jondwhite
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
gnome wrote:Why should a forum moderator be in any different position to other comrades on sub-committees who are nominated in the first instance by branches and then appointed as the Executive Committee thinks fit? Ideally, moderators should be selected from party members appointed to the Internet Committee, in a similar fashion, say, as those who layout copy for the Socialist Standard are selected from party members appointed to the Socialist Standard Production Committee. Sub-committees are accountable to the EC and, ultimately, all party members are accountable to the party. Others aren't.
Moderators and other committee positions are currently indirectly elected (because they are appointed by the EC which is directly elected) so this reply at least addresses the question.
alanjjohnstone wrote:But to once more to address the issue….The title of the exhibition is the "SOCIALIST OPPOSITION to the First World War" and we do not feature in it. That is inexcusable. Our omission is most certainly out of order and should not be so easily overlooked because of any inadequencies of the exhibition itself. Some may consider the situation lightly, deserving of only a Socialist Standard review. I do not and i hope other members take my view. Once more i reiterate that we owe our comrades of that period a responsibility to not let their contribution be forgotten. I stand by my call for a picket and a demonstration. I will consider it shameful that we do not physically express our dispeasure and protest. And if it is too late for the EC to make a call for action then i expect the local London branches to do so on their own initiative. But if some think we should exercise restraint and understanding then by all means we can politely apply for our own display to be included as part of the exhibition and see what the response is.Judging from the minutes of November EC, I take it this was not discussed.
Well the original question I was asking was how do we do this democratically? Nothing about non-members.
How about something like this?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSQgCy_iIcc
Papers of the late Alan Woodward have been deposited at Bishopsgatehttp://radicalhistorynetwork.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/alan-woodward-research-archives.html
The original question was "should we avoid drawing attention to the horrors of capitalism? Or does our case depend upon exposing them?"Don't know if you were expecting a yes or no answer but I was expecting to dig a bit deeper as to why we might practise one propaganda method over another.
So is 'drawing the attention to the horrors of capitalism' a moral duty, or the only propaganda we can appeal to, or the most effective?
What did you think of this at the timehttp://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100211357/the-swps-fanatics-have-outdone-themselves-with-their-margaret-thatcher-is-dead-rejoice-cover/
Well you could appeal on a variety of bases includingappeal to reason e.g. "you will be better off under the Tories"appeal to good will e.g. "vote Labour for a fairer society"appeal to fear e.g. The Labour Party is now a threat to our national security, our economic security and your family's securityappeal to horror e.g. ISIS propaganda videos, Violence and injury occurs therefore vote for usPersonally I think an appeal to reason is our strongest suit to play and an appeal to horror the weakest and least effective.
Actually the most notable Victorian propaganda of this sort was a liberal call for philanthropy such as Barnado's use of images of deprived children.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_repugnance#CriticismThese days scaring the population into political views is the tactics of the Republican party attack ads or in Britain, David Cameron's comment on Corbyn"The Labour Party is now a threat to our national security, our economic security and your family's security"
Our case depends on the class struggle. War and child casualties predate capitalism and its not necessarily more profitable to murder children in war anyway. I think there was an article once that explained fear and revulsion is the sort of cheap propaganda used by capitalists to provoke an unthinking emotive reaction. Doesn't mean we have to put a pacifist or call for love and co-operation which I think was the error of the resolution to "put a positive case" when the distinction is not really between negative or positive propaganda but a better one would be between emotional and rational propaganda.
