[robbo203]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

 I concur, the comrades putting work into this project need our support in the work they are doing. That is not to say that they are above criticism, however we need to recognise that the survey is a start point, a consultation exercise in an attempt to find out the general views of party members, it is not a vote nor does it have any binding status within the party.I know cde Johnstone (aka pte Frazer) may disagree with me, however I do think there are some very positive developments ion the party at the moment. If you look at it from a brief SWOT analysis perspective:Strengths – We have an unbroken history of organising for Socialism for the last 113 years with all of the strength that brings in terms of a back catalogue of incredible articles, theoretical strength, legitimacy. I would say, unlike many other organisations we don't have skeletons in the closet about past positions, etc. etc. We are also a party with a great deal of material strength, we have money, a valuable property, equipment, etc.Weaknesses- We have an aging and stagnant membership, we have a slow moving decision making process for the party that has its basis, as Brian points out in 19th Century Trades Union organisation and also, I would argue has processes developed to ensure that a similar situation as arose in the SDF, does not arise in the SPGB. Hopefully we are in the process of renewing these decision making processes and that can impact on membership.Opportunities – Capitalism is one of our main opportunities, it provides us with fertile ground for socialist ideas. The announcement of 20 years of wage stagnation, the housing crises, the threat of war, starvation, foodbanks, homelessness, the destruction of public services, the suppression of the trades union movement, the apparent awakening of younger people to the problems we face, etc. etc. are all of our opportunities.Threats – To me the major threat is inactivity, if we don't get out there and put our case across in whatever way we can, we will not make progress. If we sit and wait for the working class to come to us, we're stuffed. The internet is one way, however I am a firm believer that the traditional methods, public meetings, debates, paper sales, etc. are productive in ways that the internet is not. One of the main reasons for the Corbyn phenomenon was the public meetings held all over the country. We had a speaker at a debate at the Durham University Union last year and there were over 150 attendees.

 I agree with this analysis but it is not a criticism of the work of the committee to suggest 2 further surveys be carried out involving1) ex members2) companion parites Amother suggestion I would like to offer for the committee to consider is the introduction of a "buddy system" in the SPGB and indeed throughout the WSM.  See here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_system.   It is a highly effective way to break down the sense of isolation that is a major cause of inacitivity and the drifting away from the Party Finally, as regards the handful of members who have strangely  succumbed to the siren calls of the Corbyn phenomenon I am confident  that if and when a Corbyn government comes into being, the inevitable disillusionment that they and hundreds of thousands of others will feel will provide fertile soil for the regeneration of the SPGB but only if the SPGB itself has sufficiently adapted and modernised itself to face up this enormous challenge

[robbo203]

Mike Foster wrote:

Marcos wrote:

What about obataining feedbacks from the others companion parties of the WSM ?  

 The committee's role has been set out to focus on the SPGB, rather than the other parties. Once our report has been put together, the companion parties will have access to it and would be welcome to comment on it if they wanted to.

 Marcos has a  point.  Perhaps a different kind of survey should be carried out involving the companion parties to  identify areas where greater cooperation could be introduced.  Its all about breaking down a sense of isolation that plagues the movement I would add to that, the proposal to carry out a survey of ex members of the SPGB (going back say, 10 years).  Not only would the views obtained be of interest to the committee but, if the surviey itself was skillfully carried out to arouse interest at the prospect of a modernised and reorganised SPGB , it could very welll result in the return of some ex members to the Party

[robbo203]

DJP wrote:

The point of capitalism is to invest capital *with a view to making a profit* If those profits are not there to be had the capital does not get invested..

 I take your point DJP but it is the sheer scale of these idle cash stockpiles that puzzles me – 1.9 TRILLION dollars in the case of US buisnesses alone!  Where did it all come from?  If  profit is not forthcoming, production is supposed to be cut back and with that, the money that the capitalists make from their investements.   So in theory, while there might be a cash surplus for a while in climate in which the expectation of profit has diminished, this should ease off  with the diminution of the capitalists income.  But as I understand it that hasnt been happening.  These cash stockpiles have been steadily growing

[robbo203]

Marcos wrote:

Some experts estimate that it is around 2.5 trillion,  but the real amount is 9.2 trillion and most of that pile of money is kept in others countries. The main purpose is to avoid taxation on that large amount of money, and several governments ( especially the USA ) have tried to give them a certain low tax incentive to repatriate the money, but they are  still keeping them outside. There are already some  countries offering zero taxation to foreign investment which means that most of that money will not be repatriated to the US or to Europe for investment. They are not going to invest that chunk of money in the USA when they can produce more profits in others countries

 The problem is, Marcos, that this doesnt really explain why such idle money is hanging around in the first place,  Sure you can shift it to a low tax regime or even a no tax regime but if it is just being parked there what is the point? Also you say that these capitalists in Amercia and elsewhere are "not going to invest that chunk of money in the USA when they can produce more profits in others countries" but the point is  they are not being capitalised as I understand it – that is they are not being used to produce more profit anywhere regardless of the tax situation.   I can perfectly understad your argument that if they want to obtain more profit they would shift that money to  a country where there was lower taxation.  But the real mystery is that they dont seem to want to use that money for that purpose in the first place.  Its just stting there doing nothing as the article says I can only assume that it is for some long term strategic reason that they are holding back from investing this money.  It is in an attemt to find out what precisely that reason is that I posted this iterm Incidentally, do you have any links relating to the above figures you cite.  I would be very interested

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

Perhaps it is looting, stashing up the cash for  fear of revolution, not realising that their cash will be useless but that's fetishism for you.  

 Dunno Vin.  Fear of revolution might induce the capitalists to splash more out on actually  protecting themselves in that eventuality – e.g. buying super duper bunkers and private armies and so on – but the cash is just well …er.. sitting there.  Doin' nuffink.  Daft innit? Some would argue that it is the outcome of the falling rate of profit  resulting from technological innovation/automation (as surplus value only derives from living labour, not dead labour).  So, as the opportunities for profitable investment decline, the cash stockpiles build up.  Not too sure about that though.  Also, the  capitalists could fritter the surplus cash away on luxury consumption – as if they are not already gorged on luxuries  (how many bleedin luxury yachts do you need for gods sake?)  Or maybe even philanthrocapitalism for the guilt ridden.  But then why dont they? I am not too clear about any of this .  In particular on 1) from whence these enormous cash stockpiles come 2) why they are not being used in some form.  Maybe they are being used a strategic asset as the article suggests but that hardly suffices as an explanation So its all a bit of a mystery that "Collectively, American businesses currently have $1.9 trillion in cash, just sitting around"  Thats a lot of dosh and thats only American businesses

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

It is indeed a very good debunking video. Very informative. One to embrace in future when the libertarian right appear on the net. BTW never heard of this Paul Joseph Watson until Robbo mentioned him. DJP, we need to address ALL our critics, even the obnoxious ones. 

 You are absolutely right, Alan.  Even the obnoxious critics like Watson, arrogant little  buffoon though he may be, need to be addressed. The kind of illogical incoherent and blatantly false arguments  Watson comes out  with,  I have seen reproduced thousands of times on multiple forums – more or less the same predictable old memes being pumped out on an industrial scale. We should not underestimate their cumulative and  toxic effect If the SP does ever get round to stepping up the output of pamphlets here's a candidate for the subject of a new pamphlet – the Ideological Right (you could complement that with a pamphlet on the Left too).   That young Libertarian socialist guy in the video  who did such an excellent job at destroying Watson's whole case , has provided the kernel of an approach that could  be built upon  

[robbo203]

Sympo wrote:

He's awful. He's anti-BLM, anti-Muslim, pro-Trump and believes in "Cultural Marxism"-conspiracy theories (among other BS). Here's a pretty good anarchist reply to a video of his about how great Capitalism is:Anarchist Commentaries Episode 6: Paul Joseph Watson and the Dunning-Kruger Effect – YouTube

Sympo ,Thanks for that.  Thats a very good and entertaining  demolition job on our Mr Watson who is defintely no assocate of our Mr Holmes.  (Actually, the terms "plank" and "thick" spring to mind here). This video should be made compulsory viewing for all those little free market bigots  out there and boy oh boy are there lots of them,  Several anarchist forums Ive been on seem to have been overrun by the Ancap crowd spouting their usual nonsense just like Watson

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Rebellion and seditionhttp://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41865121Another over-reaction by Madrid?

 Yes definitely an over-reaction.   If they were clever capitalist politicians they would quietly drop the idea of imposing prison sentences on the "rebels", simply slap a fine on them and  ban them from holding office for 10 years or so.  Humiliating them and turning them into martyrs for the cause of Catalan independence is only going to make matters worse in the long run. However its early days yet and I suspect the hardline approach is something that is being pursued with the support of other european countries. I suspect these other countries want to use Spain as an example of what could happen should breakaway movements take off in these countries themselves.  So they want to nip the growth of these movements in the bud, using Spain as an example. However, when all the fuss has died down the Spanish giverment may well decide on the course of amnesty and pardon for the rebels.  We shall see how things pan out….

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

PHEWWW…when i saw the topic headline, i thought it meant our Robbo…90 yrs of age …a good innings…

  Yeah, Got me a bit worried as well, Alan!

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Another brief letter by yours truly in Weekly Workerhttp://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1177/letters/We are also referred to a couple of times in another letter which i think deserves a response.I, of course, could answer but my own letter may elicit a reply that might require being answered and i certainly wish not to be seen as the SPGB's only Weekly Worker reader and sole contributor. 

 Good stuff, Alan.  I  might have a go at critiquing one or two of the other letters  where the SPGB and Andrew Northall are mentioned.  Andrew used to be in the SPGB.  How on earth did he manage to convert to Stalinism? Thats a mystery to me!

[robbo203]

The domino effect of catalan nationalism,  Now Flemish nationalism gets in on the act – possibly https://www.thelocal.es/20171030/deposed-catalan-president-carles-puigdemont-is-apparently-already-in-belgium

[robbo203]

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

What "territorial instinct"?

Why does your neighbour have a wall or fence round his property?  Maybe he doesn't, but all mine do.  Why?  You will attribute this to capitalism.  Well let's assume this is correct, we then have to ask, where did capitalism come from?  The regression leads us back to human nature: the collection of qualities that are essential to the human being. 

As it so happens I dont have a fence or wall around the house I live in and rent.  I used to own a little shack up in the mountains behind me plus half a hectare of land which Pepe's goat herd and the odd rambler would regularly walk over.  I didnt mind. Nor did any of my neighbours,  Its the norm in this part of the world (southern Spain).  The hunters too freely walk across everyone's land in pursuit of wild boar though I dont approve of hunting myself,  Perhaps in the UK neighbours declare war on each if you so much as move the boundary post by one inch.  Here we couldnt care  a toss. In fact the catastral maps are notoriously unreliable and vague much to the consternation of northern Europeans who move into the area Private property predates capitalism of course but capitalism considerably reinforced this instiitution.  Think of the Enclosure Acts. You infer from the very existence of capitalism that there must be regression that  leads us back to human nature.  In other words that capitalism is rooted in human nature.  But thats nonsense since if it were the case, how is that for the great bulk of our existence on this planet we humans lived in a totally different kind of society in which none of the attributes of capitalism were to be found?.  Granted our genetic endowment does influence our behaviour in various ways but this does not happen in the simplistic reductionist manner you portray

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

.

robbo203 wrote:

For the great bulk of our time on this planet, we human beings lived in a small immediate-return hunter-gatherer band societies whose outstanding characteristic was that they were nomadic and lacked any sense of teriitory. 

Being nomadic does not mean a lack of a sense of territory.  Lions are nomadic and also territorial.  Lots of animals that do not have or possess any apparent fixed territory are nevertheless territorial.  You may also want to consider the possibility that territorialism and its various manifestations like farms, tribes and nations are meta-phenomena that arise from deeper insincts: such as protection of family, etc.

 Lions are not particularly nomadic but tend to to stick around in the same locality for generations Farms, tribes and nations are not "meta-phenomena" arising from "deeper insincts",  That makes it sound like they represent some kind of unfurling of a pre-ordained human nature which progressively and irresistably moves in a single direction towards some preordained end.  Thats nonsense.  These are social phenomna and as such are the product of particular historical circumstances influencing the direction that society takes in their own right. We  see this very clearly in the case of the invention of agriculture as a human response to  a changing physical environment  (climate change)

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

.

robbo203 wrote:

That sense of territory came with the domestication of plants and animals – a comparatively recent development.  So too is the development of tribes.  Band societies are quite different in structure and organisation to tribal societies and if we are genetically programmed to live in any kind of society it would probably be the former since we lived so much longer in that kind of society.

These are just shifts in material conditions (i.e. realities).  As explained above, I refer to human nature, not as a purely naturalistic explanation or lazy catch-all premise, but as the result of evolution and changes in the environment.  .

Well why in that case come out  with such a misleading statement as territorialism and its various manifestations like farms, tribes and nations are meta-phenomena that arise from deeper insincts: such as protection of family

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

.

robbo203 wrote:

But even assuming a fixed romantic attachment to some place – e.g. my home town – I dont see how this is incompatible with socialism. Do you? Nationalism is a different though since nationalism is essentially a product of capitalism and nationalist mythology literally had to be invented to bind together the "imagined community" that is the nation state.  Read Benedict Anderson on this

Nationalism is incompatible with socialism as you would have it, and surely that is your own position anyway.  A synergy of the two positions is possible and I suspect that if socialism ever did come about in practice, it would work along ethnic/tribal lines and there would probably be national/cultural borders of some sort.  The difficulty here is that our vobaculary might not be able to articulate how such arrangements could work, as we tend to verbally pigeon-hole certain concepts, especially when the relevant word is emotionally triggering.  For instance, mention of 'borders' is anathema to you and sends you into apoplexy, but you forget that all sorts of invisible borders exist in everyday life – between individuals, between families, between groups of people.  Is this not human nature?  I understand the SPGB's case for socialism, but I wonder if you have stopped to consider that you might not be understanding mine?  Have you really thought about this beyond your autoscripting posts in which you parrot various received ideas?

 Nationalism is fundamentally incompatible with socialism.  You forget that nationalism as a product of capitalism is inextricably bound up with the emergence of the capitalist state and that in socialism as classically defined there is no state and can be no state since the very institution of the state itself arose from the division of socety into classes which will cease to exist in a socialist society.There are some proponents of a "stateless" nationalism like the 19th century anarchist Gustav Landauer but I think his resoning is faulty.  Nationalism by definition implies the existence of a state and hence classes. And you are mistaken. I am not averse to the notion of boundaries per se.  You mention individuals.  As individuals we all have a sense what is our personal space and feel uncomforable  when this is encroached upon by strangers.  Interestingly enough, this varies from culture to culture.  Talking of which, I have no problem either with the idea of cultural variation or ethnic diversity.  In fact if anything it is capitalism that is the great enemy of ethnic diversity.  In a socialist world I would hope to see a great flowering of diverse cultural forms but forms that look outwards to the wider world rather than look purely inwards or react with hostility to other forms

[robbo203]

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Perhaps not in liquidity cash nor in gold has Bezos $90 billion.

Some people on here don't appear to understand the difference and think that valuations printed in the media are statements of fact and reflect the cash position.  It's not quite like that.

 All you are saying here is that Bezos' wealth comes in different guises, cash and non cash. That includes 81 million shares in Amazon, the valuation of which can fluctuate from day to day.  So the total of 90 billion is provisonal , It could be lower next week – or higher. It is a rough approximation and people understand this, but that doesnt  justify yor claim that " He doesn't have $90 billion or even a fraction of that."  (with the emphasis on the bold part).  For all we know his personal wealth based on all conceivable forms of wealth could be 100 billion today!

[robbo203]

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

He doesn't have $90 billion or even a fraction of that.  The valuation, in so far as it's valid at all, is of his stock and assets in whatever businesses and companies he owns or has shares in.

 If you have information to the contrary perhaps you need to notify  the world's media on this matter who are all seemingly uniformly reporting his net personal worth to be about 90 billion dollars.   This site fills in some of the details.  For example:   Bezos, as CEO of the company, owns about 81 million shares of Amazon stock according to a recent SEC filing. A little back-of-the-envelope map means he made $6.44 billion in a single day, putting his net worth just over $90 billion.(http://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-net-worth-2017-10/#bezos-net-worth-jumped-644-billion-in-a-matter-of-hours-1) If you have evidence to show that this is incorrect then produce it!

[robbo203]

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

As a Yorkshireman myself, I fully support this proposal.  Independence for Yorkshire! I will leave you with the Yorkshire National Anthem, which your Yorkshire branches had better learn if The World's Greatest County is finally to achieve independence… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUsQ9Qs2DQo

 LOL.  Dont be surprised then if the Westminster parliament implement their version of Spain's article 155. Living in Spain Im constantly reminded these days of the stupidities of all nationalism – Spanish nationalism, Catalan nationalism and now it seems Yorkshire nationalism.   How any sane person can be bothered beats me

[Author]

Posts