoured Brexit).It can't be denied that people are more interested in discussing politics when there's an election. We saw 8 or 9 posters in the window each for the Liberals, the Greens and Labour and one for the NHAP. Only one Tory one. Presumably as this is a safe Tory seat those who are not Tories want to show this. Can't blame them but this makes the title of our leaflet "The problem is not the Tories … It's capitalism" relevant. Naturally, they all got one put through their letter box.After the stall and door-to-door leafletting in Witney and Eynsham only 250 remain of the 2500 West London took. Others are due to be distributed by Midlands members in Chipping Norton and Woodstock. When it's over less than 1000 should be left at Head Office.

[ALB]

Quote:

We’re, after all, in it to win it – to not merely oppose but to create an entirely new world

This would be a welcome development. Hopefully, it's a sign that those who organise protest movements to "Stop This" or "Bring Back That" are beginning to realise that this is a treadmill that gets them nowhere. Some however have got a long way to go, for instance, the People's Assembly organised a demostration at the Tory Conference in Birmingham under the slogan "Tories Out".I think we have a few sympathisers in Sweden, don't we? Or maybe the organisers would accept a written statement.Maybe adapted from this article in the Socialist Standard?http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2013/no-1306-june-2013/socialism-only-alternative

[ALB]

Just received a leaflet through my letter box from the local Green Party. The small print at the bottom says:

Quote:

If you have a "No Junk Mail" sticker on your letter box, you might wonder why a Green Party volunteer delivered this newsletter. We don't regard political communications as "Junk", but as an important part of the democratic process.

Good point. Ours too.

[Author]

Posts