[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Yes, like Engels, I used to 'hope it will not come to that', but 'there is nothing left for us' Democratic Communists, who insist, like Marx, that only the producers can democratically create their world, 'than to speak out against it publicly'.

Then surely you are proposing that the "truth" is decided upon by an elite, i.e. the producers. what about the non-productive, people with disabilites, those who have retired from productive taks, etc. "democratic communists" exclude them fromt his process?

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

As i have already said, i don't envisage the Lancaster or NLB being passed but this is the beginning of a long debate that will continue and i think we will eventually have a number of options to choose from, and it will never be an either/or resolution. IMHO, we will face also in several years time the question to retain or sell-off either partially or totally our currently under-used but expensive to up-keep HO. Yup, i do tend to have a pessimistic view of the future – But i also like to be proved wrong and be pleasantly surprised, rather than be an eternal optimist and be sorely disappointed.I mentioned previously that our continued activity relies on legacies left to us by deceased members…next time a comrade (particularly the treasurer) is looking you up and down and enquiring about your health, in his or her mind, he'she will be wondering if you have any next-of-kin inheriting your money  If you don't, they'll also be hoping you are leaving behind a house in the stock-broker belt  I do find it a bit disconcerting that my appeal for some facts and figures has so far gone unheeded by the respective committees. I'm sure it is not in the interest of the Party to make decisions based on a dearth of information and only have them available at the last moment for conference attendees.

Hi AlanYou might find this magazine a useful example:http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1887872,00.html

[Bijou Drains]

Prakash RP wrote:

 ' Prakash RP wrote:" [ * The Communist Manifesto ] " Just as an aside. You mention this but neither of its authors adhered to the whole of your "healthy living" principles. Both Marx and Engels drunk alcohol and smoked tobacco. Marx was legally married. Engels was better on this last matter but he went in for fox-hunting. Where they Communists? Or just bad Communists? ' [ comment by ALB on 17/04/2017 ] The point is there's NO good reason why communists should NOT uphold the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living. …………………………….. The point is there's NOTHING unrealistic NOR anything disagreeable in the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living. And above all, the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living has got NO matching rival, and hence there's NO substitute for it, OK ?

There is a good reason form not upholding your silly, dogmatic dictum on how people should live their lives, that is that many people (me included) don't want to.There are, in my opinion, some very disagreeable things about your silly dogma, one it imposes your view as to what is worrtthwhile on everyone else, two it means not having alcohol, which I, in moderation, thoroughly enjoy. If you are saying that I am not a Socialist/Communist because I don't choose to follow your silly dogma, then you have my permission to go and stick your head up a dead bear's arse.

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Tim, I don't think we can describe the blog as a webzine. It will require a whole new design and reformatting the web-pages plus embedding music and video and increasing the mix of article themes.But a blog the nearest thing we currently have to something that can give a daily voice of the Party, since the media committee seem a bit reluctant to issue press releases.In fact, both blogs published posts on the SPGB's attitude to elections within a matter of an hour or two of May's announcement, whereas we need to await some weeks yet for the Standard's response, (Royal Mail permitting), when it is no longer news-worthy. As they say – old news is no news.And it is indeed worrisome that many members value our blogs so little and remain uninvolved with notable exceptions such as our regular poet and those who submit links of interest to follow up on.  But could this be because the blogs are viewed in some way as the "poor cousins", while an article in the Standard holds greater "prestige", bestowing authors with higher "status" and "esteem", which may well mean that the Standard is draining much-needed energy and channelling resources away from internet projects that have much to offer in potential.So you could draw the controversial conclusion that the print Standard is actually detrimental to putting forward the case for socialism (i wouldn't go as far as believing that but playing Devil's Advocate)But i am confident that with your future participation we can produce a more thought-provoking and stimulating blog which will bring new enthusiasm and a wider audience.The work entailed is no more demanding than posting on this forum. Contact:  spgb.blog@worldsocialism.org  for further detailsThe invitation is also open to anyone else who might be interested.

So effectively, what you are saying is that we should shut down the Standard because writers, members, sympathisers and others prefer the Standard, in the hope that they will start writing and reading the blog, which they don't currently because they prefer writing and reading the Standard.Apart from the fact that there is no evidence that the writing talents of the Standard would be willing to move over to the blog, or that the readership of the Standard would transfer to the blog, isn't that a bit like shooting all of the handsome blokes at the disco, on the off chance that you might finally get asked for a dance.

[Bijou Drains]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

ALB wrote:

Prakash RP wrote:

By my view of humanity, I don't think humanity is so mean and ungrateful as to deny to me my due recognition and respect for the great service I've done humanity by presenting it with  the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living, a humble piece of writing by this humble guy, which is meant to acquaint humanity with  the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living and its significance and thus awaken it to the fact that it becomes humanity, the being superior to all other beings, and it makes sense too, to live a healthy and meaningful life.(…) As I see it, communism will produce new, enlightened, better-quality humanity than its present-day variety, and I'm certain that the new haminity of the future will have the calibre and capability to rise above all sorts of meanness and recognise Prakash RP as the originator of  the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living that happens to be meant for both varieties of humanity, i.e. all those that are products of capitalism and all those humans communism will produce.

Oh dear. This is really sad. Now you want a statue erected to you in socialism/communism.

They might not build a statue to him, they might name a cocktail after him. In fact I think I am going to do just that tonight, I'm going to invent the Prakash RP cocktail and drink to the health (and meaningful life) of Prakash RP

Ok here we go, I've just invented the Prakash KP meaningful life cocktail.The recipeadd the following ingredients to a cocktail shaker25ml of Chambord raspberry liqueur (fruity to represent the fruitful life)25ml of Frangelico hazelnut liqueur (can't have fruit without nuts)25ml of Irish Whiskey (a life full of spirit is worth living)A dash of Gum syrupa dash of Midori Melon liqueuriceshake the ingredients for about 2 minutesPour over ice into a tall glass and top up with lemonade.stir gently then drink.I'm onto my second and am feeling that life is very meaningful!

[Bijou Drains]

ALB wrote:

Prakash RP wrote:

By my view of humanity, I don't think humanity is so mean and ungrateful as to deny to me my due recognition and respect for the great service I've done humanity by presenting it with  the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living, a humble piece of writing by this humble guy, which is meant to acquaint humanity with  the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living and its significance and thus awaken it to the fact that it becomes humanity, the being superior to all other beings, and it makes sense too, to live a healthy and meaningful life.(…) As I see it, communism will produce new, enlightened, better-quality humanity than its present-day variety, and I'm certain that the new haminity of the future will have the calibre and capability to rise above all sorts of meanness and recognise Prakash RP as the originator of  the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living that happens to be meant for both varieties of humanity, i.e. all those that are products of capitalism and all those humans communism will produce.

Oh dear. This is really sad. Now you want a statue erected to you in socialism/communism.

They might not build a statue to him, they might name a cocktail after him. In fact I think I am going to do just that tonight, I'm going to invent the Prakash RP cocktail and drink to the health (and meaningful life) of Prakash RP

[Bijou Drains]

Prakash RP wrote:

 '  Prakash RP wrote:" I also know there's NOTHING in the theory of communism to suggest there exists any conflict between communism and the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living. "There isn't really (unless you want to impose them on people). Most of them will be irrelevant in socialism/communism anyway (there'll be no legal "matrimony", women won't be economically dependent on men, no stealing, smuggling, trafficking in women and drugs, gambling, receiving bribes, tax evasion, hoarding black money, etc, etc.). But if you want to live by them, go ahead. Others may well choose a different lifestyle which includes some of things you don't like such as drinking and smoking. That wouldn't be in conflict with socialism/communism either. ' [ comment by ALB on 16/04/2017 ]   It's obvious that ALB does NOT disagree with me over the point that '  there's NOTHING in the theory of communism to suggest there exists any conflict between communism and the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living. ' Still, he refuses steadfastly to stand for the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living

Just because there is no conflict it doesn't make it a requirement.there is no conlict between enjoying eating pickled gerkins and communism, that doesn't mean to be a communist you must enjoy pickled gerkins.

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

The party has always had to pre-occupy itself with opportunity costs. Many have had their ideas blocked because the party has chosen not to fund them. It isn't undemocratic but allocating priority

Quote:

Ask yourself these questions:Do the people currently volunteering to produce the Standard "want to do" this work?Well the answer to that question must be yes, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.Will voting to end production of the Standard stop them from doing that work?Yes, obviously if the Standard isn't produced, then they can't do the thing they currently want to do, can they?

Those who write for the print Standard will cease writing for the Socialist Standard e-zine and will not enjoy doing so? Is that your assumption, Tim? If so, it is one i do not share.

Quote:

You say you want to produce a webzine, my view is that's fine, get enough volunteers from the Party to help you (if there's anything I can do by the way, just ask and i'll do what I can)

The SOYMB bloggers have not heeded advice from those who wish only a few blog posts a week and we have stuck to our guns rightly or wrongly,  in producing a daily commentary of selected items from the news. And it pains us that fellow members don't even include it in their daily web surfs.  We have put out a cry in every report to conference and ADM for volunteers and contributors and these are all lost in the wind except for a few welcome exceptions. Perhaps the blog is seen as ineffective. Perhaps it is viewed as unimportant.

Thanks you Alan for making my point more strongly for me than I could.If the writers for the Standard wished to write for a daily e-zine then the opportunity is there for them to do that in the form of SOYMB, you have acknowledged as much.The fact that they do not indicates to me that they prefer to write for the Standard, are you arguing that we should close the Standard down in order to force the writing talent room the Standard into writing on the blog?Similarly you point out that SOYMB doesn't get the traffic you want it to, surely this is a biggest possible argument against converting the Standard to an e-zine. If the traffic to the Blog isn't great how will closing the Standard help create a bigger on line presence?

[Bijou Drains]

jondwhite wrote:

Academic publishers actually have a terrible reputation (look up Elsevier) even among publishers that we would be unwise to try and emulate. They actually artificially impose supply and access restrictions on ebook availability in academic libraries and are notorious for not passing on cost savings. As for students happily taking e, I will have to take your word for it.

My experience is that most students hate ebooks, I spend a lot of time placating pissed off undergraduates who complain that there are "only four copies of the book in the library" and when I mention the e book version it doesn't really placate them much.

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

Alan, if you dont like the Standard and/or don't read it or don't rate it, absolutley fine, but don't try and block others doing what they choose to do to propagate Socialist ideas.

Tim, are you trying to prohibit me from expressing my opinion on a motion that is to be put to the forth-coming annual conference of the Party and are you trying to silence me on this thread because you disagree with my contrary view to your own by creating a strawman argument, by accusing me of something i have not done? …………….. In no way am i trying to block what people do and you know only too well that i have defended some in the Party who have chosen their own way to propagate socialist ideas, from the provision of promotional items that others called trashy to uploading video to e-publishing party material as an individual………………….Once again a search of this list will show that i have been fairly consistent in my views for the party. Not only do i wish a webzine…………………..

I have no wish to prohibit you from expressing an opinion, as you well know. the point I made, which I suspect you fully understand, is that by voting to end the Standard you will be effectively "blocking others doing what they choose to propagate Socialist ideas". I am therefore putting forward the argument that you should not vote for this motion. As I understand it that is how debate works, you put forward one idea, I counter it, etc. etc. I do think the idea that I am trying to silence you on this thread (an impossible task anyway) is also dare I say it, absurd.You say that there is "No way am I trying to block what people want to do" but actually the effect of the resolution you support is precisely that.Ask yourself these questions:Do the people currently volunteering to produce the Standard "want to do" this work?Well the answer to that question must be yes, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.Will voting to end production of the Standard stop them from doing that work?Yes, obviously if the Standard isn't produced, then they can't do the thing they currently want to do, can they?Therfore taking thing together, is voting for this resolution voting to stop people propagating in the way they want to? Yes, obviously it is and that is why I want you and others not to vote in favour of this resolution. It is devisive, badly timed and (in my opinion) absurd.Surely the way forward is to follow the "thousand flower" path. You say you want to produce a webzine, my view is that's fine, get enough volunteers from the Party to help you (if there's anything I can do by the way, just ask and i'll do what I can) and off you go. I don't see why you doing that should stop other members producing the Standard, if that's what they want to do and resoources aren't an issue.

[Bijou Drains]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Commercial journal publishers are increasingly becoming E-only, as are libraries, so there is a chance that libraries will begin to refuse to stock the print standard (especially as it is available free online), so at the least, looking at cutting the free subs to libraries could save a few quid.

It seems to me that every time I go into WH Smug there is an increasing array of magazines aimed at increasingly specialised areas with titles such asa "Racoon Weekly" and "Enjoy Your Ear Wax Collection".I also don't understand this obsession with saving a few quid here or there, I don't think we should go out spending money willy, nilly, but come on we have got more than a few Bob in the coffers. The party is in danger of behaving like an elderly miser, living off half a tin of soup every day, whilst having bundles of cash stuffed down the back of the mouldy, old, worn out sofa!

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Who would take us back to the days where we put our soap-box on a street corner and ignore the internet? But adapt we do…Instead, we do lit stalls and what are the best sellers…the Standard or something from our selection of pamphlets?

I think this kind of point is an attempt to turn the debate into an either/or debate.Having a printed Standard does not detract from our growing on line presence.If there are enough volunteers who want to put the Standard out and the cost of this activity is not prohibitive, then why should we block this activity? It is not a case of either having the Standard and not having an online presence. We can have both and not only that, there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that the time, effort and monies put into the production of the Standard would be used elsewhere.Is there a queue of volunteers lined up waiting to undertake on line work, which is hampered by all of the work required to publish the Standard? No.Is there a shortage of funds currently used to produce the Standard which other members are desperately trying to access so that they can undertake different forms of propagada? No.Is there are current shortage of volunteers willing to take on the roles required to produce the Standard? No.I find this idea that there is only one way to spread Socialist ideas really irritating, if members want to produce the Standard and there are the funds available to do it, then why should other members want to stop them from doing it?If members some want to hire a plane and fly over central london with a banner reading "abolish the wages system" give them the money and let them get on with it, if members want to produce a daily blog, give them the money and let them get on with it. Surely we should be in the business of creating as many outlets for our ideas as we can, not trying to block them so that the party can pursue an individual preference.Alan, if you dont like the Standard and/or don't read it or don't rate it, absolutley fine, but don't try and block others doing what they choose to do to propagate Socialist ideas.

[Bijou Drains]

imposs1904 wrote:

". . .   it is a bit haphazard since it is based on his whimsical choice of what to scan and upload."Cheeky bleeder.

Pejorative as well!!!!!

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

"Even the proposers of this absurd motion"Tim, as i posted, we should not be using such perjorative words. It isn't absurd but a reasonable viewpoint that others may well disagree with. Claims and counter-claims are being made about the influence of both mediums and what is needed is what i have asked for – those in the respective committees, the SS and the Internet, begin to tell us the facts. Just what is the coverage of our circulation for the print standard and what could our audience be for a possible e-zine with all the bells?It is being argued by you that the print Standard is reaching "many people who do not have access to or the ability to use the internet" and by "restricting ourselves to the internet"  but who has actually proposed such a policy that we all become armchair activists in front of a key-board – (even those are redundant – it's all touch screen now) As world socialists many, many, many more fellow-workers and potential members are not receiving or having the Standard available to them and, imho, we should be reaching out to them the best we can at the least cost. As i mentioned to Robbo, there appears to a silence on the other item for conference – moving on from a branch based party to a nationally centred organisation with all the ramifications of restricting our contacts with other workers and being seen as throwing in the towel as you suggest your concerns are with an e-zine/webzine being made our priority. This well-known Private Frazer is trying his utmost to reverse the pessimistic prognosis i hold of the Party's future and becoming much more effective on the web is one such strategy which is well suited to incorporate our new ventures such as whiteboard animations. 

With all due respect Alan, I'll use whatever terms I choose to describe the motion. I think it is an absurd and badly timed motion, as that is my view I will express it. Hope all is well in the funeral parlour.Kind regardsTim

[Bijou Drains]

gnome wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

The net cost of printing the Standard in 2014 (the most recent figures I can lay my hands on readily) was about £1500

Could you expand on this information.I note this it is net sum – so what are the sales figures that produce this.

Printing = £9615;  Sales, including subscriptions = £8388.  No separate figures available for Standard postage.

Quote:

And is the sales figures Paul paying Peter ie the branches and members under-writing the cost than the actual "many workers who don't read the Standard online because they don't have online access and quite possibly choose not to have it." going out to buy each month's issue.

Who knows?  But neither is there any guarantee that workers will read the Standard online.  That's why it's patently obvious we should keep any and every option open and not place all our eggs in one basket…

Even the proposers of this absurd motion estimate that the standard runs at a loss of only about £1,000 per month, (which from my working of the figures is an over estimate.) Looking at party funds and balances, this means that one of the recent legacies to the party gives enough funds to run the Standard at present costs for the next 25 years! Surely the issue here is not cost, none of our propaganda activities have ever been set up to make a profit!The Standard reaches many people who do not have access to or the ability to use the internet (my mother is a long time member who is now pushing 91 and the Standard is her only monthly contact with the party), there are many others in a similar position. The difficulty with the net is that there is such a lot of stuff out there in cyber land that we can get lost in, unless your looking very specifically for our material your not likely to happen across it. The Standard, in public libraries, left lying on trains, etc. meets that particular area.If we restrict our propaganda activities to the internet, we are restriciting our contact with potential socialists, why would we chose to do such a thing?We also need to think long and hard about the message that this gives out. Our opponents would view it as us throwing in the towel and the message to companion parties across the world would be very, very disheartening.it seems to me that there has been a change of momentum in the Party, new and potentially successful ways of putting the party case have been initiated (Whiteboard, magazine inserts,etc.), Ithink morale about activitiy is picking this motion gives the Private Frazers of the gloom merchant wing of the party another chance to tell us that we're all doomed!

[Author]

Posts