[jondwhite]

ALB wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

The Irish Question: A Socialist Analysis (1976) is not. S.P.G.B. – Utopian or Scientific? The Fallacy of the Overwhelming Minority (1949) has the same party status as The Irish Question: A Socialist Analysis (1976).

This is pedantry and also insulting. True, both have the same "status" as non-party publications but "The Irish Question" was written by a socialist and puts the party case (in fact a large part of it had previously been published in the Socialist Standard). The other one is anti-socialist crap not worth the paper is was printed on and certainly not at all a priority for reproducing on the internet.

I wasn't aware a large part of The Irish Question (1976) had been published in the Standard (and thus agreed by a party committee). I stand corrected. Apologies.

[jondwhite]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

What about this Ireland one, then?https://cedarlounge.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/wsp-anglo-irish.pdf

It seems to be a party pamphlet.

[jondwhite]

The Socialist Party of Ireland Manifesto (1949) is an official party pamphlet but The Irish Question: A Socialist Analysis (1976) is not. S.P.G.B. – Utopian or Scientific? The Fallacy of the Overwhelming Minority (1949) has the same party status as The Irish Question: A Socialist Analysis (1976). Neither were written or agreed by publications committee (or any other party committee). By contrast, Forum Journal (1952-1960) was written and agreed by a party committee, published regularly and has yet to be uploaded here despite being fully transcribed and requests to upload here.

[jondwhite]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Yes, I would, and the conference resolution you've cited, to my mind, is no barrier to fracking per se…

For the benefit of readers in this topic the resolution is from 1992

Quote:

That this Conference instructs the EC to ensure that the SSPC, the Publicity Committee, the Meetings Committee and all writers and speakers in the presentation and content of our case lay stress upon the positive aspects of it, i.e. they should ensure that we are understood to be advocates of a new world society,  where sound ecological values underlie productive activities, and where real democracy, local to global, exists.Furthermore, our message should not be confined to the exposition of our primary aims but should express the necessity to build a socialist movement in practical and realisable terms, i.e. the immediate need to build an active competent party before being able to have any significant influence among the majority of the working class. In addition, the subsequent political, economic, cultural and other problems of the transformation to Socialism should be given informed and imaginative treatment within the bounds of practical necessity.

[jondwhite]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Just to bring the discussion back here.  So, even if any of our candidtes are personally against fracking, they are of course pledged to vote for it is the party instructs them to do so after a democratic debate.A couple of drive by quotes from Wikipedia:

Public Health England wrote:

"An assessment of the currently available evidence indicates that the potential risks to public health from exposure to the emissions associated with shale gas extraction will be low if the operations are properly run and regulated. Most evidence suggests that contamination of groundwater, if it occurs, is most likely to be caused by leakage through the vertical borehole. Contamination of groundwater from the underground hydraulic fracturing process itself (ie the fracturing of the shale) is unlikely. However, surface spills of hydraulic fracturing fluids or wastewater may affect groundwater, and emissions to air also have the potential to impact on health. Where potential risks have been identified in the literature, the reported problems are typically a result of operational failure and a poor regulatory environment."

and

Quote:

Hydraulic fracturing fluids include proppants and other chemicals. These may include toxic chemicals;[3] In the United States they are allowed to be treated as trade secrets by companies who use them. Lack of knowledge about specific chemicals has complicated efforts to develop risk management policies and to study health effects.[4][5] In other jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, these chemicals must be made public and are required to be non hazardous in their application

Now, my view is that fracking is probably no more harmful than any other extractive industry, per se, but that for AGW reasons that gas/oil should stay in the ground.  As a party member, if I wa given the choice between 5,000+ deaths from winter cold and fracking, I'd vote for fracking, and expect our delegates to abide by the vote.

Would you expect our delegates to abide by the votes of conference resolutions and the case put in party pamphlets?

[jondwhite]

LBird wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

The test of democracy is: who initiates? who amends? who decides?  If the executive has exclusive capacity to initiate … that gives the most power to the parts of the constitution further from the electors and the population at large.Its a small thing, but it's part of a pattern of repeated filters and blocks that removes power from the population and into the hands of an elite.

But, you'll quite happily have this ideological method applied to the production of 'truth', YMS, as does robbo, and everyone else who posts on this site, as far as I can tell.No-one seems to see the contradiction. Everyone happily separates out 'matter' from 'consciousness', object from subject, nature from humanity, science from politics, rocks from ideas, fact from opinion, theory from practice, truth from democracy.Marx argued for unity. The idea of disunity of these factors is bourgeois ideology, a ruling class idea, not a 'personal opinion', that you all just happen to hold, co-incidentally, of your own volition. Even posters who've never read a single thing, and have only started posting very recently, and so haven't even read the numerous threads here, are all quite confident in 'their own' opinion of these issues.Wake up, comrades, or ban me completely, and then you can all go back to your 19th century slumbers.The myth, that 'sciences produces The Truth', and the scientists have a method which tells them this, and that 'Truth' cannot be elected by humanity, as a whole.

You're going to have to put together some sort of reference text on your case, because personally I can't wade through pages and pages of discussion although I would like to understand. Something comprehensive would be good but even a short article would do.

[jondwhite]

DJP wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

This doesn't seem like a non-commital position taken by the party in 1992 to me.

Quote:

this Conference instructs the EC to ensure that … all writers and speakers in the presentation and content of our case lay stress upon the positive aspects of it, i.e. they should ensure that we are understood to be advocates of a new world society,  where sound ecological values underlie productive activities

Of course we are not non-commital when it comes to "sound ecological values" but the question then remains, "what is sound ecologically".To be honest we, as a political party not a scientific advisory board,  do not have all the expertise and knowledge required to really know all the details when it comes to certain technologies, eg. if fracking (or nuclear power of GMO) can or could be done in a way that is not damaging to the environment then we would have no reason to oppose it. But this ultimately is a question for people in socialism to decide, once the profit motive no longer clouds the issue, we should not dictate to the future…

But if we're not a scientific advisory board, why are we practising clairvoyance instead – suggesting that fracking can or could be done in a way that is not damaging to the environment? Safe-fracking seems to only be a vague claim (and no more) originating from the fracking industry which stands to benefit.Another SPGB pamphlet Ecology and Socialism (1990) puts it more clearly and doesn't speculate about a form of nuclear power that doesn't exist.

Quote:

Future generations will rightly regard the decision to utilise nuclear power on a widening scale for electricity generation, let alone for military purposes, as an act of folly, especially as right from the start it was known that there was no satisfactory solution to the problem of disposing of the radioactive waste that inevitably results from the process. Dumping this in the sea or burying it in the ground is merely to pollute a part of the biosphere for generations to come.

Second warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

[jondwhite]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I think DJP has a point but it is a very narrow line for members to walk and sometimes we understandably fall offThere are many issues that i have very strong personal feelings and emotions about and always have to be careful on the blog. Luckily we have the facility of deleting or re-editing and one of the bloggers performs a very useful role of looking over our shoulders to make sure we do not substitute individual opinion for party views. (It has happened so i readily confess mea culpa)As Howard did with his signing off omitting the The in Socialist Party candidate and quickly correcting it, i see no problem, Steve,  that if a similar question arises, you take DJP's point on board you explain the Party's non-commital position, or indicate the divergence of opinion within the party and express your own private view. Again, to refer to Howard on his tv appearance, he agreed with Andrew Neil that their are aspects of anarchist influences within the party…but we shouldn't drag him over the coals for admitting that, should we? (another previous section of the SPGB would certainly have done so, IMHO, but happily they went off to do their own thing…)  

This doesn't seem like a non-commital position taken by the party in 1992 to me.

Quote:

this Conference instructs the EC to ensure that … all writers and speakers in the presentation and content of our case lay stress upon the positive aspects of it, i.e. they should ensure that we are understood to be advocates of a new world society,  where sound ecological values underlie productive activities

First warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

[jondwhite]

Parliaments a sham. A multi-party system can help but its still a sham. There is no parliamentary road to socialism, only an elective electoral one.

[jondwhite]

Is this an academic discussion or are twitter accounts for the party neglecting to follow other twitter users?If its an academic discussion, then from the Communist Manifesto, Chapter 2

Quote:

In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?  The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.  They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.  They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

and from the German Ideology

Quote:

The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch.

If this is actually happening, then someone needs to pull their finger out and get following other twitter users on twitter.We are resolutely against all reforms, but it doesn't apply here in the way literalist interpretations might assume.

[jondwhite]

DJP wrote:

steve colborn wrote:

I do indeed oppose fracking

You're free to have you're own opinion on this but should election candidates really be stating positions that have not been agreed on by the party as a whole? Or if they do should they not emphasise that this is their own opinion and not that of the party?

Election candidates should be stating the view of the Ecology and Socialism SPGB pamphlet from 1990 and the An Inconvenient Question SPGB pamphlet from 2000

Quote:

Since the publication of our Ecology and Socialism pamphlet of 1990 environmental problems facing the planet have got much worse.  We said then that attempts to solve those problems within capitalism would meet with failure, and that is precisely what has happened.  Recent research on increasing environmental degradation has painted an alarming picture of the likely future if the profit system continues to hold sway.  Voices claiming that the proper use of market forces will solve the problem can still be heard, but as time goes on the emerging facts of what is happening serve only to contradict those voices.

and the resolution of SPGB conference from 1992

Quote:

That this Conference instructs the EC to ensure that the SSPC, the Publicity Committee, the Meetings Committee and all writers and speakers in the presentation and content of our case lay stress upon the positive aspects of it, i.e. they should ensure that we are understood to be advocates of a new world society,  where sound ecological values underlie productive activities

[jondwhite]

Taken literally, yes, it is 'reformist' for a member of the SPGB to follow non-socialists on twitter.Taken practically – then no, it is not 'reformist'.As for non-party-controlled means of communication, of course using these is not 'reformist', and to take the attitude that 'non-party-controlled means of communication' are out could only be a sectarian mindset.

[jondwhite]

Perhaps you're subconsciously thinking of the work titled exactly that by GDH Cole?https://libcom.org/history/history-socialist-thought-gdh-cole

[jondwhite]

Vin wrote:

gnome wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

Is Howard on the far-left?

No, he's a socialist.

 Lol

[jondwhite]

Is Howard on the far-left?

[Author]

Posts