ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Vin wrote:Is it acceptable for Party members who are victims of the sanctions to take part in such civil disobedience?
Yes, if they understand the risks and want to take them but it's not up to us to tell them or any other workers to do this sort of thing. I think there are some members who still haven't paid the Poll Tax.
Vin wrote:I have sent a copy to you via email It is not on headed notepaper or signed.Looks like an attempt to discredit us rather than Labour — unless, that is, it's an example of the sort of provocative thing Alan thinks we should be doing (but better left to Ian Bone and Class War).
Yes, looks like a Tory dirty tricks leaflet. But not a very clever one since not even the Daily Express now calls the Labour Party "the Socialist Party" (which was once their declared policy). Can you send a copy to Head Office so we can look more into it.
At the moment we don't have to gather any signatories to contest the Party-list elections, i.e for the European Parliament, the London, Scottish and Welsh Assemblies. All that is required is an official letter from the Nominating Officer. Before there was PR for ther Euroelections we had to get 30 signatories (as we did when we contested the North East in 1999)
jondwhite wrote:It might not be good for the party, but I'd rather gather signatories than the cost of an election deposit for each constituency.Thanks for the offer. We may need your help in getting the 330 signatories if the Party decides to contest the London mayor elections in 2016.
The total number of households in the 10 constituencies we have chosen is just under half a million. So that will be the number of election addresses we'll have delivered by Royal Mail
While we are speculating on hypothetical scenarios, Ken Macleod in his SF work The Stone Canal (p.175) envisages a government falling because a couple of "World Socialist" MPs abstained:
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 smaller parties.I haven't worked out why abstaining would lead to a government losing a no confidence vote. He can't have expected Socialist MPs to vote in favour of the government in such vote (or in any circumstance). Unless he's assuming that to defeat a vote of no-confidence a minimum number of MPs must take part (vote one way or the other).Also unrealistic is his assumption that Workers Power would more MPs than us. After all, in Vauxhall in 2010 we outpolled them.
If there's a prospect of a socialist election victory in Mole Valley Council in the stockbroker belt of Surrey then we'd be well on the way to worldwide victory. In fact, it could be the last council to fall so the problem you posit won't arise. Today even the Labour Party doesn't contest most seats there:http://www.molevalley.gov.uk/media/pdf/j/6/District_Results_2014.pdfHaving said that, I've just noticed that the "John David Hayball" standing in Leatherhead South ward is a former member and candidate of the Scargill Labour Party. He got 91 votes (6.2%). A sort of start, I suppose.
Quote:and the fact that the defendants “used emails with extreme security measures, such as the RISE UP server.Riseup is one way of trying to avoid State snooping (as well as avoiding unwelcome advertisements). What's wrong with that? Some members use it. More about it here:https://securityinabox.org/riseup_main
Does Chomsky really think we'll have to pay for drinks in socialism. I've a horrible feeling that he might.
The only extant species capable of abstract thinking, i.e of thinking about something in the absence of the thing thought about, is homo sapiens. Humans do this by means of symbols (words). Thinking with abstract symbols is what was once called "reason". To claim that this does not make us "special" is a silly example of "speciousism".The fact remains that this means that we are the only animal species capable of establishment socialism (George Orwell's Animal Farm is good, very good, but should not be taken literally) and so of improving the lot of other animals. Like it or not, they do depend on us for this.What I've been trying to do, incidentally, is to find a theory for not being cruel to other animals that does not involve "anti-speciesism", vegetarianism or utilitarianism. In practice, though, I think most people accept this without the need to theorise about it.
John Oswald wrote:ALB, how does one isolate a quote here from a longer piece to reply to?This is really one for Admin but what you do is you open the passage you want to isolate with quote in square brackets [quo..] and close it with /quote in square brackets [/quo…]. You can also check whether you've done it right by clicking "Preview".Thanks for the book. It's going into the Party's lending library at Clapham High Street.I'm replying separately about whether or not other animals than humans have "reason" (I don't think they do, at least not in the same sense as humans do).
That's a different point. Not sure I agree with what you propose. Might be better to let the central government do its own dirty work. And don't forget that in Britain local councillors are essentially elected civil servants of the central government. Anyway, under our rulebook, a socialist councillor and so council would be under the instructions of their local branch. I know which way I'd vote if this matter came up.
I think 1875 and Robbo are right: that if the socialist movement has majority support in one state and is in a position to win control of political power there they should, if only for the reason 1875 gives of taking control of the armed forces out of the hands of the capitalist class. Also to use the TV and radio possibilities this would give. The danger of being isolated for any length of time in that one state won't be very high as it is likely (given the way that ideas spread) that the socialist movement will be in a strong position in many other states. In fact, the decision as to what to do would probably be up to the socialist "international".Our objection is to socialists (if they are socialists) taking power in one country where they don't have majority support for socialism but only for reforms or for something else less than socialism, i.e have no "mandate" for socialism, as was the case of the Bolsheviks in Russia in 1917 and as will be the case of Syriza if they win the Greek elections next Sunday (I'm assuming that some of them and of the Bolsheviks did want socialism in our sense).
Yes, we were beginning to forget his megalomaniac claim to be his god's high representative on Earth.
You could be right, Steve, but all the other sources, including what we reported in the Socialist Standard at the time, say 503. It's possible that all are just repeating an original mistake, but what is your source? The only definite one will be that declared and signed by the Returning Officer but I can't find a copy of this on the internet. Have you got one?
