Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Wow, the first bulletin contains the mythic SWP constitution. Some snippets:http://www.cpgb.org.uk/assets/files/swpinternalbulletins/PreConf_Bulletin_i_Oct_2012.pdf(Page 25)
Quote:Branches and/or districts elect delegates to Conference on a basis proportional to their membership, as determined by the Central Committee.[…](5) Central Committee The CC consists of members elected by the Conference according to the following procedure: The outgoing Central Committee selects and circulates a provisional slatefor the new CC at the beginning of the period for pre-Conference discussion. This is then discussed at the district aggregates where comrades can propose alternative slates.At the Conference the outgoing CC proposes a final slate (which may have changed as a result of the pre-Conference discussion). This slate, along with any other that is supported by a minimum offive delegates, is discussed and voted on by Conference.Between Conferences the CC is entrusted with the political leadership of the organisation and is responsible for the national direction of all political and organisational work, subject to thedecision- making powers of Conference.Note: there is no specification of the size of the CC, so they can always co-opt oppositionists to the official slate. Also note the CC controls the size of conference, which can make it more manageable.Let's see how they justify this:
Quote:The necessity of a revolutionary party flows from the fact that although the working class must collectively emancipate itself, the ideological domination of the ruling class means there is considerable uneveness within the working class in terms of its confidence, organisation and ideas. The role of a revolutionary party is to draw together the militant minority who understand the need for revolution, not to substitute for the class, but to constantly seek ways to act to increase workers’ combativity and confidence and in the process win wider layers of workers to socialist ideas.[…]And the existence of a leadership is a necessity. Uneveness in terms of experience, confidence and clarity of ideas exists not just inside the working class as a whole, but also within the revolutionary party. The more roots the party has inside the working class, the more it is able to intervene in the class struggle, the greater this uneveness will be.(CC statement in the third bulletin). Note, it assumes that the leadership is the pinacle of this uneven consciousness, and instead of seeking to challenge the "unevenness" seeks to work within it, and in effect justifies a technocratic/theocratic elite dictating to the ignorant, rather than a two way dialogue between revolutionaries and workers. After all, for all we (naturally) assume that we are right, we enter into debate, and have to withstand the possibility that we may be proved wrong.
Quote:The state-of-the-art facility will be controlled by some 160km of robotic shelf space, with newspapers kept in low oxygen to prevent risk of fire.http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2012/12/10/1303512/the-robot-economy-and-the-new-rentier-class/
Quote:So, robot and technology power is reducing the natural employment rate. But rather than our subsidising those who have lost jobs to technology, so as to spread that manna wealth that’s literally dropped onto the surface of the earth at no-one’s physical disadvantage, companies are using monopoly power to extort rents on the capital that is creating all that free wealth.Maybe this analysis is starting to go mainstream, and it should have significant effects. What striver can outstrive a machine?
Cheers for looking. Thought it might be worth a look at (in light of Socialist Punk's question yesterday).
Some fascinating stats from the 2011 census:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20677321
Quote:The second-most common category was "No religion", comprising more than a quarter of the population (25.1%; 14.1 million), up from 7.7 million (14.8%) in 2001.(Note, The Christian 33.2 million is split between several denominations, so it'c clear that no-religion is the biggest "religious" group outright).http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20677515
Quote:The census also shows that, while fewer people own their own home, more people own it outright. Just under 15 million households owned their own home in 2011, either with a mortgage or loan, or outright – a decrease of four percentage points since 2001…However, those who owned their home outright increased two percentage points from 29% (6.4 million) to 31% (7.2 million)…The group that rented from a private landlord or letting agency increased by six percentage points from 9% (1.9 million) in 2001 to 15% (3.6 million) in 2011.I am on topic, the topic is the forum rules, and it is on topic to say a thread has been talked out.
I wasn't being sarcastic at all.What you wrote was:
OGW wrote:I was refering to the period BEFORE I was warned.And yes it IS time we moved on.I can't see any other way of reading that than as a call to move on and let it lie, which i agree with.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:And yes it IS time we moved on.Hear, hear. I think we should all follow OGW's advice and let it go, and get on with discussing socialism.
On Homelessness in the UKhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/16512/Statutory_Homelessness_3rd_Quarter__July_-_Sep__2012_England.pdf
Quote:52,960 households were in temporary accommodation on 30 September 2012, 8 per cent higher than at the same date in 2011.DJP wrote:In mainstream economics 'Marginal Utility' refers to an increase or decrease in utility following the consumption of an additional unit of a good. I fail to see what that article has to do with it?Well, I suppose the utter uselessness of Californium, and several other of the items on that list illustrates the Diamonds half of the Paradox of Value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_value) note, the apparent solution of the problem, by Marginalism, is, to my mind, unutterable bunkum. Diamonds are precious because they are rare, but they are only rare because they are desired. Since they have no otehr use, it is their value that makes them desirable.
For those not in the know:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bordiga
Wikipedia wrote:Amadeo Bordiga (13 June 1889 – 23 July 1970) was an Italian Marxist, a contributor to Communist theory, the founder of the Communist Party of Italy, a leader of the Communist International and, after World War II, a leading figure of the International Communist Party. (…)Bordiga proudly defined himself as "anti-democratic" and believed himself at one with Marx and Engels on this. Bordiga's hostility toward democracy had nothing to do with Stalinist idealism. Indeed, he saw fascism and Stalinism as the culmination of bourgeois democracy. Democracy to Bordiga meant above all the manipulation of society as a formless mass. To this he counterposed the "dictatorship of the proletariat", implemented by the communist party founded in 1847, based on the principles and program enunciated in the manifesto. He often referred to the spirit of Engels' remark that "on the eve of the revolution all the forces of reaction will be against us under the banner of 'pure democracy". (As, indeed, every factional opponent of the Bolsheviks in 1921 from the monarchists to the anarchists called for "soviets without Bolsheviks"–or soviet workers councils not dominated by Bolsheviks.) Bordiga opposed the idea of revolutionary content being the product of a democratic process of pluralist views; whatever its problems, in light of the history of the past 70 years, this perspective has the merit of underscoring the fact that communism (like all social formations) is above all about programmatic content expressed through forms. It underscores the fact that for Marx, communism is not an ideal to be achieved but a "real movement" born from the old society with a set of programmatic tasks.(…)On communismFor Bordiga, both stages of socialist or communist society (sometimes distinguished as "socialism" and "communism") were characterised by the (gradual) absence of money, the market, and so on, the difference between them being that earlier in the first stage a system of 'rationing' would be used to allocate goods to people, while in communism this could be abandoned in favour of full free access. This view distinguished Bordiga from other Leninists, and especially the Trotskyists, who tended (and still tend) to telescope the first two stages and so have money and the other exchange categories surviving into "socialism". Bordiga would have none of this. For him no society in which money, buying and selling and the rest survived could be regarded as either socialist or communist; these exchange categories would die out before the socialist rather than the communist stage was reached.So, as Hip as Zeitgeist…
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:I have obviously no sympathy from you. Your comment is laden with prejudice. Have you thought why? When you know nothing about the case! Why are you discussing with me when your mind is already made up? Are you trying to 'wind me up'?I suppose the time I have spent is not as important! I spend and have spent 100s of 'person hours' for the SPGB and socialism.You obviously believe that some 'person hours' are more important than others. Why do you think I am 'wasting' MY person hours' on this subject?Because an undemocratic and prejudicial party cannot be a vehicle for socialism. You are clearly prejudicial.I'm actually being the opposite of prejudicial, I'm leaving the case to judgement, rather than sticking my oar in. I'm not discussing your case with you, as I've said several times, I'm talking in general about the principles of having a moderated forum.
SocialistPunk wrote:I am not being confrontational or antagonistic, but I suggest YMS check out the case in question.Perhaps doing so may shed some light on the question OGW is asking and so enable YMS to answer OGW's last post.I seek fairness for all parties. This can only be achieved when we are fully informed.No ta, I'm sticking with general principles, other people are looking at the case, tens of person hours are already being spent on it, I don't need to add mine.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:Let me give you an example, member 'a' is suspended after 1 warning. Member 'b' is not suspended after 3 warnings. The moderator is applying the rules – he can suspend or he need not suspend. Another example. member 'a' uses 'abusive language' on 10 posts and is not warned. member 'b' uses abusive language on 1 post and receives warning. He complains that this is unfair and he is suspended for doubting the intergrity of the moderator. The suspension has happened. member 'b' cannot appeal to Conference retrospectively. The rules need to be specific and fair. Not general as they can and have been abused.Those are not questions of rule, but of implementation. Sometimes a moderator gets it wrong, sometimes they get it right. With practice, they'll improve, and they'll learn. After all, a football referee makes similar judgement calls: sometimes a player can persistently trip or dive, and get away with it, sometimes a player will get caught first time. Different referees apply the same rules in subtly different ways. Despite the best will, and training, in the world, such things happen. There are appeal procedures, not least the court of public opinion, but the result of the match still stands, and that's all as can be done. You can't legislate these problems away, you just work round them.
