[ALB]

gnome wrote:

To the best of my knowledge the SPGB has never taken advice from non-members and hopefully never will.

I don't think this is true as we have sought outside advice on occasions, e.g legal opinion. What has never happened is non-members taking part in any vote. In this particular case we have two non-members, even potential members, putting forward arguments that are held by some members. So, their arguments need to be addressed anyway, but shouldn't our advice to them, then, not be "mind your own business" but "why not join and have a vote in what we decide?"

[ALB]

Here's what happened the last time this went to a Party Poll:

Quote:

JAN-FEB 1986: Are you in favour of changing the name of the Party to World Socialist Party (Britain)? Lost 72-229.

Later that same year Conference carried the following resolution:

Quote:

This Conference resolves that the propaganda of the Socialist Party should refer as often as appropriate to our membership of 'The World Socialist Movement'.

This seems to me a sensible compromise. It's why, for instance, 'Companion Party of the World Socialist Movement' is on the masthead of the Socialist Standard. Just a pity 2008 Conference voted to go backwards and insert "of Great Britain" into it. Here's what it used to look like till them: But I think we'd have to bonkers to completely abandon our long-standing full name. Even though this would not be a break with our past it would be perceived of as such. 

[ALB]

It's not just sentimentality that leads us to stick to SPGB and SPC. It's history. Both parties and in both countries have a history that is more or less known to others (more in Canada in fact) so we keep these names to emphasise the continuity. The parties in NZ and Australia do not/did not have this, so they could change to WSP without losing it. All new parties, eg as in India, are adopting WS Party or Group. That makes sense to me.

[ALB]

SB_UK wrote:

The basic idea is that either no or all people control the power which is in the hands of the few currently.So – by none or all – we can either suggest that the world is owned by everyone equally or no-one at all.Which places responsibility for things into the hands of all or none ie 'global distribution of power' both in contrast to few.

That's not a bad way of putting it except that it will require action to dispossess the few which will inevitably be "political". Also, the support of all won't be necessary. Just of a sufficient majority, "critical mass" is the term I believe Peter Joseph uses. Once this has been attained it should be possible to dislodge the few by force of numbers and via the ballot box.

[ALB]

We are not alone. The ICC have been banned too:http://libcom.org/forums/general/spgb-london-anarchist-bookfair-20082014#comment-543006It remains to be seen if the CWO are allowed in this year as they were last year. Probably not as they're more party-ist than the ICC.

[ALB]

Here's the good news (extract from SPGB August EC Minutes):

Quote:

Following on from the proposal he made to the November 2013 EC to have a
collection of his Free Lunch Cartoons published, Cde P Rigg wrote on the
22nd July and 26th July, informing the Party that he has arranged for the
publication of 750 copies of the new Free Cartoon Collection booklets. He
will send 100 copies to Head Office, and Party will be able to advertise
and sell them like any other Party literature and keep the proceeds. The
first batch will be posted in September 2014. He will arrange to sell the
remainder copies privately. He also suggested a price of £5.00 per copy.
He sent two copies to Head Office, which were shown to EC members. The EC
agreed the following –
– a price of £5.00 plus postage and packing per copy
– add to the list of Party publications in the Socialist Standard and the
website
– to thank Cde P Rigg for allocating 100 copies of a well produced booklet
to the Socialist Party.

So, available from 52 Clapham High St, London SW4 7UN from next month for £5 + postage (£2.50 from UK).

[ALB]

To prove Slobberjabber wrong.

[ALB]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Perhaps an answer to the question regarding Scottish independence and the party name might be forthcoming. Has it even been discussed?1st Warning:  1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

Try this thread instead:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/scottish-referendum?page=1

[ALB]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Some may find the Wikipedia article useful:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_realism_%28philosophy_of_the_social_sciences%29

Yes, interesting. I see there's also an "International Association for Critical Realism":http://criticalrealismblog.blogspot.co.uk/Looks a bit esoteric to me. But, LBird, is this what you also mean by "critical realism" or are you an offshoot of it? I can see some similarities.

[ALB]

Of course I think Newton and anybody else can be "wrong". But what do we mean by being "wrong" or "right"?

LBird wrote:

[PS, comrade, how about moving on to discussing Critical Realism, and its usefulness (or otherwise) for the proletariat when discussing scientific method?]

OK, what is the "reality" that the "realism" in the name is referring to?

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

You won't believe this, but when I said that whether 'the sun goes round the earth' or 'the earth goes round the sun' is a 'truth' that depends upon which society is saying it, some, employing bourgeois ideology, denied it!

To continue the banter, how, then, can it be said that Newton was wrong, as somebody wrote last night?

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

I glad that you seem to be agreeing with me, that ‘there is no such thing as an ideology-free science’

I should perhaps clarify that I agree with your point that the mind plays an active role in understanding nature and that the categories into which it  classifies nature are in the mind not in nature, but I don't agree with calling this "ideology". But that's an argument about terminology not substance. It follows from this that, as you and many others are saying, that science is not uncovering the True nature of nature but classifying it in a particular way and which could, in some cases, be class-biased.

LBird wrote:

Whether any ‘science’ is ‘class-based’ is to be examined, rather than assumed

I agree. That was my point. It's a basic methological principle.

LBird, post #385 wrote:

I prefer a scientific method that openly examines 'theory' first, and then puts it into practice, and then votes on the results to see whether they are considered 'socially true' or not.Using this unified method, it is up to the proletariat to decide, after scientific investigation, whether any 'science' produced by the bourgeoisie is 'true' for us, too. Perhaps it will be, in some areas of science, perhaps it won't be, in other areas of science.

Not at all sure about this, though. Can't see how it would work. Who gets a vote? All "proletarians" (in which case there might be some bizarre results as religion and the paranormal are so widespread today under capitalism)? Or just class conscious proletarians, i.e socialists/communists (in which case wouldn't that be "elitist" or "substitutionist)?

LBird wrote:

I’m interested in the issue of method, rather than trying to imagine what objections the proletariat might come up against bourgeois ideas within any particular scientific discipline, from physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, politics, to history, and every other discipline in between. Why treat physics any differently from sociology? Unless one has already assumed that physics and sociology are sciences of a different methodological order?

This seems a bit of cop-out to me and in contradiction to what you wrote above about the need to examine each science on a case by case basis. Also, of course you have imagined (as in the thread on Piketty) what objections can be raised against, for instance, bourgeois economics. Is that because (like me) you are more confident about talking about economics than physics?

Quote:

Is physics a 'special' science? The bourgeoisie have been saying it is, for centuries, and that its method alone produces Truth. We know since Einstein that this isn't the case, as Rovelli admits, that 'Newton was wrong'.

Not meaning to be funny, but who are the bourgeoisie who have been saying this "for centuries"?  Until a hundred years or so ago I would have thought that most of the bourgeoisie would have thought that "the Truth" was to be found in the bible — the Protestant ethic and all that. In any event, as you point out, whoever has been saying this is wrong, as is now widely recognised in bourgeois as well as socialist/communist circles.

[ALB]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Hi AdamI was wondering, if as you point out in your post, the party has accepted the use of the party names as outlined above, then how come it isn't being implemented in the case of (. You mention the whittling away of the party decision, but how can that have happened when a democratic decision was made by the party? 

Sorry, I missed this till now. It was whittled away by subsequent Conference decisions, one in 2008 and again this year.A fuss could have been kicked up of a Party Poll not being amended by another Party Poll as Rule 26 states "The results of a Party Poll shall overrule all other decisions (i.e. EC, Conference or previous Party Poll decisions" which implies that a Party Poll decision cannot be overruled except by another Party Poll.However, these days, since every member votes on Conference motions the vote on them is virtually a Party Poll so a formal Party Poll is likely to have the same result. Though not necessarily since a Party Poll motion is subject to a much wider discussion and reflection by Party members. Maybe those of us who want to keep  "of Great Britain" restricted to legal, historical and international occasions only should have been more insistent.Actually, a case can be made for saying that the last paragraph of the  2008 Conference was (and still is) out of order as contrary to Rule 26:

Quote:

This Conference resolves that the Party's full name, 'The Socialist Party of Great Britain', be used in the following cases:A. legal documents; B. Party forms; C. Party membership cards; D. publication credits, including the masthead of the Socialist Standard; E. listings of World Socialist Movement parties and publications; and F. the title of the Party's website.It is encouraged to use the abbreviated form 'The Socialist Party' in any other context where confusion with other similarly named organisations is unlikely. This resolution supersedes the 1986 and 1988 Conference resolutions respecting the use of the Party's names.

Constitutionally, it may have superseded the previous Conference resolutions but not the 1991 Party Poll that confirmed the 1988 resolution.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

Despite repeated requests to post less (even from blog committee members and a recommendation from the internet committee) nobody takes any notice.

ALB, we do take notice but just happen to disagree with that position which you yourself prefer which is simply another member expressing their own personal views.

It is my opinion but not "simply" my individual one. It is also the opinion of the Internet Committee in its report on activities in 2013 and included in the EC's Report to this year's Conference:

Quote:

Part of the Committee's role is oversight of the Party's blog, Socialism or Your Money Back. Cdes Johnstone and Surman contributed on a regular basis and there were often three or more posts daily. While the Committee is happy with the volume of blog posts over the past year, we feel that one daily, topical post to the Party's blog would be a good minimum, and that any extra ones could be submitted instead to the blogs of the Companion Parties in order to help bring them out of dormancy.

Unfortunately the report of the discussion of this report is not yet available. 

[ALB]

Agree it looks good but don't think we should automatically copy stuff from our SOYMB blog there. There's already too much stuff on the blog, sometimes more than 3 posts a day, which defeats the purpose as followers won't read so much. One post a day, as with most other blogs, should be enough. Despite repeated requests to post less (even from blog committee members and a recommendation from the internet committee) nobody takes any notice.

[Author]

Posts