[robbo203]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

What is the purpose of having premises?To hold our records. To store our archives. To mail out the Standard. To host the occasional public meeting. To accommodate our two national conferences. To act as an election office and leafleting base every several years.Now, what is the cost to us?And what could be future costs be of the above functions without using HO?

I think you miss out on much of what a regional office (and in my opinion head office) should/could be used for.A physical premises can become the focal point for activity. For example Manchester Branch currently hold meetings in the corner of a pub, not ideal for business or for inviting visitors along. An office in that area would offer the opportunity to hold those meetings in a far more productive setting. As well as this a physical setting can also act as focal point for activity across a whole region. I am often in Manchester, it would be easy for myself and other comrades in the North east to visit on a semi regular visit to access party material, pick up leaflets, etc. etc. I think it is important to stress the positive impact of regular face to face contact with other socialists on individual morale and activity.If a Northern Office was set up and the equipment and systems were made available I see no reason why a member from the North could not take up a party role such as General Secretary, much more easily than is now the case. Effectively by creating a physical space in the North the opportunities for organisational involvement, (membership of committees, party officer posts, etc.) would be widened to a much greater number of party member, at a time when we are having difficulty filling these posts. I think this would have a great impact on Party morale in these regions.I have suggested Manchester as a base, there are other options, but just to point out that on paper at least, such an office would be in reasonably easy travelling distance to five exisiting branches (Manchester, Lancaster, North East, West Midlands and Yorkshire)If we took it a stage further and decideid to hold ADM or Conference at our Northern premises, that might attract sympathisers and local members to attend. It might even attract a bit of interest from the local press.The downside, well it might all fall flat on its arse. We might have spent a year's rent and on costs to achieve nothing, we might have wasted some money. If you reckon costs as a maximum of £1k a month then that's £12k and some members time and effort. Set against the possible benefits to the movement, I don't think that's much of a gamble!

 Tim, if you were going to take the plunge and acquire a second premiss albeit on a rental basis might it not be a good idea to first  undertake a detailed survey of branches to get some idea of what sort of commitment you could expect from members and sympathisers to getting the project off the ground and maintaining  it as something viable and ongoing?

Hi Robbo, just to put your mind at ease, I haven't signed the lease paperwork yet!All I'm doing at this stage is suggesting that it might be a viable option and actually, in my opinion, simpler and more benficial than most members seem to think.I'm of the opinion that, following Lancaster Branch's Item for Discussion at ADM either a motion should be put to the next conference or a motion put to the EC to ask for a couple of volunteers to come up with a feasibility study on the idea (I'd be happy to vounteer).At this point in time all I'm pointing out is what I think are the positive possibilities of such a project. in order to encourage further discussion, perhaps I was mistaken, but I thought that was the purpose of a discussion forum.

 Hi Tim,  As an observer, so to speak, I would have thought what you suggest is in principle a good  idea.  A second premiss albeit rented and therefore possibly temporary , could become the hub of increased activity in that part of the UK.  I do think though it would probably require some kind of feasibility study beforehand to get some idea of the level of commitment among members and sympathisers to making the project work.   What would you think would be the dfferent functions of another party office compared with the head office in London?

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

How would you go about distributing this video, Vin? Can you make any recommendations? Ive posted it on one or two forums but are there any other suggestions you have in mind?

Yes I have many, for example Youtube promotion and Facebook promotion would be a good start. 80K views for £1k  

 That sounds like a pretty good bargain to me!  Why doesnt the SP go for it?

[robbo203]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

What is the purpose of having premises?To hold our records. To store our archives. To mail out the Standard. To host the occasional public meeting. To accommodate our two national conferences. To act as an election office and leafleting base every several years.Now, what is the cost to us?And what could be future costs be of the above functions without using HO?

I think you miss out on much of what a regional office (and in my opinion head office) should/could be used for.A physical premises can become the focal point for activity. For example Manchester Branch currently hold meetings in the corner of a pub, not ideal for business or for inviting visitors along. An office in that area would offer the opportunity to hold those meetings in a far more productive setting. As well as this a physical setting can also act as focal point for activity across a whole region. I am often in Manchester, it would be easy for myself and other comrades in the North east to visit on a semi regular visit to access party material, pick up leaflets, etc. etc. I think it is important to stress the positive impact of regular face to face contact with other socialists on individual morale and activity.If a Northern Office was set up and the equipment and systems were made available I see no reason why a member from the North could not take up a party role such as General Secretary, much more easily than is now the case. Effectively by creating a physical space in the North the opportunities for organisational involvement, (membership of committees, party officer posts, etc.) would be widened to a much greater number of party member, at a time when we are having difficulty filling these posts. I think this would have a great impact on Party morale in these regions.I have suggested Manchester as a base, there are other options, but just to point out that on paper at least, such an office would be in reasonably easy travelling distance to five exisiting branches (Manchester, Lancaster, North East, West Midlands and Yorkshire)If we took it a stage further and decideid to hold ADM or Conference at our Northern premises, that might attract sympathisers and local members to attend. It might even attract a bit of interest from the local press.The downside, well it might all fall flat on its arse. We might have spent a year's rent and on costs to achieve nothing, we might have wasted some money. If you reckon costs as a maximum of £1k a month then that's £12k and some members time and effort. Set against the possible benefits to the movement, I don't think that's much of a gamble!

 Tim, if you were going to take the plunge and acquire a second premiss albeit on a rental basis might it not be a good idea to first  undertake a detailed survey of branches to get some idea of what sort of commitment you could expect from members and sympathisers to getting the project off the ground and maintaining  it as something viable and ongoing?

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

It is a good  video but it is  being wasted and gathering dust.  It is like producing the Socialist Standard  and not distributing it.We could have 1000s of  views with a relatively small investment.  A sad waste in my opinion and inexplicable. 

 How would you go about distributing this video, Vin? Can you make any recommendations? Ive posted it on one or two forums but are there any other suggestions you have in mind?

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Wouldn't it be desirable if folk like ourselves, Robbo, unable to attend were able to watch a live video-link of the proceedings?I assume the technology is available and within the capability of the Party to arrangeIn fact, isn't it technically possible that you and i and many others could actually participate directly via our computers with those meeting up in Clapham High St, Robbo?It isn't just only Edwardian language we remain wedded to, but Edwardian methods to communicate and interact and practice our democracy.

 Indeed, Alan,  I remember some years ago my brother Andy made a proposal to the EC about introducing a system of video-conferencing throughout the SPGB.  Andy was in communcation with some company providing this service and was making use of it himself  I dont remember the precise details  or what become of the idea  but it strikes me that this is a proposal well worth revisiting

[robbo203]

I really like Lancaster Branch's item "Practical suggestions for socialist activity".  It would be interesting to see what sort of impact it might make.  Kent & Sussex Regional Branch's item Learning to live with the ‘S’ word is good too

[robbo203]

Lenin would have approved Capitalism has created an accounting apparatus in the shape of the banks, syndicates, postal service, consumers' societies, and office employees' unions. Without big banks socialism would be impossible.The big banks are the "state apparatus" which we need to bring about socialism, and which we take ready-made from capitalism; our task here is merely to lop off what capitalistically mutilates this excellent apparatus, to make it even bigger, even more democratic, even more comprehensive. Quantity will be transformed into quality. A single State Bank, the biggest of the big, with branches in every rural district, in every factory, will constitute as much as nine-tenths of the socialist apparatus. This will be country wide book-keeping, country-wide accounting of the production and distribution of goods, this will be, so to speak, some thing in the nature of the skeleton of socialist society.We can "lay hold of" and "set in motion" this "state apparatus" (which is not fully a state apparatus under capitalism, but which will be so with us, under socialism) at one stroke, by a single decree, because the actual work of book-keeping, control, registering, accounting and counting is performed by employees, the majority of whom themselves lead a proletarian or semi-proletarian existencehttps://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/oct/01.htm How Leninists have the gall to call themselves "socialists" beats me!

[robbo203]

Mike Foster wrote:

Comrades in Cardiff pointed me towards http://www.quora.com, which I hadn't heard of before and is well worth a look. Users post questions (on any topic), and the replies then get voted up or down by anyone reading them. It's easy to search for topics, and there are plenty of threads on revolutionary politics.

I would endorse that Mike.  I  have been on quora for a while but have not been that active lately (I tend to be active in spurts). Yet even so I have just checked my stats for the last 30 days – over 3 thousand views and 38 upvotes – wthout having written anything recently. People contiue to respond to posts I wrote a while back because of the way the system works.   Since joining I have had 70,400 views and 715 upvotes and thats just me.  Other comrades – there are 3 that I can think of – more active than me have undoubtedly accumulated much more impressive stats. Quora is  massive and even if only 10-20 members started contributing on a regular basis providing links to this site I am certain you will discover quite a significant increase in activity here

[robbo203]

robbo203 wrote:

 Richard,  I recommend  you read Charlie Post on this subject of superprofits and the supposedly "bribed" labour aristocracy in the so called First WorldAs far as capitalists based in the First World are concerned, the proportion of total capital invested abroad – and even more so, in the Third World – is actually remarkably small by comparison with what is invested at "home".  According to Post:Imperialist investment, particularly in the global South, represents a tiny portion of global capitalist investment. Foreign direct investment makes up only 5% of total world investment – that is to say, 95% of total capitalist investment takes place within the boundaries of each industrialized country.  Of that five percent of total global investment that is foreign direct investment, nearly three-quarters flow from one industrialized country – one part of the global North – to another. Thus only 1.25% of total world investment flows from the global North to the global South. It is not surprising that the global South accounts for only 20% of global manufacturing output, mostly in labor-intensive industries such as clothing, shoes, auto parts and simple electronics. ("The Labor Aristocracy Myth" , International Viewpoint Online magazine : IV381 – September 2006  These figures are a little dated and describe the situation  prior to 2000; they dont fully take into account the rapid growth, since then, of transnational corporate investment in China, in particular.  However, even if we update the figures, the overall picture still remains essentially the same: only a tiny fraction of global investment flows takes – or ever took –  the form of Direct Foreign Investment (FDI) by the global North in the global South

   I have been doing a bit of reading around since writing the above and have since  come across Steve Palmers rebuttal of Charlie Post's piece on "The Myth of the Labour Aristocracy".  It appears that the figures Post cited on the extent of foreigin direct investment (FDI) may be quite wrong and by quite a large marginhttp://www.revolutionarycommunist.org/britain/labourtrade-unions/1041-labour-aristocracy-mythmakers-and-their-mistakes-frfi-195-feb-mar-2007 Post's point was that since only a tiny fraction of total FDI goes to the Global South,  the superprpfits made there by the "imperialist countries" must be correspondingly tiny – and hence even more so the "bribe" that the  Labour Aristocracy supposedly  receives out of these superprofits (according to Lenin).  In fact even if one could meaningfully talk about this as being a bribe, it would be negligible and thus sociologically irrelevant.However the figures cited by Palmer changes the argument somewhat…. Also, it worth pointing out  that different witers differ as to the mechanism by which this supposed bribe is supposed to be effected.  Some argue  that it is effected through the state taxing the capitalists making those superpofits (some of which will  no doubt, have been secreted away into offshore accounts to avoid being taxed)  which then goes to fund the social wage – welfare reforms.  This  particular argument has important implications for the socialist argument that such reforms tend to have a downward pressure on wages by way of compensation for the capitalists having to pay for such reforms.  Meaning we are talking about a zero sum game in the long run.  But at any rate, since the reforms are said to benefit workers generally, it is the working class as a whole in the imperialist countries that are said to constitute the labour aristocracy vis-a-vis to the workers of the oppressed countries who are said to be generally  paid below the value of their labour power.  Hence the superprofits made there. In other words, imperialism has had the effect of mitigating or even cancalling out, on balance, the exploitation of workers in the so called rich World who have become  co-partners of the capitalists in exploiting the  poor world – the  so called "embourgeoisement" thesis. Presumably then, since we workers in the rich world are no longer exploited we have no reason to get rid of capitalism other than out of charitable concern for workers in the impoverished backwaters of global capitalism.   Or so it would seem… I think, bottom line, that the argument is bolllocks but at the same time it is important not to caricature it or combat it with incorrect data as Post appears to have done.  There is more to it than meets the eyes and its quite a slippery argument to pin down

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 What i have learned is to always treat people with civility. On this forum, i sometimes think lack courtesy to those who hold different opinions to ourselves. We (perhaps rightly) hold one another to high standards but should we expect others to match our understanding. Should we not be prepared to lower the bar on occasions?I find we are very prone at high-lighting differences rather than pointing them out and trying to reach some sort of agreement and then discuss where we diverge.

 Yes that seems a good rule of thumb to apply, Alan.  Start with the commonalities you share with your opponents and only then move on the differences.  It makes them more receptive to what you have to say if they dont feel they are at risk of having to lose face completely.

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

And, of course, as is to be expected there will be those on the Left who will rally to this reactionary cause like flies settling around an open wound

Too true, though I'd have said like around a pile of shit. Here's an example from one of the 57 varities of Trotskyism (I'm not sure which):https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/europe/puigdemont-fears-the-consistent-struggle-for-catalonia-s-independence/I see they want the Basque Country, Galicia and Valencia to break away too. Talk about dividing the working class. Misidentity politics gone mad. Whatever happened to "Workers of the World, Unite"?.

 Yes indeed Adam – such is the reactionary role of so much of the Left today amongst whom Lenin's bourgeiois ideas about the rights of nations to "self determination" holds sway  rather then Red Rosa Luxumburg's principled opposition to all nationalism One small point though –  a major grievance of the Catalan nationalist is the disproportionate tax burden paid (ultimately by the Catalan capitalists) to the central state.  I believe the situation in the Basque region is different where there is much greater degree of tax autonomy.  Does anyone have  any information on this? It could be quite an important factor in explaining the different trajectories of the nationalist movements in these diferent regions

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

A rather unsympathetic article to Catalonian and Scottish separatism that might resonate with world socialists (although one failing is to equate all Scots with wealth of the nation)https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/10/11/catalonia-the-revolt-of-the-rich/

Quote:

the left does not dare to openly say that the nationalism of minorities in no less damaging for the working class cause than any other nationalism.

 The article makes some good points as well as some questionable ones as you say, Alan. As the article suggests, Catalonia is essentally a comparatively wealthy region of Spain, disgruntled at having to pay relatively high taxes to the central state (cue for the socialist argument that taxes are not a working class issue!).  Rajoy and co. mishandled the whole business from the start with his dogmatic attachment to to the argument that the constitution forbids an independence referendum.  A more intelligent capitalist politican would have recognised the reality on the ground, amended the constitution (which is just a scrap of paper after all) and allowed a legally binding referendum to take place.  In all probability the petty bourgois nationalists of Catalonia would have been defeated and that would have been the end of the matter.  Instead what we have now is a festering sore that will not go away and will in time build up around itself a whole mythological accretion of progressivism and radicalism.  And, of course, as is to be expected there will be those on the Left who will rally to this reactionary cause like flies settling around an open wound

[robbo203]

There  is also Oscar Wilde's famous quip : "A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."?

[robbo203]

Prakash RP wrote:

 Money canNOT measure the WORTH of a commodity. By definition, money is meant to serve fundamentally a dual purpose : ( 1 ) to measure the value of a commodity and ( 2 ) to act as the medium of exchange of commodities. But which value ? Viewed from …

 Prakash, I am not quite sure what you are saying here.  The idea that money cannot measure the worth – or use value – of a commodity was well understood by Marx  who pointed out that while"nothing can have value, without being an object of utility” it is neverthless the case that "use-value as such lies outside the sphere of investigation of political economy” and that, logically speaking, labour had to be the primary measure of value under capitalism.  After all, it is labour that is the one thing common to all commodities whereas the use values of commodities are not only are qualitatively different and incommesurable but differ from person to person and from time to time.    Its just another way of saying what you are saying above, I think  (Marx K, 1859, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.)

[robbo203]

Well Ive just been listening to the announcements from the parliament in Barcelona this evening and it is clear that Puigdemont has suspended the "declaration" or should that be the "proclamation* (there is a subtle technical difference between these two terms) of independence, calling for dialogue with Madrid instead. Frankly I cant see it happening now, This is as far as the independistas will go and it is call brinkmanship (probably with the aim of getting a better deal for Catalonia as an autonomous region within Spain particularly in terms of the tax burden.). Despite the referendum probably a majority oppose independence in Catalonia and there is little or no support for it from the EU. The interests of the workers would not be served either by Catalan or Spanish or any form of nationalism. Independence or no independence it would just be capitalist business as usual

[Author]

Posts