Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Sympo wrote:Vin wrote:You cant have harmony and capitalism
Why exactly though isn't it possible for nations to "cut the cake" so that both nations feel like they have gotten their fair share? Doesn't states often want to avoid war?
i suppose it's a bit like the mafia. Yes at times organised criminals can get together to share out the spoils of their ill gotten gains in a way that is established as fair. The mafia did this to some extent in the 40s and 50s. But then one section or gang decides they do t like the way the deal is cut so gang warfare breaks out. Similarly with capitalism, one group don't like the way it's working for them and in some cases war can be the consequence.
Prakash RP wrote:What do you think a true communist should do if they're offered a prestigious award such as the Nobel Prize ? And what's the rationale behind your stance on this issue ? How do you justify the fact that prizes carry cash ? To my way of thinking, I don't think money can measure the value of everything. Man made money to measure the value of commodities. And it happens to be only commodities that possess value. Money canNOT measure the value of non-commodities.because non-commodities, just because they're non-commodities, have got NO value. There're things, such as oxygen in the free air or daylight from the sun, which we don't have to pay for because they're really and truly valueless non-commodities. They're valueless really and absolutely yet NOT in the least valueless. In fact, such a thing, such as oxygen in the free air, happens to be valuable immeasurably― so much so that it outmatches even the costliest commodity. It happens to be so useful that we cannot dispense with it while the costliest commodity of the world happens to be dispensable outright― so much so that not only do millions worldwide do without it, they even don't need to know what it is. Goods and services bought and sold for money are commodities. But prizes are NOT bought NOR sold, RIGHT ? Prizes are won by their winners, and what I view as most intriguing is the fact that they bring an amount of cash to the winners. I do not know what economic logic justifies the fact that prizes bring material reward to their winners. Prizes are NOT commodities, and so they canNOT possess value a commodity is possessed of. Because a prize is, like a non-commodity, valueless totally, we canNOT exchange it for money.. Thus far, what a prize means appears clear as day. But as we take cognisance of the fact that prizes bring NOT only honour, recognition, and fame but lump sums as well, it turns a RIDDLE I'm unable to crack right now. Do prizes possess value ? What's the rationale behind the fact that prizes are associated with money ? What economic logic justifies the fact that prizes carry financial reward ? I wish communists would help find answers to these unanswered, as I view them, questions and thus help puzzle out the RIDDLE at issue.I wouldn't worry too much, mate. I don't think your going to be troubling the Nobel Prize Committee any time soon!
Bob Andrews wrote:I fail to see why a question about Islington Branch takes us off-thread. Members of the branch were prominent in the unpleasantness that led to the eventual reconstitution of the SPGB, publishers of Socialist Studies ( unavailable in all good newsagents ).What Islington Branch really was is open to conjecture. There are people who happen to enjoy naming names and airing wild allegations. I am not one of them.Looking on the whole situation with hindsight and also from the perspective of not being directly part of it, I think there were a number of factors.Looking back now, the late 70s and early 80s saw an influx of new younger members into the party, of which I was one. I can understand to some extent the culture clash between these new younger members and the older members of the party. Lets face it the majority of the Socialist Studies group were older members. I think if the same thing happened now, god knows we all hope it will, I think some of us older long standing members might struggle to manage that any better than was the case in the 80s.I also think there was a feeling amongst the older members that there should be some degree of deferrence to them, that the newer members should doff their caps to the wisdom of those who had been in the party longer. Well that was never going to happen, but again, would those of us who joined at that time, who are now the older, wiser members, not have similar feelings?I think another factor at that time was the growth of the Party at that time away from being London based. Groups and Branches were being started all over the place, 3 in the greater Manchester Area, 2 in the North East, there was socialist activity in Dundee, Belfast, etc. etc. It has often been said that the SPGB should have really called themselves the Socialist Party of London, hisorically we didnt have a huge base outside London. As the Party grew from being London based there were branches in the Party that embraced the new branches outside of London and those, including the ones that became Socialist Studies, who didn't really engage with these branches. I think again this can be explained by age. The members of branches like Islington were young and able to travel to other parts of the UK, whereas some of the older members were, understandably, less willing to leave the capital. Again this led to distance and mistrust between branches in the rest of the country and some of the founders of Socialist Studies.I agree there were personality clashes, that the branches that became Socialist Studies did indulge in undemocratic practices, but the diffferences were, in my opinion, more about age and personality, than political diferences. I think the fact that the invective from Socialist Studies was aimed at London based SPGB members, rather than those in provincial branches, indicates that the matter for them was not one of politics. I cannot remember any of that group criticising the likes of Dick Donnelly or Vic Vanni.
LBird wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:But what are we?'We'? According to Marx, 'we' (humanity) are the 'social producers'. The link between the 'social individuals' making up this 'active producer' is 'democracy'. Without democracy, the notion of the 'social producers' must involve either a group elite or elite individuals.The notion of 'individual production' is simply the most elitist formulation, in which every individual forms a separated unit, much like 'individual consumers' in a 'free market'.'Socialism' involves social production (as the name suggests), and for any democratic ideology (like socialism), the only politically acceptable production is democratic.This is all a long way from your 'individualist' ideology, YMS.
I can go along with your use of the term "producers", in that within our social word all are producers of whatever is considered at that time to be the social understanding of the world. I would politely, and without taking the piss as you accuse me of frequently, however, point out that on another post you used the term "workers" not producers, if this was a slip of the tongue (or fingers) fair play.I queried the apparent excusiveness of that, but, alas, no reply. Some clarification of your use of this term would be appreciated. This is because it gives the impression of a class based sociaty, as there would be members of the world community that were not workers, Would, in your view the democracy of a Communist/Socialist sociaty be one wheer ALL members of the community were involved in ALL decision making and that no part of that community had the right to exclude any other part of that community from the decision making process.To clarify a little further, am I correct in assuming that your argument is based, among other things on the ideas put forward in the German Ideology? If so, again no problems there. Karl's view was clearly expressed in the oft quoted:“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.”Iin the spirit of one member of the working class, speaking to another member of the working class, with the caveats that I agree to not try and take the piss and working on the agreement that you are happy not to try and patronise. Would you be able to briefly clarify your views on these areas?
ALB wrote:There is an interesting side to this. Assuming that Steve Colborn is still a Socialist and still committed to the interests of the working class which I can't imagine he's not (even if he has forfeited his right to remain a member of our Party), he could be an experiment as to how a Socialist MP or councillor might behave. So it will be interesting to follow his interventions in the Town Council's deliberations. We could even start a thread on "Councillor Colborn's interventions" based on reports in the local media. I think I will.Yes Adam it is important that we monitor this massive development in revolutionary politics.I think the transformation of Seaham into a tourist trap on par with Waikiki Beach, Venice or the Seychelles, aided by Steve Colborn's transitional demands for the removal of a couple of dozen dog turds, may well prove to be a the crucial breakthrough workers need in the journey to overthrow capitalist oligarchy.Vladimir Lenin, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro, eat you hearts out, the new vanguard leader has arrived, Steve Colborn.Oh sorry the Seaham Community Party already has a leader, a guy named Barry Taylor, Steve must be following him!
ALB wrote:Here is the Swansea manifesto:Quote:BREXIT: DOES IT MATTER?That’s the important question – says Brian Johnson,The Socialist Party of Great Britain candidate, Swansea WestWill BREXIT – whether hard or soft – do anything to solve the problems people in this country are suffering from – job insecurity, inequality, poverty, crime, poor healthcare? The answer has to be ‘no’. And the reason is that these problems don’t come from particular constitutional arrangements. They come from the way society is organised – production for profit and ownership of the vast majority of the wealth by a tiny minority of people: the global system of capitalism. The other partiesThis is the system all other political parties exist to administer. They have different ideas on how that system can best be maintained, but all agree it must be retained.Many of their supporters have good intentions but are unaware that, in campaigning for these, they are helping to maintain this built-in system of minority privilege. So, however different Corbyn’s policies may seem from May’s, they offer no alternative to the present way of running society.No matter how well-meaning politicians may be they can’t control that system – it controls them. The best any government can do is try to ride its storms.So what's the alternative?We propose an alternative based on ownership of capital and market forces that currently exists in the UK, Europe and worldwide. This alternative is a society of common ownership that we call socialism.Not ‘socialism’ as you may understand it. Not the type of dictatorship that collapsed in Russia and elsewhere – which were forms of state capitalism in fact. Not any of the schemes for state control advocated by some in the Labour Party.For us socialism means something completely different and something much better. We are talking about:a world community without states or frontiers based on participatory democracya society without buying and selling where everyone has access to what they require to satisfy their needs, without the rationing system that is moneya society where people use the earth’s abundant resources rationally and sustainably, and contribute their knowledge, skills and experience freely to produce what is neededTo sum up:If you don't like present-day society – with or without Brexit.If you’re fed up with the way so many people are forced to live – hanging on for dear life to a job that gives little satisfaction and doing it just for the moneyIf you are sick of seeing grinding poverty alongside obscene wealthIf you are sick of the Earth being abused by corporations who don’t care about the future or the environmentIf you think the root cause of most problems is the market system and the governments that maintain that system. . . then you’re thinking like we are.What can you do?The new society is one without leaders just as it is one without owners and wage-slaves. It is a wholly democratic society, one which can only be achieved when you – and enough like-minded people – join together to bring it about peacefully and democratically. If you agree with this, you will want to cast your vote for our candidate. In voting for Brian Johnson, the Socialist Party of Great Britain candidate, you will be voting for the socialism you – and we – stand for.in my opinion that is one of the best pieces of introductory Socialist literature I have read. Genuinely, congratulations to the comrade/s who put that together.
Vin wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:even if they do seem to have an over riding interest in matters relating to dog turds and the British Legion.See ya ve nivva stud in dog shite for ages marra. Or yud be mare simpatheticA nar thes nee shite on yor side of the rivva
Whey man marra, aal wor dergs knaa who t'gan t'the netty.on tha airn
alanjjohnstone wrote:I unconditionally withdraw anything that could be taken as disparaging against Eileen.You are very right Vin, we should not drag anybody else into this now the matter has been settled that no-one on this thread was aware of what was taking place that the Party could have been fore-warned But what is indeed missing on this thread is ex-Comrade Colborn response, defending not his politics which Robbo may be interested in hearing but to explain the manner of his departure from the Party which now involves expelling him unless he submits his resignation. He knew the rulebook but chose to flout it. He was approached to stand locally in the recent council elections as the SPGB candidate but he failed to reply to the e-mail. That was his opportunity to do the honourable thing and declare his intentions.You may have 40 years of personal comradeship with ex-Cde Colborn, Vin. I do not. I am under no obligation to show similar restraint as yourself in regards to this embarrassing affair.Alan, I think your withdrawal is correct and appropriate and that the point you raised was unworthy of you.No one in the NERB (other than Steve and presumably Eileen) was aware of Steve's intention. I was in contact with Vin after the May Day event in Newcastle, re activity in the North East, and at that time we were both under the impression that Steve Colborn was intending to remain a member of the NERB. Whilst I accept that Steve may not have wanted to have contact with Vin, I do think he should have done the honourable thing and let the Party know of his intentions before standing for another political party.Whilst accepting Robbo's point about being on residents' committees or involved in things like school governerships, etc. I think there is a massive difference between that and taking an elected post on a council (even if it is a Parsih Council) under the banner of a registered political party, even if they do seem to have an over riding interest in matters relating to dog turds and the British Legion.
ALB wrote:It's true:Deneside Ward of Seaham ParishElectorate: 2933Ballots Issued: 775Turnout: 26.42%Rejected Ballots: 3 ALLEN, Brian (Labour) 309 BELL, Edward (Labour) 434 ELECTED BLEASDALE, Geraldine (Labour) 382 ELECTED COLBORN, Steven Paul (Seaham Community Party) 340 ELECTED DONALDSON, Michelle (Seam Community Party) 312 PAUL, James Ian (no description) 118 SOKS, Karen (Seaham Community Party) 259 TAYLOR, Barry (Seaham Community Party) 332 ELECTEDthey say that power corrupts, but bloody hell, Seaham Parish Council, it's hardly the Presidency, is it? Talk about setting your sights low!
From the Seaham Community Party Facebook site: "We want local people from all backgrounds and age groups to join us to change Seaham for the better. Seaham Community Party are really proud of our town and we would like to continue this regeneration seen at the sea front in to other areas. We will protect Seaham' heritage, Tommy, George Emily Lifeboat and The British Legion. We will reduce Seaham Town Councillors from 21 to 11, therefore saving costs to invest in our town. We will not put the council tax up by 3% like the current party. We strongly support all our local health and well being/fitness. We will save and improve Seahams' Leisure Centre and Youth Centre. We will run activities and support local families and also organise a childrens' summer holiday programme, including trips, events and sports/clubs. We will clean up our streets and parks to make them free from litter and dog mess. A zero tolerance on dog fouling. We will strive to invest and protect our allotments and open green spaces for future generations. We will continue to sup port and improve all of Seahams outdoor events such as the carnival, armed forces day and the fireworks display. We will work hard to enhance Seaham as a tourist destination by doing all that we can to further Seahams reputation as a holiday destination. COME AND JOIN US! Seaham Community Party are honest, approachable, trustworthy and reliable. Vote for us and together we will improve Seaham!"Clearly a set of reformist demands, not exactly a Revolutionary Socailist Party. Incidentally they call us impossiblists for proposing the creation of a society based on common ownership and the abolition of the wages system, the idea of making Seaham into a holiday destination is much more far fetched!!If it is the Steve Colborn of NE Branch who has been elected on this platform, he should hang his head in shame.
alanjjohnstone wrote:If this is Steve Colborn who thought was still a member of the party i am puzzled.I believe he is still a member and if he is then this is a very serious matter and openly flouting of the party rules, that can only lead to expulsion.6. A member shall not belong to any other political organisation or write or speak for any other political party except in opposition, or otherwise assist any other political party.So who are the Seaham Community Party that he now represents?If this is Cde. Colborn and he is still a member of NERB then the following rules pertain 27. Candidates elected to a Political office shall be pledged to act on the instructions of their Branches locally28. Any Branch proposing to contest elections, National, European or Local, shall first obtain permission from the Executive Committee. I hope it is just someone sharing the same name for i woud hate our first elected member to be disowned by the Party.Some clarification is clearly needed in this situation. I have sent PMs and an email to Steve in the last month, in my role as acting NE Branch Secretary and received no reply. If Steve is reading the mesage boards, an update would be appreciated, prior to any action being taken by the Party.
[/quote]My 'concrete objection' is that I'm a Democratic Communist, and so insist that only workers' democracy can determine social production.[/quoteIn a previous post you stated that you only producers democracy can determine social production, when I enquired about whether this included those who do not produce (the retired, people with disabilities, ill health etc.) you stated that what you meant was social production, which is something that all of us are involved in, which I accept is a fairly straightforward definition. You now use the term workers democracy, is this, as it implies, reducing the democratic franchise to only those who are workers, or is your idea of the democratci franchise in a socialist society non elitist and therefore inclusive of all people on the planet?And in answer to a previous post, yes I do like taking the piss, and will exercise my right to do so on occasion in the future, however on this occasion, this is a genuine, non-piss taking question and I would hope you will take it in the spirit is intended and clarify your view on this essential point for me?
ALB wrote:Here are the results for Folkestone:https://democracy.kent.gov.uk/mgElectionAreaResults.aspx?ID=577https://democracy.kent.gov.uk/mgElectionAreaResults.aspx?ID=547Although the percentage figures both show 1%, in Folkestone East the percentage was 1.5% and in Folkestone West 0.6%Not bad results, all considered, well done comrades.I have a feeling the charismatic, raw animal magnetism of Adam's photo will have a significant impact on our vote
alanjjohnstone wrote:I guess Vin, your attitude is, if it isn't broke why fix it but i'm not sure our propaganda model remains fit for purpose BrianG from Glasgow Br posted this several years backQuote:Rather than pay lip service to our open-ness and internal democracy we should advertise it by having a significant discussion section or element, in our main journal, the SocialistStandard. Far from being offputting, this would be attractive to new readers and sympathisers – evidence of a organisation that is alive, and of ideas that are constantly being reviewed and renewed. Why is the Weekly Worker nowadays the most influential paper on the Left? Because it hosts opendebate and discussion. Its not just a party line. But also the role of the Party isn't just to make socialists – it also needs to try and keep them also. And that means keeping members interested, which such adevelopment would help to do.As it is now agreed to have the print-run continue, let us ask what message it is we wish to convey in the Standard…and that is not as easy as Vin, implies.Any media has a target audience it wishes to reach. I don't think we are any different. When was the last time Standard sellers attended an EDL rally, for instance? Are we intending to poach members from the left-wing? Do we reach out for a "virgin" audience, is it the environmentalists, the internationalists, trade unionists… who exactly do we aim for?We can campaign blindly, after all that is what we do with a lit stall…we contact the public indiscriminately as simply random passer-bys. Is the street stall approach versatile enough to adapt?As i said, now that we decide to go for the print run for the foreseeable future…how do we make it people-friendly?
I know we have been over this several times before, Alan, but I still don't understnad what the issue is. The Standard loses roughly £500 per year, it is popular with some members and with some members of the general public. At a cost of round about £150 per edition, the recent bequest of £300,000 to the party would keep the standard running for anouther 2000 editions or anouther166 years and 8 months.The only arguments that could possible lead to the closure of the Standard areWe cannot afford to continue doing it – we clearly canThere are not enough members to continue with production – clearly not the case, or it wouldn't be producedthe time and energy of the members producing the standard would be used for other more effective activity if the standard stopped publication – highly unlikely,, there is also a high chance that the closure of the standard would impact on morale to such an extent that it would reduce activty rather than increase it.the money could be put to better use – possibly it could, but as we have a great deal of money, we could produce the standard and use a far larger amount of money elsewhere if there was the need for it.My conclusion is that the whole arguement has been a ludicrous waste of party time and effort. If the movers of he resolution couldn't even bring themselves to support it, surely that speaks volumes.As for the demise of the printed word?https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/mar/14/ebook-sales-continue-to-fall-nielsen-survey-uk-book-salesPerhaps Private Frazer spoke to soon!
