[robbo203]

The MSN article cited above states that the gain in Amazon stock price added nearly 7 billion dollars to Bezo's wealth "overnight" .  Next time some brainwashed prole suggests that the superrich deserve every penny they own – "cos they earned it" – perhaps it might asked how Bezo managed to pull off that remarkable feat in his sleep.  LOL

[robbo203]

Ike Pettigrew wrote:

 The root of my disagreement with socialism is that it does not take account of all general factors in human nature: most especially, the pre-rational tribal instinct and the territorial instinct that human beings have.  You will say that human beings have no such instincts (or there is insufficient evidence for the notion) or that even if they do, they are unimportant.  I think differently.  Thus we are at deadlock.  You have your opinion, which is that human beings can be 'educated' (i.e. cognitively re-engineered in a Promethean manner); I have mine, which is that human nature is immutable (and even if not, in my view it would not be desirable to change our essential nature).  

 What "territorial instinct"? 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.  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. 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

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

imposs1904 wrote:

Just put this here.Link: A Cat Among The Pigeons (1906)

Robbo, you may find this interesting. 

 Yes indeed Vin,   Cant see the point in banning religious-minded socialists from the party, providing they dont peddle their religious beliefs as party members.  I have said it umpteen times before – the ban is completely redundant ot surperflous because if they did happen to flout socialist principles in some way this would "come out in the wash" and can be dealt with directly in terms of the particular  principle being flouted.  Ditto the argument about "materialism".  It is totally possible to adopt a historical materialist position and entertain religious ideas. Each case should be judged on its merits.I wont push the argument because I know I would be flogging a dead horse in the Party at the moment.  Its a pity because while I would be delighted to rejoin I cannot in all honesty accept the claim that religious beliefs are necessarily incompatible with socialism which you are obliged to accept as a condition of membership (even if I am not religious myself)  Mind you, that is not going to stop me being an active and enthusiasitic supporter of the Party!

[robbo203]

  

alanjjohnstone wrote:

You may have missed it but our blog drew had this post on antifahttps://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2017/10/anti-antifa.htmlThe writer Diana Johnstone (no relation) has just written another critique of antifa. It, too, is worth quoting from https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/10/25/the-harmful-effects-of-antifa/

Quote:

Antifa contributes to this confusion by giving precedence to the suppression of “bad” ideas rather than to the development of good ones through uninhibited debate… Antifa is notoriously generous in distributing the fascist label. Most of the people Antifa targets are not fascists …By claiming to defend helpless minorities from a rising fascist peril, Antifa arrogates to itself the right to decide who is, or might be, “fascist”…Actual defense of a truly threatened community is best done openly by respected members of the community itself, rather than by self-styled Zorros who arrive in disguise… Antifa claims that it is in favor of free speech in general, but racists and fascists are an exception, because you can’t reason with them, and hate speech is not speech but action. This amounts to an astounding intellectual surrender to the enemy.  It is an admission of being unable to win a free argument.  The fact is that speech is indeed speech, and should be countered by speech. You should welcome the chance to debate in public in order to expose the weaknesses of their position.

  Some perrceptive comments in that critique.  Perhaps a detailed postion paper needs to be put out by the SP given the influence of antifa on the left.  I have posted various articles  on FB forums such as ALB's excellent peice on "From No Platfrom to Safe Spaces" but to mixed reception

[robbo203]

davestephans wrote:

Sorry 'm so demanding. Can you recommend books or readings on  strategy and practices of the Right? Was reading about Left Unity, thinking about herding cats, and want to learn more about how they are so cohesive and effective. Part of it it the democratic and independent nature of the left, I know, but jeez, we ought to be able to come together more. We have some smart people too.  If liberty and equality, as is thought by some are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.   Aristotle

Dave  Socialists wouldnt really regard themselves as part of the Left, strictly speaking, so "Left Unity" is not a burning issue with us. The left-right distinction is an expression of the capitalist poliical spectrum in which  the left as much as the right share certain common assumptions with regard  to the kind of society they seek to bring about.  Neither seeks to transcend the wage labour- capital relation.  Neither seeks the abolition of commodity production or the state.  All these things are key aspects of the kind of society we socialists want to get rid of – capitalism Some leftists purport to have sympathy for the kind of society we advocate – socialism – as an "ultimate" goal   (meaning never) but most harbour a kind of distorted Leninist defintion of "socialism" as something to do with the state.  Many who understand that all this leninist version of socialism boils down is state capitalism,  still continue to support the futile policy of trying to reform capitalism in the unfounded belief that this will somehow pave the way to socialism.   It wont.  The struggle to achieve a socialist society has to involve, among other things, stepping off that endless treadmill of trying to mend capitalism as opposed to trying to end capitalism This site contains a vast bank of information on all sorts of topics,  going back over  a hundred years since the formation of the Socialist Party.  Just use the search facility if you are looking for something in particular

[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.

[Author]

Posts