jondwhite
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Intellectual seems a bit generous, isn't it no more sophisticated than 'good guy putin, bad guy nato'?Not so much stop the actual war (invasion of sovereign states) going on as stop the (nato) hypothetical plan.Stop the War Coalition, what a joke. This position might be acceptable to CPB Russophiles like Andrew Murray but I wonder if Tony Benn would have put up with this?
Im not a big fan of AWL but they seemed to put it wellhttp://www.workersliberty.org/node/24716 In the course of 2014 Russia annexed Crimea, encouraged and organised separatist agitation in the south-east of Ukraine, invaded Ukraine in late August, and consistently provided the separatists with some of the most modern munitions and weaponry available. SWC and SARU have therefore decided to picket – the US Embassy!
LBird wrote:duncan lucas wrote:Stuart I base realism on actual actions not words and the fact that the SNP is being voted in by a majority of sCots thats realism not wishful thinking . I know you would rather they voted for the Socialist Party but they dont thats a fact .duncan, I'd tell your fellow workers that voting 'No' is voting for shit with sugar on it, and voting 'Yes' is voting for shit with honey on it.And after the vote, either winner will withdraw the sweetener, and force them to eat shit.The answer is not to eat shit, and become a socialist.If your fellow workers are determined to eat shit, you can't prevent them, and can only try to provide an alternative, that might one day become a palatable alternative to shit, for them.That's 'realism' and 'fact', for them.
Surely Duncan's 'truth' is that workers are voting for the SNP. 'Workers democracy' in action? I don't think it's right but there you go.
Weekly Worker report Left Unity executive committee exceeding their jurisdictionhttp://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1046/a-misjudged-bonapartist-initiative/
Quote:So-called ‘direct democracy’ inevitably relies on and reinforces impoverished thinking and therefore favours demagogues. Not surprisingly then, Marxists have shown a strong aversion to referendums – the favourite device of modern dictators beginning with Louis Bonaparte.8 And it is, of course, not only Marxists who oppose referendums. Even rightwing Labourites have condemned them as alien to the spirit of parliamentary and party politics.9Thankfully, however, there is no provision for Left Unity’s national officers to call an internal membership referendum. Indeed the constitution is perfectly clear. Principles and overall political direction are decided by our annual conference. Between these ‘one member, one vote’ gatherings there is the 70-strong national council. It is vested with the power to decide on policy matters.The much smaller executive committee is expected to provide nothing more than “the day-to-day running of the party” (clause 12a). As for the national officers, they are “responsible for implementing the decisions of national/special conferences and the national council” (clause 12a). No more. No less.Left Unity’s last national conference, in November 2014, not only accepted an amendment which, rightly, rejected calls for closer collaboration with Tusc, but “overwhelmingly rejected” moves to “extend cooperation to the Greens”.10 On each occasion the Communist Platform voted as a bloc for the winning side of the argument. So we remember it well. And, suffice to say, “national conferences of Left Unity are the supreme policy-making body” of the organisation (clause 9a).Under fire from indignant NC members and branches, the officers are citing the September 2014 national council (that is, a meeting which took place two months prior to the “supreme” national conference). However, according to any serious reading, the September 2014 ‘General election strategy’, as agreed by the NC, fails to support the national officers’ ‘Appeal’. Even if it did, the last national conference definitely takes constitutional precedence.Perhaps Stuart W can shed some light?
Winter 2014/2015 IS Network Bulletin #2 makes for interesting reading for spottershttp://internationalsocialistnetwork.org/index.php/downloads/541-winter-2014-15-isn-bulletin-2
ALB wrote:Mark Chapman, of the Pirate Party, a minor reformist party, is also standing in Vauxhall:https://london.pirateparty.org.uk/2014/09/30/mark-chapman-selected-as-ge2015-candidate-for-vauxhall/Why do they just want open access to the internet and not to the other things in life?Well they'd probably say the economic cost is low to opening access to the internet.On a more interesting note, if you look up Policy Beta, they appear to have a more open democratic structure. 'Probably the most democratic party in the world', as someone once recently claimed albeit not about the Pirate party.
ALB wrote:Here's a good speech on the subject which makes all the good points against "No Platform" which apparently is quite widespread in universities these days:http://www.spiked-online.com/freespeechnow/fsn_article/no-to-no-platform-in-defence-of-unpopular-ideas#.VNyAJCwoFqAHaven't read it, but it comes in for a bit of a pasting at urban75.
Looks like the parties who were invited to the Canterbury debate were Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrat, Green Party and UKIP. Seems a bit silly to invite all but one.
DJP wrote:Vin wrote:It is dishonest to oppose this position while having moderators with clear intentions and mandates to prevent an opinionCan someone tell me what this opinion is that we have been mandated to prevent? Must have missed that memo..
15. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.
james19 wrote:Tottenham TUSC candidate, said; "I'm not going to talk to you, if you are not going to vote for me", abruptly and scornfully.I had ojected to the word 'socialist', printed on their large banner. No doubt I will see them again, and can throw in their faces, that this will most likely be their last election.I'd like to see this banner.
DJP wrote:jondwhite wrote:Word of mouth is always more powerful than leaflets.Well yes. But it's about getting to the point where people are talking about you. That doesn't happen if you just sit on your arse and don't go out to people…
You could try knocking on the door.
Good question, I'm not aware of any abuses of open non-secret ballots in the SPGB history.A long time ago, was it ever heard of that members voting for motions that lost then being served with an action detrimental motion to expel them?
