[robbo203]

Here is a good example of what I think is quite an effective video and something that perhaps needs to be emulated.  Some of the arguments are a bit iffy the presentation is good .  It held my attention  https://www.facebook.com/bbcnewsnight/videos/10154807179391200/

[robbo203]

It is true the shift towards a more vegetarian-based diet would have obvious advantages in a socialist society in terms of raising food output because of the built inefficiencies of converting animal feed into meat products and because of the amount of land taken up in growing animal feed.  The feed-to-food calorie conversion rates – or feed conversion ratios (FCR) – differ from meat product to meat product so that insofar as meat consumption continued to exist in a socialist society, one compromise solution might be to change the kind of meat we eat – for example, less beef and more chicken. However, the advantages of converting to a wholly vegetarian diet are not all one way.  You have to bear in mind that many parts of the world are not amenable to arable farming such as mountainous terrains or places handicapped by lack of water.  In these parts of the world, especially, I think animal husbandry would still have an important role to play.  People would making use of particular ecological niches otherwise closed off to plant crops for various reasons. As far as dryland pastoralism is concerned there is often an assumption that grazing animals in these environments leads to environmental deterioration and desertification.  But this is not necessarily the case.  It depends on context.  Traditional pastoralism depends on the ability of herders to freely move their animals in response to environmental changes.  It is when obstacles are placed in the way of this free movement that you tend to find problems arising e.g political boundaries, land enclosures, the establishment of game reserves etc. There is a study I came across a few years ago which compared grazing regimes on either of the Israeli border.  Surprisingly enough although the landscape inhabited by the Bedouin pastoralists seemed comparatively sparse, the rate of biomass production was significantly higher suggesting a greater degree of ecological resilience Near where I live in Southern Spain there is a permaculture research station perched high up in the mountains above Lanjaron – Semilla Besada  (http://semilla-besada.com/) .  I knew the couple who started up this enterprise.  Aspen sadly died a few years ago and David had to return to the UK but while they were (it is now taken over by new people) they produced a lot of useful material on what are called “brittle environments” (http://managingwholes.com/-ecosystem-brittleness.htm) The point about brittle environments like the Mediterranean which have a long dry summer season is that appropriate land management techniques are radically different to what is required in a temperate country like the UK.  A healthy brittle environment requires active intervention and the use of animals plays a vital role in this – particularly to minimise the risk of fires (now a growing global problem as we have seen this year), keep down unproductive scrub that can reduce biodiversity and generate new biomass Round here we typrically find herds of goats and sheep roaming the mountainside.  The goats which are more prevalent provide milk and meat and I knew a near neighbour Pepe (when I had a little shack up in the mountains) who managed a herd of over 1000 goats.  The stench wafting up from the goat farm a few hundred metres below was more than compensated for by the knowledge of all the good that would come from distributing around the garden a few bags of old fashioned goat manure.  Give me that any day over yer modern chemical muck! 

[robbo203]

Major McPharter wrote:

You tube is a avenue we can all take to put forward our case. For example would people go on and look up  ( the verve its a bitter sweet symphony) this great song has had over 366 Million hits YES comrades 366 Million hits the songs goes  Trying to make ends meet you are a slave to money then you die. How true comrades. At the moment some good socialist banter is goung on but he needs some back up, so come on Please Please get on there.

 Yes it is a good song and quite stirring as well  with good lyrics.  You are right about the potential emotional power of audio visual presentation and no doubt the AV committee will seeking ways to harnesss it.  Do you have any suggetions in mind?

[robbo203]

Size matters apparently  http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/12/why-human-society-isn-t-more-or-less-violent-past?utm_campaign=news_daily_2017-12-15&et_rid=17774313&et_cid=1735251

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

 You have to admit, tho Tim,  it is amusing to observe such a fiasco.  Everyone in the organisation takes part in the interview of the prospective candidates!!  Should be sorted by 2025 and that would be really fast for the SPGB.And Robbo's call for 'let's be daring' is priceless. Surely he shouldn't have to make such a plea to the only revolutionaries in the village.As for candidates, are there any?? You would have to be insane. Not just one Hunter breathing down your neck but a hundred

Indeed, Vin.  You would expect an organisation with an incredibly bold objective to be at least a little bold in its behaviour. I really cannot understand how any member can object to the idea of a full time paid officer, given the huge benefits it could potentially deliver.  The project is completely do-able as Tim has pointed out and the Party has more than enough money to fund it.  It’s really just a case of tweaking the terms of employent in such a way as to put to rest any nagging doubts that members might entertain. Of course the remit of the officer needs to be carefully considered beforehand and put down in writing.   I think it is very important that it should include, not just some of the basic administrative work of the Party but serious proactive political work too so the candidate for this post would need to be an effective propagandist as well, with good verbal and writing skills.  In my view, yet another very important aspect of the job should be to initiate ways and means of encouraging the currently inactive membership of the Party to become more active and I have already put forward a number of proposals as to how this could be done. I think the post should definitely be a temporary contract – partly because I believe this will provide a strong incentive for the person concerned to make a good impression if he or she wants the contract to be renewed at the end of its term and partly because it gives the Party greater flexibility in the event that its financial circumstances change.  However, I take Brian's point about the need for continuity.  Perhaps a compromise figure of a two year contract could be put forward, with the possibility of the contract being renewed after the 2 years is up.  I dont think the salary it attracts should be too generous or too mean, but middling.  I put forward the figure of 25K per year which sounds about right to me but I am quite happy to be guided by others such as members who actually live in London as to what is an appropriate sum.  I definitely dont think that this paid officer should be the Gen Sec and agree with Adam on this point.  Rather I think the Gen Sec should be the liaison person who oversees the work of this officer on behalf of the EC As for the process of appointing this officer, I really don’t see the need for the Party as a whole to “elect” such a person.  That’s just ludicrous, impractical and democratic tokenism.  How on earth is a member like myself living in Spain to assess the relative merits of one candidate for the post vis-a-vis another when I might never have even met either in person and know absolutely nothing about them. Seriously, the only really practical way as I see it is for the EC to set aside one day for interviewing candidates at HO itself and that these candidates be interviewed in depth by the whole EC.   I’m would be quite happy to trust the judgement of the EC as to who is the most suitable candidate. I doubt there will be a flood of candidates for the post especially if the salary it attracts is only an average one but it would be nice to think it is not primarily for the salary that members would apply (and it goes without saying the post should only be open to members thenselves).  If the vacancy for the post attracted say half a dozen applicants then, speaking personally, I would be quite pleased with such a result.

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Thanks, Robbo, for what happened to "Common Voice". This part struck me as particularly significant

robbo203 wrote:

…WiC was almost entirely an internet-based phenomenon, meaning that there was a very limited and narrow range of interactions between members.

I see this as a warning that we should not follow the view that has been expressed here that we too should become "an internet-based phenomenon" without physical meetings between members. That would be the way to prove the Private Frasers right.

 Yes I agree with your conclusion and it was precisely for this reason that I oppose the idea of turning the Socialist Standard into a purely e-journal.  That would be a retrograde step and involve a significant narrowing of the range  of interactions and activities among the membership.  All the evidence seems to suggest we need to move in the opposite direction in order to entice into activity the currently inactive majority  of members whose circumstances, combined with the restricted range of party-based activities available to them, effectively excludes them from contributing to the growth of  the Party. The  key to any successful reorganisation of the Party has to involve developing ways  of reaching out to and involving this excluded and inactive majority, in my view..  That should be the Party's primary focus.  Expanding our presence on the internet is important but so too is expanding our presence in the more mundane world, so to speak .  This is not an either-or thing

[robbo203]

 

Brian wrote:

 Obviously, because your brain is focused on not paying the rate for the job you have forgotten the lessons learned here:  http://struggle.ws/pdfs/tyranny.pdfAnd we are talking about a job that will carry a lot more responsibility and working in London and not the backend of Spain!

  Not quite sure what the “tyranny of structurelessness” has to do with the rate for the job, Brian.  I only suggested a figure somewhere in between the two figures you provided for Office Manager ( £31,789 p.a) and office administrator (£20,748 p.a).   Of course I understand the job will entail considerable responsibility but if what you are saying means that it should therefore attract a higher rate of pay than the £25K I suggested, then fine.  So be it.  What rate of pay do you suggest in that case? I’m just a country boy from, as you say, the “backend of Spain” and 25K to me will be a small fortune.  I’m quite happy to leave the question of the appropriate rate of pay for working in London to those who have the misfortune of living in London; it’s the principle of having a full time paid worker at HO I’m more concerned with. 

[robbo203]

Brian wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Brian wrote:

HollyHead wrote:

 [Remember these rates are ten years old! and also lets bear in mind London cost of living rates]

The present average payment in London (2017) for a full-time Office Manager is £31,789 p.a. and for an office administrator its £20,748 p.a.

  If a self employed full time worker is out of the question for legal reason then why not  just settle for a full time paid employee on a temporary contract renewable annually on a salary of, say, 25K –  a reasonable compromise figure.in relation to the above figures? The  Party can easily afford this at the present time and, if its financial situation were to deteriorate markedly in the future, it is not obliged to renew the contract. Lets be bold and try this as an experiment.  Having someone working full time at HO 5 days a week  with an expanded remit to undertake political work and well as adminstrative duties could very well make a huge difference  and lift the whole mood of the Parrty. I'm tired of this negativism already  and I have only rejoined in the last month or so!  What have we got to lose apart from our ingrained depression?  If the SWP can employ multiple full time staff, why can't the SPGB employ at least one full time office worker? Actually , offering a temporary contract to the person concerned would, if anything, incentivise that person to make a big impact  in order to secure the contract for the following year.

Obviously, because your brain is focused on not paying the rate for the job you have forgotten the lessons learned here:  http://struggle.ws/pdfs/tyranny.pdfAnd we are talking about a job that will carry a lot more responsibility and working in London and not the backend of Spain!

[robbo203]

Brian wrote:

HollyHead wrote:

 [Remember these rates are ten years old! and also lets bear in mind London cost of living rates]

The present average payment in London (2017) for a full-time Office Manager is £31,789 p.a. and for an office administrator its £20,748 p.a.

  If a self employed full time worker is out of the question for legal reason then why not  just settle for a full time paid employee on a temporary contract renewable annually on a salary of, say, 25K –  a reasonable compromise figure.in relation to the above figures? The  Party can easily afford this at the present time and, if its financial situation were to deteriorate markedly in the future, it is not obliged to renew the contract. Lets be bold and try this as an experiment.  Having someone working full time at HO 5 days a week  with an expanded remit to undertake political work and well as adminstrative duties could very well make a huge difference  and lift the whole mood of the Parrty. I'm tired of this negativism already  and I have only rejoined in the last month or so!  What have we got to lose apart from our ingrained depression?  If the SWP can employ multiple full time staff, why can't the SPGB employ at least one full time office worker? Actually , offering a temporary contract to the person concerned would, if anything, incentivise that person to make a big impact  in order to secure the contract for the following year.

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Incidentally, I have  never quite understood why the old "World Socialist" journal was discontinued.  Can anyone enlighten me?

Seven issues were produced between 1984 and 1987. It stopped, basically, because not even active members were buying it let alone non-members. Also, we were having difficulties getting good quality articles from the Companion parties. I can't remember exactly but I don't think more than a few hundred per issue were printed. There's good stuff in them and there are still copies of some of the issues left at Head Office if anyone wants one. Just ask..

 Thats quite depressing to hear.  Was a  post mortem ever carried out to  discover why the WS was not selling well?

ALB wrote:

 But, can I put a similar question to you, why did the publication "Common Voice" stop being produced. For similar reasons?

 Fair point.  I think the thing about Common Voice is that its fate, by comparison with the World Socialist, was much more directly bound up with the fate of the World in Common Group which is now sadly, more or less moribund.   You can't really compare the SPGB and WiC anyway.  Firstly, this was because WiC was a very much smaller organisation consisting of, at most, 2 dozen members, (if I remember correctly), whereas the SPGB is an organisation of several hundred members.   The fate of WiC confirms something I’ve come to believe – that it is extraordinarily difficult to get a completely new organisation off the ground from scratch.  The smaller the organisation the more vulnerable it is to decline.  You need a certain critical mass of membership to obtain (or maintain) credibility.  WiC didn’t have that but the SPGB has or, should I say, just about has.  It is this fact coupled with the recent decline in the membership of the SPGB which I found very disturbing indeed that prompted me to re-join.  As a socialist it was the logical thing for me to do despite having grown quite accustomed to being a freelancer, so to speak. A growing awareness of the plight of the SPGB forced this decision on me an I could no lobger resist the call to rejoin  Secondly, WiC was almost entirely an internet-based phenomenon, meaning that there was a very limited and narrow range of interactions between members.  After an initial burst of enthusiasm, the momentum simply could not be sustained and a vicious circle of demoralisation and decline set in. This is precisely why I have been banging on so much about the need for the SPGB to diversify, decentralise and deepen the pattern of interactions amongst members.   I know from bitter first-hand experience what happens when you dont.  The workload increasingly falls on a shrinking hard-core of activists who, one by one, succumb to burn-out and then drop out.   The Party urgently need to radically overhaul the way it goes about doing things.  We need to rid ourselves of this lingering negative attitude towards any fresh proposal because it is perceived to be “unrealistic” and because it fails to taken out how few are the members who would be committed and willing enough to put these proposals into effect.   If you keep harping on about how few are the number of committed activists in the Party without offering any solution as to how increase that number then there can only be one outcome – even more demoralisation and consequently, even fewer committed activists to shoulder the workload. You cannot imagine how depressing it is for me to hear such talk after the initial enthusiasm of re-joining. I am convinced that the Party has the potential to turn things around in quite a dramatic fashion.  I would not have re-joined if I thought otherwise.  But it requires a significant change in the whole culture of the Party – and its organisational structure It precisely because there are far too few members involved in activity that the Party needs to considerably broaden the range of activities it engages in and adapt itself to the circumstances of the currently inactive majority in order to draw them into activity   If it does not do this it will very likely go the way WiC went even if the process will be more drawn out.

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Oh no, not amending Terms of Reference again. When I was on the EC a couple of years ago we discussed amending terms of reference month after month after month. It was one reason why I decided not to stand again and maybe why there's a shortage of EC candidates.Anyway, what's there seems flexible enough. It allows what you want. The Pamphlets Committee has an idea for a pamphlet. All they need do is put it to the EC, no need to wait for Conference. If it's a reasonable proposition it will be okayed. If it's a proposal to print poetry it will be turned down.

 OK, well that sounds more reassuring.  I would hate to think that the PC would have to wait for intructions as to what to produce.  Dar better to use its own initative.  We need a two way dialogue not a one way chain of command

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Janet, here it is;

Quote:

Publications Committee1. To edit and produce pamphlets and leaflets on subjects decided by Conference or approved by the EC. 2. To report to the EC annually in January on the results of work done and money spent in the previous calendar year. This is intended to be part of the EC report to Annual Conference. 3. To report to the EC annually in July on future plans and financial requirements for the coming calendar year. This is intended to be part of the EC report to the Annual Delegate Meeting. 4. To be composed of at least 2 members appointed annually by the EC from nominations branches.

Not much. Do you want to be nominated for next year's committee?

 Adam, would it not be advisable to amend these terms somewhat? For instance re 1)  might it not be possible to change the procedure to allow the Publications Committee to play a more proactive initiating role in deciding on the production pamphlets and leaflets – more analogus to the way in which, say, the SSPC decides on the content of each month's Socialist Standard.  Rather than a one way flow of command downwards instructing the PC to produce what conference has decided why not open up something more like a feedback system, enabling the PC to propose projects whilst still retaining the safeguard of EC approval being required My concern is that the current procedure seems to be excessively cumbersome and over centralised in that you have to wait for conference to decide on what gets to be produced when conference meets only once a year.  This is yet one more example of why the Party needs to move  over to a significantly more decentralised mode of organising activity  – to speed up decisionmaking and  to encourage  a wider spread of members to engage in activity other than the relative handful of activists who currently shoulder a disproportionate burden of the Party's work putting them at risk of burnout

[robbo203]

Prakash RP wrote:

Dear ALB, I'd like to revise my comment made in a hurry yesterday.  I don't think most people are silly. I think most people are ignorant and have the silly belief that economic INEQUALITY is justified because humans are NOT  equal in terms of their calibre and capability and add what follows to it. I've taken note of your point that you yourself ' and most other people, agree with [ what you view as " a commonplace observation " ] . ' So, as you agree with this ' commonplace observation ' of mine, I think I can expect you to join hands with me to be the 2nd member of my team and join in the MISSION aimed at awakening humanity, the poor and penniless millions, who sweat blood to produce all wealth and luxuries, and who make up 99% of humanity, by the Oxfam's wealth data, to the THESIS at issue and its SIGNIFICANCE , the immediate corollary to it, namely, the fact that economic INEQUALITY does NOT owe its origin to QUALITATIVE distinctions between humans, between a Nobelist and a receptionist or between the work done by an engineer and that by a porter, and the fact that humanity must get rid of, if humanity wants to be civilised through and through, the EVIL that is economic INEQUALITY , the origin of what I view as the GREATEST and gravest social INJUSTICE , i.e. the most DISGUSTING and agonising fact that the 99% , the poor and penniless millions, were all BORN poor and penniless, and so they're NOT to blame for their poverty and privation. Are we agreed, ALB ?

I think it is a bit of an unhelpful caricature to characterise the 99% as "poor and penniless".  At least some of that 99% are not  at all "poor and penniless"  in the absolutist sense you seem to imply.  There is, instead, a gradation of poverty,   You can have plenty of pennies tied in a property you might own or earn quite a substantial sum of the same as many  workers do  in the course of being employed – particularly in the West but increasingly in the Global South  – and yet still be "poor" in a relative sense ( in the Marxian sense of the term) I appreciate that this might just be a case of  poetic licence but there is a danger in the excesive use of poetic  licence in that your analysis can come to be interpteted as quite disconnected from the actual world we inhabit and the force of any argument you want to present will be considerably weakened as a result Also, though I agree that the workers are not responsible for the poverty and privation they experience, their continuing support for capitalism ensures  the perpetuation of a social system that makes for that poverty and privation in the first place

[robbo203]

HollyHead wrote:

ALB wrote:

It would have to be self-financing (as it wouldn't be) and not take resources away from the Socialist Standard (which it would). And it would require a Conference resolution (unlikely to get through) .So it's a non-starter.  It's not a priority.and would only be a vanity publishing. Another of the thousand blooms flourishing here that will wither in the face of reality.

 I agree. This is another example of the tendency among Party members to duck shove — "Look here's a good idea …" [ for someone else to implement]  […usually the EC,]To run  projects of the sort argued for here the Party would need an active membership of  2.000+ not the couple of hundred we have at present.

 I am not too sure this is the case – there are groups smaller than the SPGB that manage to put out a theoretical journal without much apparent difficulty  -but even  if it were the case why not just adjust the parameters to make the project more feasible  – for example instead of a quarterly journal make it a half yearly or even annual journal?  The question is do we want or need a journal that treats its subject matter in somewhat different way to the Socialist Standard?  I think we do for all the reasons I gave in another thread.   Im battle hardened when it comes to internet debates having  spent  literally years  on numerous forums putting across the socialist case  and referring people to articles in the Socialist Standard . I can tell you, if you dont already know, that it is surprising how often the criticism crops up that the article in question treats the subject in too superficial or simplistic manner.  Yes, Iagree the criticism is unfair inasmuch as it is not reasonable to expect a subject to be adequately covered in a short article.  But the point is that such criticism is less likely to arise in the case of a theoretical journal which takes a quite different approach to the subject matter,    Also, why would such a journal need to be fully self financing as opposed to, say,  partially self financing?  How much Party activity is actually fully self financing? Is it not possible to subsideise it to some extent out of the ample funds that the Party possesses, assuming it needs subsidising? I fully  understand the criticism that is often made aking the lines that "some members come up with good ideas but expect others to implement them" – notably the EC.  Its a fair comment but I think it rather ironically reflects what to me is part of the problem with the Party – that it is too centralised in the way it is organised and that the  party "culture" has adapted to reflect the organisation. Hence the very expectation amongst members you allude to  that any good idea should be organised and implemented centrally and by the EC in particular. .  But it is precisely because Party activity is too centrally  organised that you then have this perception among many members, particularly isolated members that there is little or nothing they can do by way of contributing to Party activity.  So  they feel effectively excluded and disenfranchised.  This in turn results in a large chunk of the membership becoming inactive.  Its a vicious  circle that needs to be broken I want to suggest  that there is another way of doing things were activity is not so much initiated or implemented "by the centre" (e.g. the EC or HO) but, rather, enabled or faciliated by the centre.  Members should be more encouraged to show intiative and to implement ideas themselves and feel less constrained by procedures and regulations. That means  encouraging a wider range  of both activities and approaches to promoting the socialist case to enable the currently inactive membership to become more active.  So I am all for letting a thousand flowers bloom for that reason  I  appreciate this is a general point about party organisation  Im making which might not be particularly relevant to the idea of  a theoretical joural but then again maybe it might!

[robbo203]

jondwhite wrote:

Robbo would you be willing to write for such a journal?

 Yes indeed JW – as I'm sure  would many other comrades both in the UK and abroad. Apart from anything else, it would be good to have  a genuinely international theoretical  journal which I'm sure will be of great benefit to all the companion parties too.   There seems to be precious little interaction between them apart from the exchange of EC minutes.   I see this as one element in a much broader and desparately needed overhaul of the whole movement,  It must surely be obvious to everyone by now that things cannot go on as they have and real change is required if we are going to stop the rot and at long last start growing again.  Doing things in the same old way we have always done them is, quite simply, no longer tenable. Incidentally, I have  never quite understood why the old "World Socialist" journal was discontinued.  Can anyone enlighten me?

[Author]

Posts