[robbo203]

jondwhite wrote:

Yep ISJ would be a model to borrow from. What is their specific schedule?1 April,1 July,1 October,1 January?Like SPGB Forum Journal (have you read this?), theory would certainly be discussed.

 I think even a half yearly theoretical journal  would be a big improvemen but if you could go for a quarterly so much the better. The International Socialism journal is not too bad actually – to give credit where credit is due. Ive got a few hardcopies going back a few years and there are some interesting articles in them. I recall reading a quite a long article – possibly by Callinicos – on the development of "bourgeois economic theory".from Smith to the present  Good stuff.  This is the sort of thing the SPGB should be doing more of such as  critically examing concepts such as Neoliberalism or Dependnecy theory from a socialist perspective.. Another example is the environment and environmental issues such as climate change.  I just think having a more thorough and theoreticaly grounded approach to these issues would be beneficial as opposed to just having topical commentary on current affairs.  The latter is important but the current approach is too lopsided and "bitty", in my view,  if you know what I mean.  I say this as someone who routinely refers people on other fora to this site.  Sometimes I struggle to find an appropriate article to link to in the SS archives. Personally I would favour a particular theme for each issue.  The list is endless.- from anthropology (the concept of primitive communism for example?) to global agriculture and bio-engineering.  If the Party feels it hasn't got the expertise then invite someone who is sympathetic  to contribute a guest article.  Why not? Was there not a talk by Brian Morris that was published in the SS recently? Apart from the ISJ there is also the Jacobin magazine  which is apparently doing quite well lately.  Im sure there are many other journals that could also serve as examples or models 

[robbo203]

jondwhite wrote:

The discussion journal committee made a report to EC in July 2006 including this conclusion;

Quote:

The evidence we gathered does not indicate that there is wide support for a formal dis- cussion journal, either printed or online. Only one Branch (Edinburgh) was in favour of such a journal; no other Branch contacted us regarding the matter, indicating that there may be a certain apathy regarding the idea. Furthermore, no Branch or mem- ber responded to our query about their willingness to contribute to or help produce such a journal. (The actual wording of the 2005 Conference resolution setting up this Committee was “to investigate the willingness of members to produce” the journal, and the circular we sent to Branches and to spintcom solicited feedback on this point.) We must conclude, then, that at this time there is an insufficient interest and prospect of article submissions to justify the work of setting up a new discussion journal editorial and production committee.That said, many members did express interest in seeing discussion carried out in the Socialist Standard. We therefore refer this matter to the Socialist Standard Production Committee and ask that they provide an assessment of the evidence we have gathered.

 Well thats a  great pity if the Party took such a lacklustre unenthusiastic view of the whole matter back then.  I still wonder though whether it might not be worth reviving the proposal as we are talking about more than ten years ago. I would add two comments 1) I There is a certain ambiguity about the word "discussion journal".  Could it be that members were thinking in terms of something like an internal discussion journal like Forum?  I was thinking of something quite different – something much more like the World Socialist journal which ran to only about 5 or 6 issues then mysteriously ceased publication,  Other political parties like the SWP seem to manage OK with this two fold division between theoretical journal and topical journal.   There is a need for the former in my view.  I often engage in discussions with people over the internet  and refer them to this site but not infrequently I find there is a paucity of appropriate  "theoretical" material here that can specifically addresss the questions they are asking.  The SPGB needs to build on its theoretical case not just comment on issues of the dayHave a look at this to get an idea of what Im talking about http://isj.org.uk/ 2)  The report to the EC seems to have only solicited the views of SPGB branches.  But what about companion parties? Some hardly exist or have no publication they can call their own.  Having a WSM wide journal  in which they too were involved would I imagine give them a bit of a boost in morale

[robbo203]

jondwhite wrote:

Thanks for your interest robbo. I don't think it is impossible to be a socialist without being a party member or that non-members have nothing to contribute. However, members-only-writers would make editorial more straightforward and hopefully be mutually beneficial in terms of boosting party membership and interesting existing members. Perhaps a balance could be struck with a letters page?

Or even a guest column or debate platform or something like that…Not that I think non members contributing articles will necessarily make the work of the editors more onerous The main point though is that i think there is a need for a wsm-wide journal  and one that offers a slightly more in depth theoretical approach than the SS.  I dont know why the World Socialist journal project was ever abandoned

[robbo203]

It seems now that Labour has overtaken the Tories in the popularity contest .  Had the election been two weeks later we could be talking about PM Corbynhttp://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/labour-now-has-a-six-point-lead-over-the-tories-new-poll-finds/ar-BBCssDl?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartandhp

[robbo203]

jondwhite wrote:

Are any WSM members interested in contributing to a new quarterly journal if one was created? Contributions would be over 1,000 words and from WSM members only.

 Yes I have  always thought the idea of a more theoretically slanted, WSM-wide  quarterly journal  would be a huge bonus.  But why limit contributions to only those from WSM members?  This seems unnecessarily restrictive and pointless.  "Its the case not the face that matters" as the SPGB says in an electoral context and if the case is being articulated in a quarterly journal  – which I am sure the Editorial Board will be able to properly determine – does it really matter that it is not a party member that is articulating the case?   You dont surely believe that it is impossible to be a socialist while not being a party member? Non members can indeed constructively contribute to the growth of the Party and widen its appeal

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 As anyone can read, in my post 114, I said that the proletariat won't exist within socialism.We're back to alan arguing with robbo's mythical 'What LBird said', as opposed to what I did say. 

 If you now agree that the proletariat wont exist in socialism why did you say in post 114 that in socialism there would be a  "revolutionary, class conscious, democratic, proletariat" ?.   The obvious explanation is that you are in a muddle – no surprise there – and simply contradicted yourself but I dont expect you will be retracting your latter  comment. Talking of muddleheadedness is it not time now that you come forward with some kind of defence of your Leninist perspective on communism as a unicentric system of society-wide global decisionmaking without any kind of local or regional democracy whatsoever?.  According to you there will be only one single global authority and there will be "no limits" to democracy – as in for example, local democracy being "limited" to local populations. The logic of socialised production,  according to you, demands total  worldwide democratc decision-making.  But it doesnt!  This laptop  I am typing these words on is a social product.  Its components probably come from many different parts of the world but there is no need for me to be involved in any of the doubtless thousands of production decisions that result in this laptop having been manfactured.  Nor would it be practical for me to do so in the slightest. Democracy should be about things that matter to me, that influence me and that I can influence,  That means perforce being highly selective about what you want to focus your attention on in democratically deciding an outcome,  There are only 24 hours in day.  You seem to have no conception of the practical limits of decisionmaking and the need to prioritise but its not as if I havent given you opportunity after opportunity to try to think your way out of this  muddleheaded concept of democracy that you hold

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Proletariat (working class) defines a social relationship within capitalism. There is no red herring. Classes disappears inside socialism. For someone who insists upon using Marxian concepts correctly, you project that a proletariat will remain post-capitalism.

I yet again answered this red herring from robbo, Vin, and now you (indeed, a lie, as I've never said that classes will exist within socialism) in my post 114, alan.Please refer, and get back when you can answer what I wrote there.

 Rubbish.  You are wriggling as per usual.  You talked quite explicitly of there being a "revolutionary, class conscious, democratic, proletariat" in socialism .  How can you have a class conscious proletariat without this presupposing the existence of classes??? BTW LBird when are you going to get round to defending your Leninist inspired vision of "communism" as a unicentric system of society wide planning in which there will be no kind of local democracy or even regional democracy, whatsoever – just 7 billion plus individuals spending all their time voting on millions and millions of decisions that will need to be made to operate a global system of communist production?

[robbo203]

Its not for me to say, Alan, as I am not in the Party so you can take or leave my comments as you wish but, personally speaking, I would be inclined to let this whole Facebook controversy drop.  I strongly agree with your comment that the members concerned should not have publicised their intention to vote Labour in the absence of  a socialist candidate as that  might well  be construed as support for Labour.  It was imprudent of them to do so and they should have kept their voting intentions to themselves. But thats as far as it goes, in my view.  It deserves a  rap over the knuckles but hardly explusion,  That is going too far and I agree with Brian Gardener's observation on the Facebook page that perhaps some members are getting overly vexed about the whole matter. Its seem pretty clear to me that the individuals concerned dont have any illusions about Labour being anything other than a capitalist Party that is going to do what all capitalist parties do in the long run,  But there are some differences between Corbyn's party and May's party and it would be folly to deny that.   The few more crumbs offered by the former can count if you are personally affected and dependent, for example,  on some sort of state welfare income, The Party talks of socialism being in our self interest but it is precisely self interest that has prompted a few members to consider voting Labour  in this instance.  I wouldn't do it myself but  who can blame them? All the same they should not have blurted out their intentions and I suspect that was done more out of frustration at the prospect of another 5 years of Tory rule.  In one way, even the illusion of change is better than no change at all.  Incidentally, there are one or two other members I am in touch (who shall remain un-named ) who have also indicated they will probably vote Labour this time.  Like the members mentioned, they have no illusions about what they are doing and are no less socialists for doing it, in my opinion. Rather than cause unnecessary upheaval and heartarche,  I would suggest something along the lines of issuing a general reminder to the membership that the Party cannot support or appear to be supporting a capitalist organisation snd that declarations of intent by individual members to vote for the latter can be construed as apparent support.  I would just leave it at that and allow the message to sink in.  There is absolutely no point in expellling good socialists particularly when they want to remain in the Party and have no intention of joining some other Party.  Doing that would amount to a self inflicted wound as I see it.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

In the context of existing socialism, are you telling us that certain forms of what is deemed "democracy" will be imposed across the board upon everybody equally. If so who by? By what authority or body? 

I keep telling you the answer to this question, alan: the revolutionary, class conscious, democratic, proletariat. This is Marx's view, too. 

 More evidence of LBird's anti Marxist,, pro Leninist outlook.  Lbird, like Lenin, envisages  the existence of classes – a proletariat and therefore private property  – in socialism.  Marx didnt"When the proletariat is victorious, it by no means becomes the absolute side of society, for it is victorious only by abolishing itself and its opposite.  Then the proletariat disappears as well as the opposite which determines it, private property " The Holy Family (1845): 

[robbo203]

Still no response from LBird defending his Leninist conception of communism as society-wide centralised planning and  the top down authoritarian model of decisionmaking that this necessarily entails.  This is the guy who whinges on about being "misunderstood" and urges his critics to read what he wrote but seems totally unwilling or unable to submit any kind of  argument whatsoever in response to the very specific and detailed criticisms of what he is proposing.  You have to wonder what lies behind all this evasiveness….

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 This is your 'substantive point', YMS. It's a political argument for the liberal theory of the diffusion of 'powers', similar to legislature, executive, judiciary, etc.On the contrary, my 'substantive point' is that there will be a single world authority, which will have any necessary final say regarding any 'many, varied and overlapping [lower level] authorities'.This 'single world authority' is embodied in the political slogan 'World Socialism'.This 'World Socialism' will be built to the needs, interests and purposes of the revolutionary, class conscious, democratic proletariat.This is the key political difference between us, YMS. You are not a supporter of 'World Socialism', but, at best, of 'World Socialisms'. From my Democratic Communist perspective, you might as well be talking about 'National Socialisms', a particularistic, divided, unco-ordinated, even anarchistic, politics.And behind all this, is your individualism, and 'fear of the mob' of "workers' democratic power".

 This is clear evidence if evidence is needed of LBird's Leninist outlook.  Whats the difference between this and Lenin's declaration that the the "whole of society will have become a single office and a single factory", Local or even regional decisionmaking will not exist in his so called democratic communist world.  All decisions will be handed down  from a "single world authority".  and imposed on the populace throughout the world regardless of whether they like ir or not Of course, there is no way 7 billion plus people can be collectively involved in making the millions of decision affecting the global production system.  Perforce these decisions will have to be made by some kind of vanguard  elite.  This is what lies behinds LBirds vacuous and dogmatic mantras; Though he probably cannot yet see this, it is backhanded attempt to justify the need for a leninist vanguard in the face  of the unsurmountablele complexity of decisonmaking in a system of  society wide centralised planning which he clearly endorses

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

…I, I, I,… me, me, me,… mine, mine, mine,… my, my, my…

No mention of social production, or democratic controls, nor even the odd 'we', 'us', 'our'… as for Marx, Communism, society or history… well, we'll have a long wait before the ideological individualists here ever mention those.

 More evasion from our resident Jehova Witness who intones vacuous dogmas rather than presents coherent arguments and then has the nerve to call others "religious materialists." Answer the questions I posed in post 59 or concede that you have no defence  in the face of the crushing criticism of your  harebrained dotty idea of what communism is about I have incidentally discussed social production and democratic controls in a communist society.  I said quite explictly that communist democracy will be necessarily be polycentric and operating at a different levels of organisation –  global, regional and (mainly) local.  You as a Leninist reject all this and prefer instead a unicentric system of society-wide planning central planning – in effect, a de facto authoritarian structure of decisionmaking since there is no way 7 billion people can be practically involved in this form of decisionmaking.  They will have to be excluded by you and your Leninist vanguard to all intents and purposes

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 You've missed 'Scenario C', Sympo:Scenario C (to use your terms): People democratically elect individuals who are experts on the subject to form a council where explanations are formed about that particular subject. These explanations are then explained to people, and if the people accept the explanations, they make the decision to accept the explanation. If the explanation is unacceptable, new experts are elected by the people.Power always lies with the people, not the experts.

 Our resident Leninist and religious materialist L Bird never tires in offering up his guff by way of trying to explain the inexplicable. So now accroding to L Bird " the people" will elect the experts to develop explanations which are then relayed back to the people to vote upon,  I seriously wonder if LBird has ever once thought about the practicalities of what he is saying.  He is a complete dreamer who lives in a little world of his own There are thousands upon thousands of areas of expertise and many millions upon milions of different kinds of explanations covering every consceivable kind of subject area to which these experts are supposedly  elected to investigate. How are "the people" – presumably the world's population of 7.4 bilion – going to have the time let alone the inclination to discuss and vote upon all these millions upon millions of explanations relayed back to them?  Come to that, how are they going to know who these experts are that they are supposed to elect?  What is the procedure by which they are to be elected? LBird doesnt say,  He has an almost childlike utterly naive view of the world.   At any rate, it seems that according to him, we "the people"  not only have to vote on  the millions of theories offered to us by the experts but on top of that,  we now also have to vote  on the experts thenselves!,  Meaning all 7.4 bilion of us.will have no time whatsoever to do anything in life except vote vote vote  and even then we will only be able to vote on a tiny fraction of what needs to be voted upon according to LBird.  How dumb can you get?  Seriously LBird, get a grip Incidentally, can LBird explain to me what if I want to become an astrophysist but am not elected by "the people" to become a designated "expert"? Does that not I am not allowed to study astrophysics and offer my own opinion in LBird's so called democratic communist society?. Will his thought police be knocking on my door at midnight and confiscating my computer along with my scribbled notes trying to make sense of some arcane astrophysical theory?  How am I going to vote on the theory if I dont understand what its about and if only designated experts are permitted to form an opinion on the matter? Explain L Bird Above all,  and here's the main point,  lets us assume we just abandoned this whole silly harebrained scheme of LBird's and just let people develop their own interests according to their own inclinations.  So some  might very well develop these interest  further and become experts in a field of their own  chosng.  Assuming there was no need for "the people" to vote on the theories developed by these individuals can LBird explain what power these individuals could possibly yield of "the people" in a society where all work in voluntarily undertaken and where all goods and services are freely accessible at the point of distribution? LBird repeatedly bleats that he has answered the criticisms of his critics – well let him answer this one What leverage, L Bird, will these experts be able to exercise of the population at large in a democratic communist society?  The truth of the matter there can be none,  You cannot see this becuase you dont understand what either communism is about or what democracy is about.  . You are no "democratic communist" and that is pretty obvious from everything you have said

[robbo203]

Steve, Could you possibly address the question I raised in post 102 and amplified by Tim  in post 107? How have you disassociated yourself from such sentiments expressed by the SCP?

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 Living longer is no longer a success story of society but a problem and a handicap. I'm not surprised that we have folk proclaiming euthanasia for the old. 

 Indeed,  Alan – like the Japanese finance minister, Taro Aso, at a meeting of the national council on social security reforms who said recently that the elderly should be enabled to "hurry up and die" to relieve pressure on the state to pay for their medical care (Justin McCurry, 22 January 2013. “Let elderly people 'hurry up and die', says Japanese minister”, The Guardian)We are just numbers to the ruling class – or machines that have been rendered obsolete by age.  You wonder why they even bother going through the ritual of currying favour at election times

[Author]

Posts