Brian
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
SocialistPunk wrote:Like I said previously, it is early days for the party regarding this form of interactive communication and teething problems are bound to arise.Nothing wrong in admitting it and doing something about it, now is there?
In reference to "doing something about it": In my opinion this particular thread has just about run its course in regards to highlighting the problems and issues of moderation on this forum, what's required now is for a thread on the Website/Technical page to kickstart a discussion on what form of rules of conduct is applicable to this type of medium.For those of you who are interested please find me there.
For some reason I'm unable to break up my previous post into paragraphs.NOTE ADDED BY ADMIN: I've done it for you.
I should be apologising for not clarifying my “stay mum” remark. Whenever a dispute such as this one breaks out it has been custom and tradition for the general membership to hold their horses on coming to any conclusion on what is the solution until they have all the information in front of them. In effect we stay mum and don’t take sides until both parties have had their say and we have ownership of the facts at Conference or ADM. Then the evidence is challenged and commented on and hopefully resulting in a possible solution. Unfortunately in this case a lack of response from the general membership can be perceived as endorsing a form of censorship. I can assure you this is not the case. However, I’m well aware that behind this present furore is the sensitive issue of what type of code of conduct is suitable and enforceable for socialist discourse on the internet? Do we use the present set up used in general by the internet community, which we find wanting? Or do we adopt the standing orders for Branches, Conference and ADM where even the chair (the moderator) can be ruled out of order by the meeting (forum)? [Also contained within the standing orders there are strict guidelines on questioning the socialist credentials of a member.] Or do we adopt a bit of both? Also there is of course the question of training moderators for such tasks. Time and time again I’ve seen (here and elsewhere) moderators lose their cool simply because of the lack appropriate guidelines and training. So there is also the question of who will moderate the moderators? And how do we ensure that any rules of governance provide the means for this to occur? And should any ruling on moderation include non-party members? If so what mechanism needs to be installed so that a poll can take place? The party is notorious for deliberating – for a long period of time – over a matter which is obviously going to impact on our decision making process and policy for the freedom of expression – especially where individuals and minorities are concerned or involved. Presently, the general membership have yet to come to terms that this particular medium for expression demands a form of goverance which would by implication involve non-party members in deciding who holds the chair. Clearly, in such a dysfunctional environment the moderators are only partially to blame when the party is failing to clear up its act by determining what particular internet etiquette is applicable and suitable for this form of medium and also party policy on freedom of expression. And we also have to remember that in this respect the EC role is limited to being a conduit for expressing concerns over aberrant behaviour by offering reminders on rules of conduct. So its pointless in appealing to the EC to intervene when its up to the party membership to confront the issues involved. Obviously I’m not in favour of laying down a strict party line on the issue of “censorship” but society being society there will be some form of censorship applicable to an accepted code of conduct and the application of general rules and norms (and this will apply even in a socialist society) but each case has to be judged on its merits or dismerits. So any party strictures would be self defeating, and besides it could imply we are in into drawing up a blueprint on the decision making process of a socialist society. Which would simply mean that we are in fact paying lip service to our understanding of democracy by projecting dogma to a future situation! No thanks. Whereas the reality is that the form of decision making, goverance, rules and norms and the code of conduct in a socialist society will differ globally. So when applying “censorship” or making a judgement the community will take into account the particular circumstances, conditions and culture appertaining to that specific community. Finally, in my opinion the subject of this thread is on the wrong page and the whole discussion needs to shifted to its appropriate location under the Moderation Comments. Hope this helps in moving the direction of this thread onto a more balanced discussion on the question of rules of conduct.
The WSM doesn't just advocate open debate, we also put it into practice, albeit that everybody follows the rules and code of conduct under which that discussion is conducted. If however, its found that these protocols and procedures are found wanting we'll change them after discussion has taken place on the necessity for or not for change.Currently, the discussion is still taking place within the confines of the party structure and like I said the jury will be out until it reaches Conference when it will become open debate. In the meantime its essential the whole of the party membership is provided with all the information required to reach a decision and possibly a solution to this issue. Until we receive that information discussion by party members on this particular matter is deferred on this forum.Nevertheless, and despite the fact that for the time being we have decided collectively to stay mum this does not stop non-party members from speaking their mind on this forum on the subject matter of censorship in a general sense. I would not advise any non-party member to start rehashing old ground which would most definitely place the moderators in an unenviable position.
Until the specifics of this issue is discussed at Conference the jury is out. Any discussion until then would only add fuel to any misunderstandings it has created.
Although this interview appears to say that PJ is at last taking a class position and also elaborating on a peaceful democratic non-violent revolution it still remains to be seen whether or not he follows this through in the future by applying it to his 'leadership' of TZM. There are problems with the Australian, Colombian and UK Chapters and it will be interesting to see what solutions he will propose to satisfy all parties concerned and restrict any fallout.
Ozymandias wrote:More about the Baltic Dry Index here… http://www.thedailysheeple.com/global-economic-slowdown-signals-sad-new-year_122012 How bad could this actually get? Reminds me of a front page from the Standard from a couple of years ago which stated "You ain't seen nothing yet".Not a bad article for information, but its conclusion that capitalism is heading for an economic collapse is not going to happen whilst a majority still support the system of wage slavery. In short, capitalism will only collapse once that support is withdrawn.
Is ‘state capitalism’ better or worse than free market capitalism, or are they equally bad in your view?Socialists do not make judgements on the different forms of capitalism. Capitalism is capitalism whatever spots you care to put on it? Historically, all forms of capitalism enter the world stage has and when the market conditions and social circumstances determine the particular preference and interests of the capitalist class.
Is communism inevitable? Short answer no! If it were we could all sit back and wait for it to happen.
ALB wrote:This talk of TS3, etc reminds me. What happened at the UK chapter meeting a week or so ago that Brian and Socialist Punk were going to take part in?I attended but it seems Socialist Punk is contemplating the complexity a new meduim of communication and how it impacts on his well being, health and life style. You had better purchase a headset because at the next meeting this Monday I shall propose you as the guest speaker for the first meeting in the new year. Hehe.
J Surman wrote:Brian's 'turgid' I definitely agree with.Taking a long view on socialism/TZM it seems to me that the more we are able to engage with them, in whatever forum/debate/discussion it can only further socialist aims. There are a lot of folk out there tuned in to TZM – members or not is not that important – looking for a viable alternative that fits with their views. The more they are exposed to the WSM/SPGB the more (some of them) can see that we are basically heading the same way—-and have a credible history.Which is the very reason I've been advocating that socialist attend the UK TZM Team Speak 3 meetings where the opportunity to put the socialist case is freely available. TZM is a global movement and all Chapters hold their meetings on TS 3 which effectively means that most languages are spoken there.Agreed TS 3 is a difficult medium to get familiar with but I can assure you its well worth the effort.
This new Orientation Guide already differs from the original in that it's going to be far longer and drip fed to the movement over the next 2 years. If it's eventually completed it won't surprise me if it's offered on sale as a small book. And unfortunately, consisting of turgid explanations on the reasons why TZM insist on using jargon and waffle to distance itself from the political challenges which lie ahead.It's already starting to contradict itself by attempting to distance TZM from "class war" when not so long ago Peter Joseph acknowledged in a tv interview on Russia Today that TZM like the Civil Rights Movement it models itself on is a participant in the class war.
This is being imposed on TZM by Peter Joseph whether they like it or not.http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/orientation
alanjjohnstone wrote:"Nevertheless, it should be plain by now that any speaker from TZM is merely expressing their own opinion and not necessarily the current message which Peter Joseph is attempting to get over. ""James Phillips who describes himself as the Project Co-ordinator for TZM Education."Doesn't the fact that he has an "official" title cloud the issue of stating a personal opinion or whether representing the TZM's overall position. Does he offer a disclaimer for the responsibility of his speech at the beginning of it?Good point Alan in regards to what is considered an "official" and "unoficial" title or project with TZM. It depends on what particular Admin Team (Global/Country/City Chapter) the title or project is supervised by. Starting from the top with the Global Admin Team they would most definitely not recognise the "Project Co-ordinator for TZM Education" as an "official title or project" for the movement, however on the other hand the UK Chapter do.This lack of a coordinated approach stems from what I've said earlier in reference to the mushroom effect on the structure and organisation of TZM globally. And this is the result of a lack of a listed registered membership being established right from the begining. Why TZM had (and never will) have a listed or registered membership stems from Peter Joseph using the Civil Rights Movement and the experiences which came out of that, has a framework for structure and organisation for TZM – which is loose and flexibile to ever changing circumstances.This framework allows individuals to come up with ideas on how to promote the TZM Mission Statement through a variety of projects at a local or country level. If the project is thought to be positive its given the go ahead and the person(s) who introduced it are then deemed to be the official project coordinators. Once it embedded and developed its then passed to the Global Admin Team to consider for inclusion into the Global Program and hence become part of the official global projects.In this respect the UK Education Project is still in its early stage of development, although its been going for over 2 years. I suspect the main reason why the UK Admin Team have not as yet passed this particular project to the Global Admin Team is due to its current association with TVP and the consequences this could have on its future development.How this project fares once Fresco pops the bucket is anybodies guess but I'm sure that James Phillips is considering the issues and problems involved there.
Your report is a pretty accurate account of the numerous talks James Phillips is giving in schools. However, to me James is living in a time warp of before the split with TZM and TVP took place and when it was common place to try and link the idea of circular cities with a RBE. TVP (Jacque Fresco) has always stated that the circular cities would be islands in a sea of capitalism, but this is not the current thinking in TZM (Peter Joseph). In fact lately I'm constantly picking mentions of a Global Resouce Based Economy (GRBE) which seems to imply they are starting to widen their horizons somewhat.James has in fact been challenged on several occasions by TZM supporters regarding this rather gaping hole in the circular city theory. But always insisted that these models of a RBE would be the stepping stones towards a global moneyless economy for unless the model is observable it is impossible to assess and quantify how the impact a RBE will affect human behaviour. Which means he's failing to rigorously apply the scientific method to the theory of circular cities.Nevertheless, it should be plain by now that any speaker from TZM is merely expressing their own opinion and not necessarily the current message which Peter Joseph is attempting to get over.
