[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.

[ALB]

The sad thing is that Martinez was the son of Spanish Republican refugees in London.

[ALB]

Thanks. The editorial committee knows. One of the authors pointed out to us at the time the error about Seamus Lynch.

[ALB]

I think some of us felt that even if we didn't say so !

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

And a bio may very well reinforce people's perceptions that we are predominantly a white elderly male party.

If it's the perception that we are all "elderly" it's wrong. We're not all OAPs !  Of the 10 candidates we put up at the last general election only  3 fell into that category, 5 were middle aged and 2 were younger than that.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

But the SPGB case is not about diminishing a speakers presence or his attributes as a debater or speaker but simply on election leaflets and online statements by not having his photo or personal extraneous details such as if he is married, how many children, what age he is, what his job is or even his or her gender if we could.

We certainly don't, and should continue not to, put such details on our election leaflets but I don't see any objection to supplying the media with some of this info (photo, age, job) if they ask. Some branches contesting elections do this. Others don't. It's not a question of promoting the "face" but of showing that our candidate is human and just like any other member of the working class. Besides, a photo in a newspaper helps draw attention to the text underneath. No need to cut off the nose to spite the face or should that be the other way round?

[Author]

Posts