ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The problem with labour-time accounting is that it is not possible to measure the intensity of work (labour) nor to calculate in advance what labour is "social necessary" (nor, I would add, to work out how much more "simple" labour skilled labour is "worth"). Marx pointed this out in his criticism of various schemes for "labour-money" that were put forward in his day. Unfortunately, he didn't apply this to the "labour-time voucher" scheme he gave a sort of blessing to in his Critique of the Gotha Programme. The only way something like this would work is, as you suggest, if you measure "labour" by time spent at work. In other words, actual labour or, actually, hours put in at work. I'm not sure that this would be a useful measure of much.Having said this, calculation in kind will involve taking into account "labour-power", as one of the things required for production to be measured in "kind", just like raw materials, energy, etc. But this wouldn't be a measurement of "labour" in general but of specific forms of skilled labour-power, eg in the case of building houses, bricklayers, electricians, plumbers, roofers, surveyors, etc. (as in fact is done today).The Zeitgeist Movement has done a lot of work refuting the dreaded "economic calculation argument". They argue that once you know what resources are available and what you want a product to do and how many are needed, it is possible to calculate the "optimal" way to produce it from a technological point of view. This calculation is one for engineers not economists or accountants (who of course become redundant). It might be worth looking at their work in this field.
I entirely agree that moderators should be allowed to moderate. In this case a technical error appears to have occurred (somebody's been given two final warnings). It's up to the moderator to decide how to correct it. But it does have to be corrected. Let's see what he decides.
robbo203 wrote:The logical implication of this thinking is that only pro-socialists would be allowed an airing on the WSM forum ,You are begging the question here and have failed to see the difference between banning someone for the views they expressed and banning them for their behaviour (they way they put across their views).The two individuals were not personally abusive; their personal behaviour was different: abusing their right under the rules to post 3 messages a day every day for months on end. The result was that discussion about other aspects was swamped and people left the forum. They were in effect behaving like those who sent spam sex messages to your old open forum (which led you to take the drastic step of closing the whole thing down). In any event, nobody is banned from arguing for circular cities or anarcho-capitalism either on this or the WSM_Forum
robbo203 wrote:That is fine if you want to set up a forum for socialists only . But it is definitely not fine if you pretend to be a public open forum and then arbitrarily change the rules midstream without any apparent consultation with anyone.This raises another relevant question. Your semi-closed forum can take a vote of all the members since you exist essentially only on the internet. Nothing wrong with that or that way of consulting forum members, It is democratic.Our forums are different. They are set up, run and paid for by parties which exist outside of cyberspace, so we have to use a different form of democratic control. A majority of members of the WSM_Forum are not socialists let alone members, so why should they have a right to say how the forum is run? If we go down that road, then the forum would be open to take over by opponents or people with a different agenda from us.Since not all members of our parties in Britain, the US, Canada and New Zealand are members of the forum, to let Party forum members decide would be more democratic but still not entirely fair. The only way is what we do here: the membership elects an executive committee which appoints a committee from nominations made by branches and then let's them get on with it. Of course they have to report twice a year to the membership and members can challenge any decision by appealing to the executive committee. That's democracy too.The WSM_Forum is more complicated as it is the forum of the World Socialist Movement rather than of any of the companion parties. The moderator is in fact a member of the Socialist Party of Canada, living in the United States, who was appointed by the SPGB and SPC together.I hope that this exchange of messages brings out that this is not a black-and-white issue and that it is unfair to cry "censorship" just because a forum reserves itself the right to deal with unruly or disruptive behaviour.
You raise an interesting point, Robbo, about what to do with about people like Bob Howes (who favours small-scale co-operatives and circular cities) and Dave McDonagh (who is an anarcho-capitalist) who use a forum set up by somebody else to propagate their own views so frequently and over so long a period of time (years) as to virtually take it over and turn it into a forum discussing their ideas not those of those who set up (run and pay for) the forum.Party opinion was divided on this and still is, but in the end the decision was taken by the moderator to ban them. Previously, a decision had been made to set up this forum here, as one with separate threads, which would mean that those who wanted to discuss with the likes of them could do so on a separate thread of its own. As far as I know, Bob Howes is a registered member of this forum but has not contributed much since nobody replied to him.This of course is only a problem for open forums (ie forums open to anybody) like this one and the still extant WSM Forum. It's not a problem that we have on our own member-only forums. Nor is it a problem for your own forum which (I maybe wrong on this) is not open to everyone but only to people who broadly agree with a non-market anti-state position. In other words, McDonagh would not be admitted in the first place. I'm not quite sure why Bob Howes isn't (or perhaps he is, if not why not?). I believe also that, at one time, you did run an open forum like this one but changed its nature to a semi-closed one precisely to avoid problems like those posed by Howes and McDonagh. Incidentally, have you ever had to ask someone to leave your forum because it became evident after they joined that they were not part of the broad non-market, anti-state sector? Or is there perhaps a test to join?The point I'm making (and it's not intended as a polemical debating point) is this: is there any difference in principle between not allowing McDonagh to join in the first place and allowing him to join and then excluding him for trying to take it over and turn it into a forum discussing anarcho-capitalism, not socialism? Either way, McDonagh does not get to express his views on the forum (though on our forum someone else can and I think still does, but can't on yours). Can in fairness those who have chosen the first option accuse those who have chosen the second of "censorship"?Let's see if we can have an intelligent, reasonable and polite discussion on this question/problem.
SocialistPunk wrote:May I suggest the forum members are allowed to discuss what they wish, so long as they refrain from personal abuse or insinuation.You may indeed as that is precisely the position on all our forums. It neatly sums up what the rules governing them say. It also implies that, if someone does use personal abuse and insinuation, there are sanctions to be applied. This is the common practice of all forums, whoever runs them.Incidentally, I drafted that editorial, so naturally I agree with it. After all, it's the Party case, which we apply to ourselves. And why we don't support "no platform for fascists"There are similar rules governing abusive behaviour and language at our meetings. As do other organisations. The chair can decide to ask someone they consider breaking this rule to leave the meeting room. If the meeting disagrees they can vote "that the chairman leave the chair". Again, standard practice and an essential condition for free debate.I don't want to go into the ins and outs of this particular case (passions are still running too high and the idea is to dampen things down nor add fuel to the flames) but the suspension or whatever against a forum member for infringing the rules is not at all the same as "censorship".As you say, forum members are free to discuss whatever they wish, so long as they refrain from personal abuse or insinuation.
DJP wrote:I'm speaking here without my moderator hat on. Would Ed, Steve Colborn, Socialist Punk, Old Grey Whistle, when he returns, and all other users please desist in posting comments on the supposed intentions of other forum users. It is not 'the done thing now' and any further comments in this direction may force me to take action as moderator, which is always the last resort.I've volunteered many hours of my own time setting up this forum only to see it overtaken by what seems to me to be the result of comrades blowing their misconceived notions about each other out of all proportions. I'm beginning to wish I hadn't bothered. If anyone wants to make a complaint about anyone it should be done either through the moderator, the internet department or the executive committee.I agree 100% with what you say and can sympathise with your frustration. As Comrades Moss and Beveridge have said on SPINTCOM: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. STOP IT. The Party doesn't want this and it's doing us damage.If you decide to suspend till 18 October the next person, whoever they might be, who continues this I for one will not complain.
I see that love (relatively speaking) has triumphed over hate (as expressed in message # 235 here) in Robin's tortuous love-hate relationship with the SPGB. Good, I suppose.Now that you're back please realise that the religion issue has been flogged to death and stop trying to depress us with your jeremiads.If you want to contribute something useful why not deal with your second favourite subject — the economic calculation argument — in the thread on Practical Socialism that Young Master Smeet has just started?
The definitive work on this (algebra and all) has been done by Robin Cox. See here:http://www.cvoice.org/cv3cox.htm
ALB wrote:We are registered with the Electoral Commission under our full name of "The Socialist Party of Great Britain". We are also registered to use the following as well should we so choose:The Socialist Party (GB)World Socialist Party (UK)World Socialist Party (EU)World Socialist MovementSo far we have only used "The Socialist Party (GB)" on the ballot paperJust remembered. We have also registered:SPGB
We are registered with the Electoral Commission under our full name of "The Socialist Party of Great Britain". We are also registered to use the following as well should we so choose:The Socialist Party (GB)World Socialist Party (UK)World Socialist Party (EU)World Socialist MovementSo far we have only used "The Socialist Party (GB)" on the ballot paper
Two of us from West London branch went to a meeting to publicise the 20 October TUC march last night in Kingston. Interesting talks about what the present government is doing to introduce private, profit-seeking enterprises into government-run services. There were about 40 people there, mainly students.The main organisers seem to have been the SWP. From the audience their members expounded their current line which is for a general strike to bring down the government, just as a miners' strike in 1974 brought down Ted Heath's Tory government, So, not a syndicalist strike to overthrow capitalism, but a strike to bring down the government, provoke a general election expected to return a Labour government as happened in 1974.The best speaker was Matt Wrack, General Secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, who said that besides and beyond action to prevent cuts and privatisation there was also a need to win the battle of ideas and convince people that the answer was to reject capitalism and establish socialism. Ok, he didn't define it, but at least he made the point. Which was far in advance of the SWP who don't use these words in their leaflets and agitation but, applying Lenin's theory that workers are only able to acquire a trade union consciousness, only talk about the Tories and the bankers being to blame, not capitalism.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:It will not be democratic, for example, if admin could prevent members from expressing their opinions (as in my case) without being subject to democratic control/removal. That would be absolute power. Is this the situation at the moment?Yes it would be undemocratic if that were to happen or if anybody had that power, but it hasn't and they don't. Which is as it should be. Nobody has been prevented from expressing their views here. Which is also how it should be. As far as I can work out, what has happened is that two participants here have been warned about using "unparliamentary language" (as it were) when expressing their views but not from expressing the views themselves.
SocialistPunk wrote:Could the behaviour that is being described be deliberate? It is well known that disruption tactics are used by the state to tar organizations with bad reps etc.No it wasn't. Of course not. I suggest that it comes rather from frustration at being (and having been for a long time) a tiny minority in a world dominated by capitalist ideas being given a chance to have a go at someone they perceive not to be completely free of these ideas. Counter-productive in the circumstances, yes, but capable of being avoided in the future by friendly criticism and rational discussion.This whole matter is coming up at the Party's Autumn Delegate Meeting on Sunday 21 October. Look at the supporting statements to items 27 and 28 here:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/spintcom/message/13549As to your second point, it was (I imagine) partly the suggestion that some members were actually State agent-provacateurs planted in the Party that upset one participant here and led to the warnings to both. That's a completely unacceptable claim to level at a member, besides being quite ridiculous. In fact, the fact that we are even discussing this possibility will make it seem to outsiders that we (all of us) are a bunch of nutters. I don't think that we should go anywhere near that road.
Yes, this forum is managed by the Internet Department which is appointed by the EC at the beginning of each year from nominations made by branches. Apart from dealing with the technical aspects, it is also part of their remit to see that the rules for participation are not too grossly infringed. What other way could a democratic organisation control a forum?
I can assure you, Ozy, that most members did not approve of the way some members behaved at both the Occupy talk and the meeting with Zeitgeist and they told them. After all, the organisers of these meet-ups had set them up with a view to establishing a friendly first contact with the two recent movements which offered some sign, the one of a new anti-capitalist feeling, the other pointing to the alternative to the money-wages-profits system that is capitalism. The behaviour of those members frustrated this.So, yes, we do have a problem here. I'm not sure what we can do about it, though, except that invoking the disciplinary clauses of the rulebook is not the way. We are not a top-down centralist party that can tell members what to do. It's up to the members concerned to realise that they are being counter-productive and to exercise self-restraint.Fortunately, these negative kneejerk reactions are not reflected in the Socialist Standard which is our flagship rather than our forums.Incidentally, I don't think this is why we are small. It's more likely to be the other way round.
