[Bijou Drains]

The reported rise in labour party membership is a bit of a curious one. I thought to myself "187,000 new members couldn't all be entryist Trotskyites", then the thought struck me, perhaps with all of the different sectarian Trotskyite groups, all arguing about which tactics they are going to use to infiltrate the "mass workers party" in order to take control, the silly bastards didn't realise that there were 187,000 of them and they all ready were a mass party!

[Bijou Drains]

robbo203 wrote:

Ralph wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Hi Ralph,  Socialists do sometimes turn their attention to the practical organisation of a hypothetical future socialist society.  In fact the SPGB published a pamphlet on this very subject here http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/socialism-practical-alternative 

 Finally read this, it's really good… It starts to look persuasive, if this was done back in 1994 was there a different attitude or was this  just a rebellion! If you can go this far you can go further surely… 

 I wouldnt disagree with that.  What happened to the whole "Productiion for Use "  initiative back in 1980s/90s? It seemed to have just fizzled out, Such a pity.  It was one of the most positive projects ever embarked upon  by the SPGB

The motive force behind it was Pieter Lawrence. Since his sad passing the work of the production for use committee seems to have fallen by the wayside,Ralph may be interested to read another of Pieter's peices:http://theoryandpractice.org.uk/library/how-socialism-can-organise-production-without-money-adam-buick-pieter-lawrence-1984The link also mentions a guy named Adam Buick, wonder what ever happened to him?I think there is a need to continue this practical work within the party, anyone else up to do some of this work?

[Bijou Drains]

I've always questioned the “the cook-shops of the future"  argument. I can agree that Marx and others at the time could not create specific formats for a Socialist Society, the conditions for World Socialism were not in existence. The difference we face now is that the conditions for World Socialism actually do now exist. I fully understand the need to have democratic shaping of a Socialist Society, however I think that as Socialists, we need to provide the Socialists of the future something to start shaping. Using the cookery analogy, unless we start thinking about what we might have to eat, nobody is going to go as far as putting the kettle on. Providing a feasible plan for socialist production is not making a blueprint for the future, it is giving a suggestion as about how the future might be. Pieter Lawrence's work on Production for use Committee was, in my opinion, a missed opportunity for the Party.

[Bijou Drains]

Bloody Vulcans, coming over here,taking our council house, claiming our benefits. There logic just doesn't fit into our society. I don't know why people don't see it. They refuse to integrate their logical, rationilist view of the world into our irrational, parochial world. Pointy eared bastards

[Bijou Drains]

Kaz you have persuaded me, I've looked through the arguments both for and against and I for one am definitely voting for Socialsim, can you let me know when the referendum is being held?

[Bijou Drains]

I've got to say, I think there are two answers to this question, the individual answer and the global. On a global level thugee, if it actually was a religion, was probably responsible for the deaths of 10s of thousands of people. In that sense it probably compares very favourably with the many millions of deaths associated with most of the other major religions. On a personal level, as one brought up as a Catholic. I would much prefer a childhood filled with feelings of guilt, being slapped by nuns and being watched as an altar boy whilst getting changed, by a creepy priest, to being strangled and robbed by the roadside in India.We could turn this into a jolly parlour game. Following "was thugee any worse than other religion",, how about "is syphalis more painful than gonorrhoea",  "which limb would you prefer to have amputated' or "Tory or Labour at the next election". No doubt some spotty faced twat at Channel 5, with red specs and a pony tail, is trying to recruit stand up "comedians" to appear on a "hilarious" panel show, based on this idea as we speak.

[Bijou Drains]

Fuck me, talk about angels on pin heads

[Bijou Drains]

An in depth discussion based on years of research, according to the "great author" yet in his interview he states:"The high intellectual theorists of Communism/Socialism stated that socialism was only possible in the realm of abundance, and no leftist theorist of any strong Marxian standing that I can think of before the 1950’s advocated a return to medievalism in any form."So years of research never took him as far as William Morris, where was he doing his research, the Public bar of the Crown and Anchor Hotel?

[Bijou Drains]

Contrary to your hypothesis, Newcastle United Season tickets actually create horrid stressed environments, believe me I know, I'm just off to measure my sperm

[Bijou Drains]

ALB wrote:

I don't know whether there's anything in this or not but at least it's a contribution to the debate:http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/poverty-is-genetically-damaging.html

Interesting how the geneticists are catching up with attachment theorists. However typically they fail to see the social context of the situation, early anxiety is not specifically about poverty but rather a function of the absence of what Ainsworth called the Secure Base. Bowlby's theory was based on how we learn to regulate and manage anxiety, the presence of a predictable and calm care giver is how infants and growing children learn to regulate their anxiety. Quite obviously poverty and social depravation can cause more distraction and unavailability in care givers (usually parents however this is not always the case, writers have recently started describing "boarding school syndrome" amongst those educated from an early age, including those who have had multiple care givers in their early but privileged lives (different au pairs every week, parents too busy to bother etc.).If the secure base is not available then the limbic system is over stimulated. In the case of children who suffer early years abuse, neglect and privation, the impact has been known and understood for decades, hype vigilance, social anxiety and in extreme cases Borderline Personality disorder, Psychopathy, etc. They seem to be mistaking the social effect for the genetic impact!

[Bijou Drains]

One of the best covers for agesCongrats to the team who put it together

[Bijou Drains]

gnome wrote:

lindanesocialist wrote:

[he more members are aware the better, don't you think?

Well yes, in theory.  I realise it's hearsay as I wasn't actually present, but nevertheless I'm reliably informed that, going by the discussion that took place at the May EC meeting, most (all?) EC members had not viewed the videos and were consequently uninformed about their content, especially with regard to the background music used.  At least one member knew nothing about YouTube thinking that it was necessary to subscribe in order to watch uploaded material.  Another got confused with a video Vin had made two years earlier which had some content which could be deemed to infringe copyright.  However, that particular video did not mention the party or refer to it directly in any way. Hardly surprising then that the EC ended up passing the motion that it did.  Garbage in; garbage out…

That decision making process reminds me of a day spent in court many years ago as part of my professional training. An applicant had applied for a gaming machine licence for his pub, the local council opposed the application and we observed four hours of heated  argument in front of a judge, which concluded with the judge asking "and what exactly is a gaming machine?". So they had to adjourn the hearing whilst the judge was taken off to a local pub to play a one armed bandit!The point is that if EC members are going to make decisions about issues, surely it is part of their brief to have some degree of background knowledge of the issues, or for them to abstain.

[Bijou Drains]

Brian wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Brian wrote:

gnome wrote:

Quote:

Statement from V Maratty re EC Motion 9 2016 May EC

It is vital that this statement finds its way to individual EC members in some way, shape or form, because, without going into any specific detail for much the same reasons the EC minutes were deliberately vague in some respects, it is quite apparent that due to most EC members' reluctance to visit the forum, confirmed by the absence of any contribution from them towards this thread in the eight weeks it had been running prior to the May EC meeting, they are inescapably and understandably labouring under certain misapprehensions.  They need bona fide, unbiased information.  Fast.

Your call for urgency is unfounded.  This statement will go to all EC members throught the usual channels and procedures for discussion at the EC table.

BrianCan I go back to the question i asked yesterday. You state that the statement will go to the EC memebers "through the ususal channels", yet in other parts of this thread I read that the EC did not have knowledge of the develoment of the video by Vin, because Vin did not approach the EC but rather explained his progress through the forum. It seems very odd to me that a statement on the video made on this forum by Vin "will go to all EC members through the ususal channels and procedures for discussion at the EC table" yet information about the development of his video, posted in good faith on this forum, which had responses from members of the IC amongst others did not "go to all EC members through the usual channels and procedures". I would be grateful if you could specify exactly what usual "procedures" there are to ensure that EC members are made aware of statements made on this forum. If there are not any procedures then it would seem that information from this "gossip chat room" is passed on to the EC in an ad hoc and filtered manner.

Good point.  By usual channels and procedures is meant communications that end up on the EC table.  Just making a posting here is not the usual channel of communications.  If on the other hand a posting is made here and then a duplicate sent to HO for the attention of the EC it becomes part and parcel of the usual channel and procedure of communications. Which I hope is what happened with all such 'Statements' posted on this forum.The problem with some of the posters is they presume that by posting a message titled 'A statement to the EC' on this web site it will by some magic wand waving in the ether automatically end up on the EC table.  No such thing will happen even if by chance some of the EC members are aware of such 'Statements' or any other information for that matter. Such information cuts no ice with the EC and it will quite rightly be treated as hearsay or second hand information, or ad hoc and filtered.Until the communication is sent to the EC through the usual channels and procedures it wont be dealt with at the EC table. The EC acts as an Information Clearing House/Network and it can only deal with the written information it receives.  

Thanks BrianSo effectively what you are saying is that:"Your call for urgency is unfounded.  This statement will go to all EC members throught the usual channels and procedures for discussion at the EC table."Is actually not the current state of affairs, and that the statement made by Vin will not (as things stand) be made available to the EC and that Gnome's contribution, stating that the EC should be made aware of this statement as a matter of urgency is actually founded, rather than unfounded and if this statement is to be made available to the EC, it should be sent through the "usual channels and procedures" not the ones it has been sent through to date. Effectively what you are saying is that Vin, or someone acting on his behalf should either email or send a hard copy of the statement to the Acting General Secretary for consideration at the next EC meeting, which I have got to say is not how your original statement  "Your call for urgency is unfounded.  This statement will go to all EC members throught the usual channels and procedures for discussion at the EC table." reads to the me.YFSTim

[Bijou Drains]

Brian wrote:

gnome wrote:

Quote:

Statement from V Maratty re EC Motion 9 2016 May EC

It is vital that this statement finds its way to individual EC members in some way, shape or form, because, without going into any specific detail for much the same reasons the EC minutes were deliberately vague in some respects, it is quite apparent that due to most EC members' reluctance to visit the forum, confirmed by the absence of any contribution from them towards this thread in the eight weeks it had been running prior to the May EC meeting, they are inescapably and understandably labouring under certain misapprehensions.  They need bona fide, unbiased information.  Fast.

Your call for urgency is unfounded.  This statement will go to all EC members throught the usual channels and procedures for discussion at the EC table.

BrianCan I go back to the question i asked yesterday. You state that the statement will go to the EC memebers "through the ususal channels", yet in other parts of this thread I read that the EC did not have knowledge of the develoment of the video by Vin, because Vin did not approach the EC but rather explained his progress through the forum. It seems very odd to me that a statement on the video made on this forum by Vin "will go to all EC members through the ususal channels and procedures for discussion at the EC table" yet information about the development of his video, posted in good faith on this forum, which had responses from members of the IC amongst others did not "go to all EC members through the usual channels and procedures". I would be grateful if you could specify exactly what usual "procedures" there are to ensure that EC members are made aware of statements made on this forum. If there are not any procedures then it would seem that information from this "gossip chat room" is passed on to the EC in an ad hoc and filtered manner.

[Bijou Drains]

Brian wrote:

gnome wrote:

Quote:

Statement from V Maratty re EC Motion 9 2016 May EC

It is vital that this statement finds its way to individual EC members in some way, shape or form, because, without going into any specific detail for much the same reasons the EC minutes were deliberately vague in some respects, it is quite apparent that due to most EC members' reluctance to visit the forum, confirmed by the absence of any contribution from them towards this thread in the eight weeks it had been running prior to the May EC meeting, they are inescapably and understandably labouring under certain misapprehensions.  They need bona fide, unbiased information.  Fast.

Your call for urgency is unfounded.  This statement will go to all EC members throught the usual channels and procedures for discussion at the EC table.

Hi Brianif this forum is a "gossip chat room" can you explain EXPLICITLY  what the "usual channels" are that this information will travel through to get to the EC. If we have some idea what these "usual channels" are then perhaps we can arrange for some dredgers to clear the channels, as they do not appear to be flowing particularly effectively at the moment. Yours for informed democracyTim

[Author]

Posts