[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

The "Right to Ever-Lasting Life"…a statement that enormous gains in longevity is possible with socialism…

After the Monster Raving Loony Party, the Jehovah Witness Socialist Party. Here's what the JW's promise:

Quote:

Picture a time when there will be no such thing as poverty, malnutrition, famine, or welfare systems.

So far, so good, but

Quote:

Can you picture that time? No more funerals, no more cemeteries, no more tears of grief !

Not a bad spoof, Alan.

[ALB]

twc wrote:

ALB asks whether a vote of “No” is an appropriate response to a referendum like the 1951 Australian federal Referendum to “Ban the Communist Party”, a ban that readily extends itself to embrace the Socialist Party?My answer is that, despite the serious emergency situation of such a Referendum vote, with dire collateral consequences for the Party, an opposing vote of “No” is not the appropriate response, and I would personally vote the default:     W O R L D   S O C I A L I S M But I would not urge others to vote the same way on such a crucial issue that puts the short-term survival of the Socialist Party on the agenda.

The SPGB was faced with a similar situation in January 1941 when the government banned the Daily Worker. Here is what the Socialist Standard said on this:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1940s/1941/no-438-february-1941/suppression-daily-workerThis article contains this passage:

Quote:

All the same the S.P.G.B. is opposed to suppression of opinion.

Although of course there wasn't a referendum on the question, suppose that there had been. Wouldn't it be a bit hypocritical to say we are opposed to the suppression of opinion and then, confronted with the possibility of opposing it, refuse to do this? (And what if the referendum had been on banning the Socialist Party?)It would be interesting to know how members of the SP of Australia voted in that 1951 referendum. There is a copy in the SPGB archives at Head Office of the September 1946 issue of Socialist Comment, the joint paper of the SPA and SPNZ, on another referendum in Australia. This was a referendum to transfer powers to legislate on social services, marketing if primary produce and industrial employment from the States to the Federal government. The front page article headlined "THE REFERENDUM" concluded:

Quote:

Thefore, the Socialist Party of Australia maintains that it is not in the interest of the working class to vote either "YES" or "NO". One issue, and one issue alone, is worthy of working class support: Socialism. You can use this referendum to reject the two evils offered to you, and at least protest against this rotten system by writing "SOCIALISM" across the ballot paper. Then, when you understand the choice before you, come and join us in more positive action !"

In the event, the referendum was lost by 50.56% to 49.44%.

[ALB]

Actually it's another TV station but I won't mention it in case it helps them track us down.

[ALB]

These are not specially made videos such as the AV committee might make but videorecordings of meetings. Not quite the same thing.  Incidentally, I didn't notice our 2014 election video or did I miss it?

[ALB]

I've found on the net what seems to be rule for the Hungarian referendum:

Quote:

… a national referendum is valid and successful only when more than half of all voters have cast a valid vote and more than half of those voting in a valid manner support either the 'yes' or the 'no' alternative. The requirement is thus more or less the same as the referendum requirement pertaining to constitutional amendments in the Weimar Republic, a requirement which was characterized as insurmountable and criticized because it made possible voting by abstention.

I don't know why this rule is regarded as insurmountable as under it the 1979 Scottish devolution referendum would have been carried. Given the level of xenophobia in Hungary the one there should easily be successful. And of course what is wrong with "voting by abstention" (or by invalid vote)?

[ALB]

I'm not saying it should exercise it, but the EC has the power (and must have) to overrule a decision of any of its subcommittees. I agree that normally it should leave the editorial committee, the publications committee and the AV committee to get on with their respective remits without needing to refer everything to the EC, as sensibly set out in their terms of reference, but I think (I'm not sure) that in this case it is not clear that the video was made by the AV committee. Not that that would necessarily prevent the EC adopting as a Party video a video produced by a member or group of membersI only know of one other video issued in the name of the party as a whole and that was the one for the 2014 Euroelections (incidentally, can't that be adapted/edited for general use too?). There are a couple of other videos we sell (one produced unofficially, the other a debate on climate change) and there are quite few talks and other debates on our site but these are not really "videos issued in the name of the Party as a whole".I don't know what motivated those EC members who voted to turn down the video but it is also possible that they thought it was not up to scratch or not  to the level required to be an official Party video. Which wouldn't prevent its distribution as long as it didn't claim to be official.

[ALB]

lindanesocialist wrote:

They would of course require EC approval

Not necessarily. As I understand it, the EC's ruling only applies to videos issued in the name of the Party as a whole. Which is not unreasonable as the same applies to pamphlets. But nothing in the ruling prevents members publishing their own videos advocating socialism or even promoting the Party. The content is then their responsibility not the Party's.  The same applies to blogs.

[ALB]

gnome wrote:

On each and every occasion I experimented with this feature I was singularly unimpressed with the outcome and thus had my predilection confirmed.

Predilection? Is this a misprint or Freudian slip for "prediction"? Or do you like being singularly unimpressed?  No need to aswer that

[ALB]

You're thinking of Ernst Fleishman. His article is here:http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/sex-in-free-society.htmlNot sure, though, that Reichian psychology is valid, though, as it posits a mysterious "sexual energy" which nobody has been able to find but then any talking therapy works whatever the theory behind it.

[ALB]

ALB wrote:

There is in fact a Conference Resolution, from 2013, on the sort of videos needed:

Quote:

That the EC acknowledge the need for Party writers to produce 10-minute scripts on specific subjects for use at public meetings and on video.

i.e. 10 minute videos not block busters like Capitalism and Kids Stuff.

Actually, West London branch, which proposed this resolution, practised what we preached. We made two experimental 10-minute videos. They weren't very good but like Vin's they had the merit of exisating. I've just found the disk and can send it to someone who can put the two videos somewhere for people to see what they think.

[ALB]

There is in fact a Conference Resolution, from 2013, on the sort of videos needed:

Quote:

That the EC acknowledge the need for Party writers to produce 10-minute scripts on specific subjects for use at public meetings and on video.

i.e. 10 minute videos not block busters like Capitalism and Kids Stuff.

[ALB]

Talking of India, a comrade there drafted a leaflet a few years ago which contained the following (in English translation):

Quote:

As humans, everybody has the right to live, to get a partner, lead a happy life, go anywhere in the world and discover new and striking facts.

No doubt it would be good if every human (man or women) could "get a partner" but it is difficult to see how the exercise of this "right" could be implemented (quite apart from whether this would be a temporary partner or one for life). Maybe the writer was thinking that partnerships could be arranged somehow, as I think has been the case in most human societies before the coming of capitalism and its ideology of individualism which has left individuals to fend for themselves.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

A spoof election campaign offering unimaginable and totally unrealistic and unattainable reforms to the voters.

The Monster Raving Loony Party does this already. So of course do the Trotskyists even if in their case it's not supposed to be a spoof. I can't see any mileage in us moving onto this terrain.PS Just realised. Your post is a spoof too.

[ALB]

lindanesocialist wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

without prior permission from the moderators.”

May I ask via what channels would permission be requested  and on what grounds would permission be granted/decided upon? How long will it take to come to such a decision?

Good point, Vinda. And yet another reason why this proposed amendment to the forum rules (which would only ever need to be applied to one user) should be dropped — it will provide an opportunity for further skirmishes between users and moderators. I can't think why the moderators want to create this rod to beat their own backs. Maybe they're masochists or enjoy a game of cat and mouse?

[ALB]

Twford John wrote:

I'm surprised the SPGB hasn't savaged you

But we are the SPGB so how can we savage ourselves?I knew he was a troll from the start.

[Author]

Posts