jondwhite
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I stand correctedhttps://levellersday.wordpress.com/whats-happening-2016/I was looking athttps://levellersday.wordpress.com/friday-seminar-2016/
If you've corresponded with someone by letter or e-mail, then would you say you had 'met' them? Probably not, hence why taking a meeting to mean a meeting in real-time only would solve all of the problems of quorum, electing, seconding and voting in non-temporal "meetings".
In my very limited understanding, isn't every commodity traded for speculation (ie. not used for what it produces as such), a (potential) 'bubble' where exchange value is largely divorced from use value.
Young Master Smeet wrote:In reply to:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/regional-branches/north-east/correspondence-nerb#comment-31831jondwhite wrote:Agreed that a meeting should not be conducted on a forum, discussion board or mailing list.A meeting should be conducted in real time.This could be teleconference which can be user friendly such as Skype.Or it could be live chat such as IRC.That knackers half the advantage of online meetings: not only can geographically disparate members attend meetings and make decisions, but also people working awkward shift patterns. To be frank, conference call, IRC, etc. didn't need special standing orders, since they practically work like a face to face meeting: the issue is meetng by correspondence.
I would suggest that 'meeting' implies real-time and any contributions outside of a real-time meeting can be addressed in correspondence to and from the meeting.
Best thing I read on it was a critisticuffs pamphlethttps://gegen-kapital-und-nation.org/en/bitcoin-finally-fair-money
Trump has told voters not to bother voting for him in the remaining primaries and promised to bring back jobs for minershttp://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmL8ZEKXr0E
Wilhelm Liebknecht titled his pamphlet 'No Compromise, No Political Trading'. The only people arguing for 'No Compromise' alone back then (and arguably now) would be religious ascetics.When the Socialist Party was formed, this slogan was what they printed on their flag 'No Compromise, No Political Trading'. You can see this in the conference photo from 1905.The October 1904 Socialist Standard Editorial was headlined 'The Futility of Reform'. Does the particular choice of wording indicate anything? It wasn't 'Reform never temporarily benefits the Working Class'So when in 1910 WB of Upton Park wrote 'What would be the attitude of a member of the SPGB if elected to Parliament, and how would he maintain the principle of ‘No Compromise’?' the Standard replied with agreement from EC.This was restated in Forum Journal in the 1950s.The supporting statement to Conference 2016 was
Quote:The original and famous (within Socialist Party Law) answer to W.B. of Upton Park, in 1910, was: “as we progress and new situations arise, our membership, ever guided by the revolutionary principle of NO COMPROMISE, by our general understanding of Socialism and the requirements of the greatest interest of the working class, its emancipation, will DEMOCRATICALLY direct the action of its representatives. Each new situation, will have to be faced and Socialist action be decided upon the merits of the case.” This answer stands as the party’s position on what would happen were one of our delegates to be elected to any political office. 8 This remains our answer today, and Party candidates at the General Election relied upon this formula when answer questions about what they would do on specific issues, from pot-holes in the road to broader matters such as TTIP or the NHS. It was noticed (in social media chatter) that our candidates largely had no answer on many issues. Do we have any better way of expressing our view? Or a better approach? The answer to WB of Upton Park has been variously interpreted. Some members, in the past, have taken the answer to mean that our delegates may be required sometimes to vote against specific measures (but never for). There are many options: we could cease standing candidates (and say we will only stand when we are confident of victory); we could adopt the Sinn Fein approach (our candidates would refuse to take their seats until we were confident that we could carry the revolution); we could draw up a policy platform of how we would vote on an issue of the day as if we had a delegate we could mandate. This question also needs to be addressed with the growing use of referendums, where our members may be called upon to vote “on the merits of the case”. In any case, it is worth revisiting the question, and recalling that this is a tactical, rather than a strategic matter.So it seems pretty straightforward to me if asked
Quote:What will the Socialist Party candidate do about [local provision]?that the candidate can reply
Quote:It is a a result of the profit system that [local provision] is funded the way it isthen the question will come
Quote:Will the Socialist Party candidate cast a vote to save [local provision]?the candidate ought to reply
Quote:Not necessarily, we only want to receive votes on the basis of support for socialism where welfare won't be rationed by the profit system. Does the questioner want socialism?alanjjohnstone wrote:I was out of the party at the time but i did hear that those members that went on to form Socialist Studies expressed homophobic sentiments. Not sure if this is supported or not? Maybe some can reply.From Socialist Studies 8 my emphasis added
Quote:We suspect that these Clapham members would be very happy to see the S.P.G.B. and its history disappear altogether, so that they can get on with, to them, more pressing or fashionable issues, such as homosexuality, women’s liberation, moralising about the market, abolishing the State, encouraging workers to confront the armed forces of the state in the name of democracy; anything but putting a clear case for Socialism.http://www.socialiststudies.org.uk/socstudy08.shtmlSo homosexuality is a 'fashionable issue'. Notice this was not 'homosexual rights', 'queer liberation' 'pride' or even 'opposition to homophobic discrimination' but homosexuality itself.
When workers votes are bought and paid for by corporations or suppressed completely – then what suggests elections are suitable for democratic change and how?
So what is the democratic answer? Overturn citizens united? Open primaries to select party candidates with fewer barriers to voting, or standing? Do open primaries for selecting party candidates counteract this? Would higher salaries for representatives help? Would lower salaries? More third parties? Weaker party machines? Or is the uk democracy better? Skewed representation and a history of closed primaries for selecting party candidates?
