[robbo203]

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

+ robboWhile I appreciate the replies, I don't have time to respond now.  Just skimming over what you say (which is all I can now do), I suspect that this is a case of two people arguing from different basic principles, which means you will have great difficulty understanding me because, while I have understood the socialist case and been a Party member, you have not gone through the thinking process that I have.  For one thing, we will be using language in semantically different ways. My concern here is with how ideas translate into practice: the praxis, if you like.  One of the things I have noticed about all ideologies and the more rigid philosophies is that they tend to be idealisations of the wishes of their adherents.  I realise socialism is a little different, in that you are not positing a utopia in the colloquial sense of the term, but even so, I have become convinced that socialism as a practical matter will be very different to what most people on here seem to think.  

 Well, yes, certainly it seems to me we are indeed arguing from quite different basic principles.  You seem to think socialism is something that can only be "imposed" on people in regions outside and beyond the traditional heartlands of capitalism in which the socialist outlook was first forged and articulated.  I emphatically reject that suggestion  You also seem to equate socialism as a socioeconomic sysem with a particular cultural template which, according to you, is unlikely to be assumiated by people of other cultures.  Again that is a suggestion I also emphatically reject.   Cultural diversty is no threat  to a socialist society (or its realisation) whatsoever and, on the contrary, is to be welcomed as aiding the cultural enrichment of everyone. These are the basic points you need to address.   Whilst I am not privy to the thought processes that persuaded you to move away from socialism, we can at least focus on these points in a rational and reasonably objective manner to hopefully arrive at an acceptable consensus, yes?

[robbo203]

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

.  An opposition to enforced diversity and mass immigration is not exclusive to the political Right.  

 How ironic.  And there I was thinking that your main gripe with socialism was its enforced uniformity, not diversity (which could not  be "enforced" anyway in a socialiist society given the nature of such a society

[robbo203]

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

@ Alan JohnstoneYou're doing the classic lefty thing again of assuming superiority because I disagree with your self-reinforcing logic system.  It's a psychological hindrance to debate.  Do you really think that I believe Africans are racially, ethnically and culturally all the same?  If you think I'm that stupid, then I'm surprised you're even giving me the time of day.  It's obvious that I am just using the terms 'Africa' and 'African', etc. for brevity.  Any tupenny halfwit can see that.  I'm not some sort of naif or mangenue who's never looked at a school atlas.  I am a 40 year-old man who has lived abroad and travelled around the world, and can speak a foreign language fluently; I have run several businesses and employed people, and I've known, worked with, employed and been employed by people of all races and from all sorts of backgrounds; and I'm highly-educated and I've read thousands of books; and I've had lots of different life experiences along the way, etc., etc., and so on.  I'm not some ignoramus hiding in a basement, but I assumed that I wouldn't need to make the disclaimers explicit as I'm conversing with intelligent people.What you do is provide the usual stock excuses for why Africans can't feed themselves, which aren't actually on point but instead serve to divert us from asking awkward questions.  I've heard it all before, so let me get to the root of the matter.  My provisional view remains undisturbed.  While acknowledging that Africans have significantly lower IQs than Westerners, and that this is a factor in the inability of Africans to cope under capitalism, I think the reason they have difficulty is the imposition of capitalism itself and the Western cultural hegemony that goes with it.  Africa needs to be returned to the control of Africans, be that for better or ill.  If as a result, they starve, that's terrible, but that's Nature.  If, however, they thrive, then I'll be delighted.  In any event, I do not accept that an imposed hegemonic system such as socialism would avail Africans.  I think it would cause the same problems as capitalism, another Western system, just in a different way.  In both systems, you are telling other people how to live, the only difference with socialism is that the totalitarianism comes with the finest of fine intentions and is rubber-stamped by the formality of "democratic consent", i.e. lots of people turning up to vote.The difference between you and I – or one of many differences – is that I acknowledge that humanity is not one 'race' but several, arguably several different species even, and that a hegemonic solution such as socialism will not address the needs of peoples who do not share our culture.  It will just lead to more dependency and misery. Why do you think you know what's best for people thousands of miles away, on a different continent, with an entirely alien culture in some cases?  And given that you think Africa has unique historical circumstances (I don't agree, but let's accept this is true for the sake of argument), what makes you think the solution of socialism, which arises from a peculiarly European experience of historical struggle, would be translatable to non-European societies?  Isn't your attitude just a little patronising, even imperialist…?

It is difficult to know where to start in addressing this post.  There are so many assertions made in it that are deeply problematic and would probably each require a separate thread to deal with so I will confine myself to just one or two observations. Firstly regarding your comment "In any event, I do not accept that an imposed hegemonic system such as socialism would avail Africans."   If, as you say, you were once a member of the SPGB, Ike, you would know as well as I do that socialism cannot be "imposed" from above on a population that by and large does not want it or understand it.  The very nature of the beast requires that a majority EVERYWHERE want it and understand it I am frankly baffled by your comment that:"itwould cause the same problems as capitalism, another Western system, just in a different way.  In both systems, you are telling other people how to live, the only difference with socialism is that the totalitarianism comes with the finest of fine intentions and is rubber-stamped by the formality of "democratic consent", i.e. lots of people turning up to vote.How do you figure socialism could possibly be "imposed" on our African comrades if they like us elsewhere in the world, actively desire it and seek to bring it into existence?  The word “imposition” is wholly inappropriate in this context since it denotes neutrality, at the very least, if not outright opposition. But a population that wants socialism can hardly be neutral about it let alone opposed to it, can it? Secondly, you seem to think that socialism is a some kind of distinctly western cultural phenomenon which "arises from a peculiarly European experience of historical struggle" and is not necessarily "translatable to non-European societies". Well, if you are going to argue along those lines you will, no doubt, be aware that there is a school of thought that contends that, if anything, socialism or communism in the classical meaning of these terms is closer to the experience of Africans than Europeans because of the tradition of communal landholding in Africa. That tradition is currently under sustained assault from the forces of capitalism in the guise of land grabbing agribusinesses in collusion with African governments. The problem with your argument however is that socialism is not some specifically cultural phenomenon in this narrow sense of the term, let alone an essentially European cultural phenomenon.  Rather socialism is a socio-economic system in the same sense that capitalism is.   Capitalism is worldwide and has been embraced by African countries too, never mind that it might historically originated in Europe.  Yet you seem to think that the historical origins of a system in some essentialistic sense limits the scope of such a system in spatial terms.   But this is demonstrable nonsense otherwise why would capitalism now be worldwide when historically it began in a small corner of the world – to be precise Great Britain which was the world’s first truly capitalist state. Your basic error is to conflate a socio-economic system like “socialism” or “capitalism” with the term “culture” in this descriptive sense as the expression of a certain group’s belief’s, traditions, practices and so on.  You go on about the cultural diversity of the planet and the inadvisability of imposing some hegemonic cultural template on all this diversity. But that is not at all what socialists are proposing. What socialists are proposing is instead is not to eliminate cultural diversity as such but to eliminate one socio-economic system and put in its place another.  A socio-economic system is not the same thing as a culture though those there is an interaction going on between these two things.   In fact, the tendency in capitalism is to constrain cultural expressions and limit variety – tendency noted in the Communist Manifesto which talked of capitalism replacing local cultures with a global culture.  That tendency is summed by the portmanteau word, “cocacolinisation” – a reference to the American soft drink and by extension, American cultural imperialism In socialism, by contrast, the economic driving force behind this sort of cultural imperialism will cease to exist and the freedom that is integral to a society of free access and volunteer labour will permit a much wider variety of cultural forms to express themselves but also to intermingle and in the process make for a sense of cultural enrichment across the board

[robbo203]

gnome wrote:

Received our first new member as a result of the campaign.  Tim H came into contact with the Party after receiving an insert in the New Statesman and then contacted Swansea Branch.  He recently left the Labour Party.The next phase of the campaign will see 70k of our "An end to rationing" brochure inserted into Unison's U magazine.  The total cost of this phase will be just under £4k.

 Are there are any plans to do repeat inserts in publications like the New Statesman?  It will be interesting to see if this results in an increased rate of response if people remember the inserts from the first time round

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

As my resignation has been raised bya sock puppet / psuedonym and the reason for my resignation not fully stated in the minutes. I resigned because I have been deliberately preventet from carrying out propaganda.I am sure it has been said before but it is important that  members' reason(s) for resigning should be shown so that the party may learn and understand why people leave

 Hi Vin Well, personally speaking, I am rather saddened by your decision but respect it.  I think it is a bit sweeping to say you were "deiberately prevented  from carrying out propaganda" as a general statement though it looks as though certain problems did arise in relation to your audio visual work and the Party's twitter acount as far as I can tell  I might be wrong about this but you will no doubt correct me if so. My gut feeling is that a lot of musunderstandings and flared tempers  lie at the root of the problem which could have been avoided with a little patience on all sides.  But you are right about the Party needing to learn about why members leave and I sincerely hope these lessons willl be applied when it comes to the proposed reorganisation of the SPGB this year. The SPGB cannot afford to loose such active members as yourself and I hope you will continue closely collaborating with comrades in the Party and even possibly at some point consider rejoining.at a later stage  For the moment, good luck with the socialist propaganda work you are engaged in!

[robbo203]

Bijou Drains wrote:

 Alan I don’t care what you say, my mother tried, my partner has tried. I’m not eating fucking  Brussels sprouts 

 BD, there are Brussels Sprouts and then there are Brussels Sprouts. Some of these recipes sound postively yummy.https://www.marthastewart.com/275510/brussels-sprout-recipes

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

Major McPharter wrote:

Will Oswald bring his blackshirts with him up to the north east ?

Divint wurry marra. Thail nivver stop wor pie and pee suppa neets. Gannaway wir a  a leek up the jacksey, Mare like  

 I tried "GeordieTranslator" on this but it dinna work.  http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/main.asp So c'mon guys, tell us .  What does "wor pie and pee suppa neets"  mean then?

[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!

[Author]

Posts