Brian
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
DJP wrote:"A slight modification of your idea would be to hold it online but using voice conferencing software such as teamspeak or skype. That way we could actually speak to each other and there's some point logging on a certain date and time. The Zeitgeist Movement have been doing this for some years now.That said this idea is probably best moved forward through a branch or a department, but some members could do a dry run if they wish…What do you reckon?"
Paddy Shannon and myself are doing a practice run on the TZM teamspeak 3 server later on tonight around 8.00pm. Paddy has agreed to do a guest speaker spot at the TZM UK Chapter meeting on the 5th of Nov. If anybody would like to join us tonight just download the package for ts 3 from the TZM UK site and I'll talk you through the protocol of voice check, etc. You'll need a headset though which most discount stores stock for about £4.00.
Hi Dick,Have you thought of adding 'Identification with capitalism' to your list? See here for what I'm on about:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSa9tyuIdkI&feature=youtu.be
Quote:Here is a crazy suggestion.‘Open Public discussion to be held on the World Socialist Forum (insert link) on Tuesday 7pm etc etc All Welcome. Meeting will be opened by ?????? followed by discussion. Contributions welcome. Advertise on twitter, Facebook etc.Probably can’t be done, Just throwing about ideas.'For the last 2-3 years TZM have been using Team Speak 3 to do just this.There is a lot of catching up to do in this respect.
I agree that even with effective communication there are difficulties with the other person(s) so busy filtering they are only half listening. And having worked with Gwynn for several years at Clapham he provide many a lesson on the effective use of the english language. But I have to say he was not on his own regarding insights on communicating the party case to specific audiences.And like I suggested previously we are not short on providing trainers for workshops. The problem is getting them to do it! ADM and the Summer School provide a wonderful opportunity to hold workshops on any number of subjects concerning this particular thread. So lest not lose sight of the fact that its not just effective communications which is a fault line. Indeed, even if we make a start on tackling effective communication we are still going to be stuck with the dynamics of changes in the social environment. And if the party organisation and structure is deemed to be not fit for purpose in dealing with these changes in a flexible and adaptable manner, any effective communication we adopt will have little impact on party growth.The implication being: With any changes in skill sets there must be corresponding changes in the organisation and structure – which reflects the adaptation – so the benefits are visible and transparent.I'll have a word with Dick Field and Mike Foster regarding workshops at ADM and Summer School.
I most certainly have several proposals. Some which will come out in this discussion, the others will have to wait until later. I agree the there will be some difficulties in changing how we use the language and without being accused of 'dumbing down'. However, for example instead of sayin "capture of political power" why not say "gaining political power" or "obtaining political power" which unlike "capture" don't have the implication of aggression and militaristic overtones attached to them?At the moment I'm disinclined to agree with ditching either "reforms/reformism". And for two good reasons: 1. The term "reforms" is still used by other political parties to explain changes within capitalism and Joe Public is well aware that most reforms are not for his benefit. 2. The difficulty with ditching "reformism" is that its shorthand for explaining the gradualist theory on political change by the left wing. However, I would emphasise to all who are fond of using this term of identification that like all labels it needs clarification on its political meaning.The use of the term "labour power" depends on the context on when its used. Tho I don't have a problem in everyday conversation I just say 'selling their labour, both mentally and physically'. However, when discussing Marxian economics – which to be frank is not everyday conversation – then I tend to use the term "labour power".Has for "common ownership" why not 'social ownership' or 'social possesion by the whole community'? But again this would depend on the conversation and context.We already have the "professional communicators" (and also linguistics lecturers) within the party. The problem is to get them to organise workshops at ADM.
Now that the dust seemed to have settled can we make a start on projecting some positive responses to this thread???1. As has been mentioned previously: The political and social environment has changed to such an extent the message and language used in the past is not hitting the right note with members of the working class in the present day.2. Now the message and language is determined by the socioeconomic background of the audience, which is no longer generalised in attitude and outlook but specific in their expectations and aspirations.3. The party needs to experiment with different avenues and means to project the socialist case. And perhaps the party needs to modify the tone and form on how it projects its message.I'm sure there is a lot more but just for the mo these three are quite sufficient to get on with for now.
SocialistPunk wrote:Hi ALB,I had an idea the call to arms would show itself sooner or later.I could be an inactive number. Not a problem if I just became party member "333". But if I became a branch member I would feel a need to get involved.A bit of a conundrum, as you may or may not appreciate.It only becomes a conundrum when "socialist activity" is ill defined. For instance: I would consider being involved with this forum and the very important discussion it generates an essential form of socialist activity! Indeed to associate socialist activity purely at a Branch level misses the point that individual participation can take many forms.
Have you contacted Francesco on this to find out why he recommended this currency cranks book? Why not give him a link to the banking thread?It appears Peter Joseph has been persuaded to abandon making lengthy movies and concentrate his efforts on 20 to 30 minutes videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTbLslkIR2kBesides being a bit condescending towards the end he fails to suggest an alternative form of a democractic structure. But nevertheless its more or less what we have been saying in a more prolonged form.
Have you contacted Francesco on this to find out why he recommended this currency cranks book? Why not give him a link to the banking thread?It appears Peter Joseph has been persuaded to abandon making lengthy movies and concentrate his efforts on 20 to 30 minutes videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTbLslkIR2kBesides being a bit condescending towards the end he fails to suggest an alternative form of a democractic structure. But nevertheless its more or less what we have been saying in a more prolonged form.
gnome wrote:I certainly take the “word” of Cliff Begley, a prominent member of TZM London Chapter and ex-member of the SPGB, when he says there are those in the movement who are advocating reforms of capitalism and may contest elections on that ticket.Having attended many TZM UK Chapter meetings on TS3 I can second Cliff Begley on this. But given the diverse nature of the “membership” of TZM this comes has no surprise. However, what needs to be taken into consideration is this diversity is also their biggest barrier for any involvement with political activity. So whilst TZM Chapters are unlikely to become involved in reformist activity individual members on the other hand can be and are involved in reformist activity. However, the reformists are in the minority thankfully. Which given the bigger picture of social evolution is not a bad thing imo.Again we need to understand the underlying message of the ‘TZM Mission Statement’ is for each individual to apply critical thinking to the structure of capitalism and consequently condemn the outcomes for the inherent failure to address human needs. However, the TZM hang up with an economic collapse theory is also a sad reflection on their lack of understanding on the revolutionary process and its division into political, economic, social and cultural components. TZM are fixated on the social component to the exclusion of all others.Although TZM do not represent a challenge to capitalism for us they do represent an opportunity to to get the socialist case across – and especially so in respect of promoting a greater understanding on the revolutionary process.
“There was frequent inability to secure effective and loyal co-operation, which shows that, even the stress of war will not make men who think differently work to a common programme.”Which surely illustrates that in order to attain a “common programme” the essential pre-requisite is a combination of a common interest and a common understanding, for history explains where this essential pre-requisite is absent all forms of struggle by the workers are either absorbed or utimately crushed by the ruling class.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:Brian wrote:I agree its the anarchy of production which is the cause of a crisis and not overproduction which is an effect. Paradoxically without the anarchy of the market capitalism wont exist. Basically, a crisis is the result of capitalism running out of steam with the potential for profit no longer visible. Capitalism can only pick up steam once its gone through the process of destroying the existing value and creating a more level playing field by ridding itself of some of the distortions in the market.But like Marx explains the solution of one problem only creates further problems.The ‘anarchy of production’ is capitalist production – So capitalism causes crisis? Not very helpful to an economist trying to heal capitalism but why should that concern us?
Because it provides us with the ammunition to say ‘Capitalism is beyond healing and its in our interests to speed up the process’. And, ‘In anticipation of that occurring lets start digging the grave by preparing and planning for the future society’.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:Capitalism is a crisisLike Adam and the quote from Marx reminds us above we are observing a “crisis” which impacts on the production of commodities. The surface appearances of this crisis seem to affect the whole of society but the truth is for the capitalist class there is no crisis its just business as usual.
I agree its the anarchy of production which is the cause of a crisis and not overproduction which is an effect. Paradoxically without the anarchy of the market capitalism wont exist. Basically, a crisis is the result of capitalism running out of steam with the potential for profit no longer visible. Capitalism can only pick up steam once its gone through the process of destroying the existing value and creating a more level playing field by ridding itself of some of the distortions in the market.But like Marx explains the solution of one problem only creates further problems.
