ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Personally, I've always refused to do jury service, not just because it's part of the state, but also because I don't believe in judging and being responsible for punishing fellow workers. So, if I was called, I'd always vote for acquittal (except in the case of capitalists accused of fraud, in which case I'd always vote for guilty). The only of reason I can think for charging a member (apart from breaking the rules or expressing anti-socialist views) would be alleged strike-breaking or stealing from the party or a trade union, not for breaking some capitalist law.
What is in effect being proposed here is that someone should be retried before a jury of the whole party without the checks and balances (such as they are, e.g regarding evidence) of a proper trial. Or are we going to assume that they did do it even if they say they didn't (a guilty decision in a court of law doesn't mean somebody did it, only that a jury thought they probably did). We can't go down that road. It would be immensely disrupting and turn the party away from its main function of propagating the case for socialism. It could also lead to legal action against us.
Young Master Smeet wrote:the short answer is that such a person would be charged, and their membership debatedDo we really want to go down this road and debate the morals of members and applicants? Look what happened in the SWP. I don't think so.And who wants to cast the first stone?
I suppose it depends on which 'atrocity stories' you choose to believe but the Islamic Statists don't bother to disguise theirs: they broadcast them to the world.
That reads like propaganda from the time when the Assad regime was not objectively an ally of Western capitalism.
Young Master Smeet wrote:the euqllay unspeakable gangster Assad will regain Syria.I don't agree that he is "equally unspeakable", a ganster no doubt but at least he's living in the 21st century not the 8th or 9th. I'd much rather live under his regime than under that of those Islamist barbarians. I'm sure any woman would agree.
I never said it wasn't chosen democratically (if we hadn't accepted the recommendation of the adhoc committee the affair would have dragged on and on, wasting more party time), only that in my opinion it is terrible. In other words, I don't agree with LBird that the majority is always right.
Found it. It is this from 1995:
Quote:That this Conference regards Clause 4 of our Declaration of Principles as committing socialists to opposition to all prejudices, based on gender, race or sexual orientation. (1995).Incidentally, there has never been any bar on homosexuals joining the party even when this was illegal. In fact at least one prominent member was during that period. Also an abortionist when that was illegal too.
No, it wouldn't be logical. It's a one-off just for the fascia of Head Office. What would be logical would be to adopt a completely different logo for general use. We've already got perfectly adequate headed notepaper and compliment slips.In any event, the Head Office fascia is terrible. You can't even see clearly what's in black behind "Party" in white. Is it a 9 or an S? All you can read clearly is GB as if we're proud of that. Terrible. Best confine it to a minor high street in south London so it won't be seen by too many people. Actually, Gnome, I think it would be technically possible to get rid of SPGB: isn't it done on a separate sheet? Pity those who wanted it in didn't think of doing this by putting our website there instead: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgbAnyway, this is a subject that bores me, so I'm not going to launch a campaign against it. Just complain whenever somebody says they like it and get on with real socialist activity and discussion.
Brian wrote:Conference passed a resolution on 'sexual preference'What resolution are you talking about? I can't find it.
gnome wrote:Nick Long, who is standing as the "People before Profit" candidate, was repeatedly told that capitalism can't work that way but all to no avail. People instead of profit should have been his clarion call.But it hasn't been. Here's his election video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5gmG89D64kNo mention of getting rid of capitalism (which he presumably wants) or anything like that but just about restoring reforms that used to once exist under capitalism. Missed opportunity.Talking about missed opportunities, we could/should be doing amateur videos like this. Maybe we could get our candidates in the coming general election to do one each, tailored for the constituency where they are standing?
Apparently the Podemos ("We Can") party is now the party in Spain with the most (opinion polled) support:http://www.newsweek.com/radical-spanish-party-podemos-lead-polls-first-time-281699Don't lnow what it means except that people there seemed to be as pissed off with conventional politics as people here, except that here it's taking the form of UKIP.
Another relevant news story:http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/10/russia-today-ofcom-sanctions-impartiality-ukraine-coverageAs if the BBC, etc hadn't been biased in favour of the other side.
What was revealing was not so much the show of support for the UKIP candidate (by all accounts they are going to win) but the nature of the supporters. Reckless is what Class War would call a (ex) Tory toff. His election manifesto is like any Tory one:
Quote:Mark Reckless is 43 and married to Catriona. They have two children, Jamie and Toby, and they live in Rochester. Before he became MP for Rochester and Strood, Mark worked as an economist, as a lawyer and in business.Pictures of him, his wife and kids suggest he lives in a big house with a big garden.Most of those campaigning for him (and they'd come from all over the country) didn't look as if their wife was called Catriona or their children Jamie or Toby or that they lived in a big house with a garden. In fact they looked more like Labour supporters are supposed to look (though they had probably been working-class Tories). Older men (no skinheads)This is strange as UKIP's constitution declares it to be a "libertarian" party, "libertarian" in the US sense that is, i.e in favour of laissez-faire capitalism, and is financed by rich businessmen who see an economic interest in Britain not being in the UK. But, in a political democracy, capitalist parties have to seek and get working-class votes and to do so make wild promises to disguise what they really stand for.No doubt one of the appeals of UKIP to the campaigners we met is summed up in this from one of their leaflets entitled "It's time we swept away the failed political class" showing Farage sweeping away Miliband, Cameron and Clegg, and saying:
Quote:For 20 years, idemtikit governments have ridden roughod over the wishes and interests of the people of Britain. Many people have given up voting because all the choices appeared the same and no matter who they voted for, it made very little difference. (…)We're governed by a clueless class of professional politicians who are out of touch and out of ideas. It's time we swept them all OUT OF THERE.The tragedy is seeing everyday working people out campaigning for just one such professional politician.We also met the Monster Raving Loony Party candidate "Hairy Norm" who was also making a bid for the protest vote, but even he was saying "Don't let Europe Rule Britannia" and "keep imperial measures" and "keep the pound" (though, to his credit, he didn't say anything about immigrants). He's also the local "log merchant" and his election leaflet was "sponsored by Ashword Firewood Supplies". He probably wants to keep selling his logs by the hundredweight rather than the kilo or tonne as the changeover would be too complicated. But who else knows what a hundredweight is?
Refreshing yes. And of course we have the same position on GM crops and fracking, i.e that if they can be made safe (as they can technologically) then there is no objectioni n principle to using them in a socialist society but it is up to the members of that society to decide for themselves democratically whether or not to use them. We are no more anti-GM or anti-fracking in principle than we are anti-nuclear.Incidentally, rather surprisingly from someone who I think is closely associated with the Marxists Internet Archive, he attributes Engels's Principles of Communism to Marx.
