[ALB]

Obviously capitalist firms are not going to engage in fracking unless it returns a profit for them, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is harmful. Personally, I don't see anything wrong in principle with fracking any more than there is with mining in general. In fact, all the arguments against fracking on environmental grounds could also be levelled against mining, but we're not going to take up an anti-mining stance are we? I think we should be wary of jumping on the anti-fracking bandwagon along with the nimbys and those who opposed any new technological advances.(e.g. GM crops too) and continue to argue that scientific and technological advances strengthen the case for socialism and will be properly applied in a socialist society to produce what people need instead of for profit.

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

Revolutionary Socialism in the 21st Century

Unfortunate name, I'd have thought, in view of its similarity with Chavez's "21st Century Socialism", unless they are Chavists that is. But I thought the SWP was relatively clear on this.

[ALB]

That's why, the last time this came up at the end of the 1980s, our 1989 Conference passed the following resolution:

Quote:

This Conference reaffirms the Party's position on co-operatives as set out, for instance, in the chapter on "The Co-operative Movement" in the 1942 edition of Questions of the Day, that is:"In the minds of many workers the Co-operative movement is regarded as being in some way linked up with socialism. When the co-operators take up this attitude they claim in justification that Robert Owen, the co-operative pioneer, was actively concerned for some part of his life with possible means of escape from the capitalist system (…)Robert Owen's solution was that small groups of workers should try to establish self-supporting 'villages of industry', in which there would be no employer, no master. They would constitute, as it were, little oases in the desert of capitalism, owning the 'land and means of production common'. He anticipated that the movement would grown until finally the workers would have achieved their emancipation (…)The Co-operative Movement cannot solve the basic economic problems of the workers as a whole, or even of the co- operative societies' own members. Its success is merely the success of an essentially capitalist undertakings (…)Co-operation cannot emancipate the working class. Only Socialism will do that. The workers cannot escape from the effects of capitalism by retiring into Owen's 'villages of industry'. They must obtain for society as a whole the ownership of the means of production and distribution, which are the property of the capitalist class. For this they must organise to control the machinery of government. Once possessed of power they can then reorganise society on a socialist basis of common ownership. Owen's original aims can only be achieved by socialist methods."

 

[ALB]

Good argument forour policy of normally calling ourselves simply the Socialist Party rather than the Socialist Party of GREAT Britain

[ALB]

I imagine he'd favour white and yellow or yellow and purple.

[ALB]

If the argument that leaving it as 'The Socialist Party' is that it is likely to cause confusion with "other similarily named organisations", i.e in practice the ex-Miltant mob, then this would be an argument for never using 'The Socialist Party' and let Militant get away with stealing a name we have used since 1904.There is also a constitutional question since the 1988 resolution was endorsed by a Party Poll, as Rule 26 specifies:

Quote:

The result of a Party Poll shall overrule all other decisions (i.e., EC, Conference or previous Party Poll decisions)

i.e. a Conference Resolution cannot overrule a Party Poll. So it is open to question whether, despite its wording, the 2008 Conference resolution really did supersede the 1988 resolution.As I said, far better to let sleeping dogs lie.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Caste too is still an important issue. Perhaps we should try to liaise with our Indian comrades more for clearer insight although they are more based in Kolkata and Bengali speaking rather than Hindhi.

These are the two parts of India which have had "Communist" Party governments and where there is a political tradition of discussing Marx's ideas. Not surprising then that there are socialists in our sense there, at least in West Bengal.Besides the World Socialist Party (India) which had its differences with us but now wants to come back, there was also a World Socialist Group (India) advertised in the Socialist Standard as our contact is India. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to exist any more, mainly due to one of its most active members becoming an "Ambedkarist", as those on facebook can see by looking at his page: https://www.facebook.com/tarak.bouriHe could have chosen a worse way to go off the socialist rails as Ambedkarism is a movement aimed at ending caste discrimination against the so-called "untouchables" or dalits, which will have to disappear before socialism can be established and opposition to which will be part of the growing socialist movement.For  a Trotskyist criticism of Ambedkarism, in which they argue that it is a movement of the dalit bourgeoisie" (probably true in some respects) see:http://www.marxist.com/india-ambedkarism-dalit-party161007.htm.

[ALB]

He's wrong. The Treaty of Rome envisages the free movement of of job-seeking workers as well as of profit-seeking capital. Otherwise there wouldn't be a genuine single common market. And he's a fool too for jumping on the anti-immigrant bandwagon set rolling by UKIP as there's no telling where it will end or as to who "immigrant" as a term of abuse will be applied.

[ALB]

Of course, but it's still getting the idea into circulation.

[ALB]

Support would best come from someone living in the area rather than parachuting someone in from London or Manchester and we've got a number of people on this forum from the NE.Talking about interesting discussions I just came across when looking for something else this one on the TED site about a moneyless society started by the Zeitgeist people a couple of years ago:http://www.ted.com/conversations/1890/do_we_need_money_at_all_ca.htmlThis confirms that online discussions can be a useful way of putting across our ideas.

[ALB]

To give him his due, Jack Conrad (or whatever he's called) did say at the founding conference of LU that the ultimate aim should be

Quote:

a moneyless, classless, stateless society.

This of course is the precise description, word for word, of socialism we came up with years ago and have popularised. Who says we have had no impact?.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

The rule doesn't cover additional titles on the facia by saying these are forbidden so "SPGB" can be added and used, IMHO

That would be undemocratic and go against the whole spirit of the 1988 resolution one of whose aims was to try to introduce some comsistency into what we call ourselves. To promote one instead of randomly using three (The Socialist Party of Great Britain, SPGB, The Socialist Party). To use two different versions on the front of our office would be silly anyway and, don't forget, that SPGB is the preferred name of our opponents as a way of avoiding calling us "The Socialist Party" which we are in this country.In a subsequent Party Poll in 1991 that

Quote:

members and branches be required to abide strictly by the terms of the 1988 Conference resolution

was carried and that

Quote:

members and branches revert to the previous practice of using the full or shortened version of the Party's name at their own discretion.

was rejected. For defying it in this sort of way most of the members of two branches were expelled by another Party Poll. So, beware of re-igniting the Party name controversy. After all, we are only talking about our image in one street in south London. Nobody in most of London, let alone rest of the country, is affected. It's not that important and not worth falling out over.  Let sleeping dogs lie.

[ALB]

Whatever their merits these new designs are out of order as they contravene a 1988 Conference Resolution on the matter:

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, Forms A to G, membership cards.(b) The World Socialist Movement listing box, The World Socialist Movement publications box, the 'Address of the Party box on the inside page of the Socialist Standard giving details of EC Meetings, etc.'The Socialist Party' to be used in the following cases:(1) On the covers of the Socialist Standard, pamphlets and leaflets.(2) Generally in the texts of articles and pamphlets.(3) On all occasions where the address of Head Office is given, e.g. headed notepaper, adverts for socialist material, etc., except in (b) above.(4) All advertising and publicity material, posters, media adverts, etc.(5) In the titles of meetings and debates, and as the organiser of them.(6) Generally by speakers at indoor and outdoor meetings.(7) Manifestoes, election addresses, etc.( On the Head Office shop front fascia.

It is why the present fascia says "THE SOCIALIST PARTY" and has done since then.

[ALB]

ALB wrote:

If I was a LU member I know who I'd expel first and which group to proscribe first: Jack Conrad and the "CPGB". His brazen declaration that he won't accept the constitution's requirement that faction meetings have to be open to all LU members can be found 6minutes 50 seconds into the video clip Handala links to.

It appears that they are going to appear to conform to the ban on factional meetings not open to all LU members, according to a recent circular:

Quote:

Comrades will be aware that we judged the founding conference of Left Unity as a partial success in that some anti-democratic proposals were pushed back and as a consequence – we wrote with tongue in cheek – LU was now a “safe space for left ideas”. (See our critique of the ludicrous ‘safe spaces’ proposals of a group of LU comrades from last September). The LU policy conference is happening this spring and the CPGB is looking to step up its work with other comrades in the Communist Platform to make an impact on the debates.We plan to organise the first meeting of the platform either in late January or early February (see above for Xmas disruption moans …). We are proposing to comrades that this meeting:1. Is advertised openly – including on the LU site – but it is made clear that participation is on the basis of acceptance of the text of the initial Communist Platform that went to the founding conference. We don’t want to be diverted on the day by silly arguments with people who have turned up precisely because they don’t agree with our general approach. (This may actually run counter to some of the policy agreed at the founding conference – so be it, frankly).2. Takes amendments to the existing platform – or comprehensive alternatives – from platform comrades.3. Elects a five person provisional steering committee at the meeting – comrades should be able to suggest people before or on the day, we think.

Advertising their faction meeting must be a new experience for them which their infiltrators into the Labour Party, SWP, SPEW, etc don't have to go through.

[ALB]

I texted John to let him know about this and he says he'll resume letter-writing when his present problems are over. This confirms the impact of letters to the press in the North East. For instance:http://www.sunderlandecho.com/opinion/columnists/tuesday-january-9-2007-1-1128859http://www.shieldsgazette.com/opinion/your-letters/what-s-the-difference-1-1255064http://www.shieldsgazette.com/opinion/your-letters/rottenness-of-capitalism-1-1298259

[Author]

Posts