[Bijou Drains]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

 This may not happen instantly, because we are a small organisation with few volunteers (and comrades should remember this when expectign standards of bureaucracy comparable to a government department).

You obviously have not had much to do with Central or Local Government Bureacracy, we are far more efficent and timely than most Local and central Government Departments that I have had to work with or be part of!

[Bijou Drains]

I remember the debate very well, and some of the silly arguments that were brought up to support the actions of those members who became Socialist Studies. To be honest, as a member of a regional branch, I took the view at the time that the underlying issues were about matters other than the party name and that whilst acknowledging that there were real issues of party democracy at stake, there were also personality clashes and what you might call generational differences, which came into play. As these centred mainly around the London branches and members, it was difficult, being a provincial branch member to fully get a handle on some of the subtleties.

[Bijou Drains]

jondwhite wrote:

Feel free to speak with them, but they I don't believe they are interested in returning.

Not being in London I wasn't sure what their attitude was/is. I did meet some of their number in the 80s and 90s before they left, Obviously Harry Young and Hardy are no longer alive, I would have thought the others I met at around that time must be clocking on a bit. Can't say that they were the most friendly or welcoming bunch and I am aware of the reasons for them going, however……………

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I note the demonstration is claiming over 100,000 took place. But looking at the pictures and at the banners and placards and seeing who the speakers were, it was more a pro-Labour Party protest. Perhaps you saw it from another perspective being there. .I know members are very busy elsewhere with the GLA election campaign and street stalls so I was pleased that they made that extra effort, ALBFor sure, for the moment, the Left shuns our message but does that mean it shouldn’t be delivered? And our task is to find and explore new methods of explaining our case and communicating it – even to a mostly unreceptive audience but one in other ways are in search of answers…and believe they have them in Corbyn (and Sanders).As I have said before, we cannot keep doing the same or calling for more of the same. I have suggested a special conference to review and re-evaluate everything. Socialist Studies call themselves the re-constituted SPGB, I suggest it is time now that we ourselves re-constitute. I’m not saying we should emulate ever fad or fashion in politics but address fully why we have not succeeded in accomplishing our objective or even getting anyway closer towards it. A much needed introspection is fundamental to understanding the failure.As Einstein said “"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

if you look at the history of the party, we have done the same thing with varying results over the years, the party in 1950 was developing substantially. In the 1980s we had some remarkable progress using the same old tried methods of public debate, meetings etc. I am of the view that the public mood has gone back to live events. Public meetings, debates, etc. can capture public interest.these days, because they are differemt However I think it is a mistake to think there is one universal propaganda strategy,different strokes for different folks

[Bijou Drains]

gnome wrote:

Why do some members insist on giving this three men and a dog outfit the oxygen of publicity?The individuals who remain in 'Socialist' Studies were among those expelled from the SPGB in 1991. They ceased to be socialists when they renounced, on several occasions, the democratic will of a majority of party members. Socialism and democracy are inseparable.This thumb-nosing at democracy continued with the formation of 'Socialist' Studies. As one ex-member of 'Socialist' Studies observed:

R.Cumming speaking in 2004 wrote:

We need democratic practice in this Party. The affiliation of the Ukraine group to the Party involved 9 members at a JBM voting in favour. What about the other 20-30 who didn't attend this Branch meeting? You cannot reply that they abstained, for there were only 9 members present, and there have been no voting forms sent out.It is the same with this farce over the post of General Secretary. Cyril May died on the 15th of October 2003. There have been no elections to this post since then. It has been 4 months, and we still have an Acting General Secretary who was either elected undemocratically or was self-appointed.I have not been asked to vote on anything since I joined the Party on 16th June 2002. This is almost two years. The 1905 Rule Book of the Party makes it clear that the post of General Secretary is elected every year. What has happened to this? You have decided we don't need a rulebook!I contend we do need a rulebook, and I would be well within my rights to deny the very existence of this organisation on the basis that it has no rulebook.I suggest, that elections of the various officers of the Party take place as soon as possible. This should be prioritised. Forget printing Socialist Studies. Forget your lecture list. Forget it all until you actually set up some kind of democratic apparatus.For this purpose, it is necessary that a special conference of all members be convened. All members of the Party should be encouraged and even helped (financially) to attend if necessary. At this Conference, those present should decide the organisational form the Party is going to have.So there you go, comrades, you have your requests. Democratic practice is one of the most important aspects of a socialist political organisation. I am trying to give you a chance to get rid of the ANARCHIST nonsense of `we rule by consensus', and to establish a proper socialist party based on democratically agreed principles, policy and rules.

Whilst accepting that previous practice and the undemocratic attitude of some members of Socialist Studies is an issue, and I can remember the way that some associated with that group behaved at conferences and within the party, there are others who before and after have left the party, behaved in an anti-socialist manner and then were welcomed back, those with a long enough vintage will know who I mean. In addition to this we currently have a situation where the Internet Committee of this Party have compiled a report (and the issues contained in the report are irrelevant as far as I am concerned) which they appear to be reluctant to let all party members have access to, who then are we to criticise them for lack of transparency?

[Bijou Drains]

Is it just me, but considering we have postings about various movements and how we should reach out to them, is it not time that two organisations who both hold to the D of P looked for some kind of common ground. It's not like both organisations are bursting at the seams

[Bijou Drains]

moderator1 wrote:

lindanesocialist wrote:

The document should be available from a request from any member of the public. The IC are in contevention yet again, of our basic priciples. Vin has been refused a copy by the Internet Committee

The IC are a sub-committee of the EC and as such we have to abide by our Terms of Reference which stipulate we report to the EC.  With the report now in the hands of the EC its down to them to consider all requests for it to be released to the public domain – not the IC.

At what point did this party start having secret reports, meetings etc? If this report is discussed as part of the EC meeting its contents as a matter of principle should be available to all members of the party to scrutinise and then make judgments as to whether the EC have acted accordingly. The IC terms of reference do stipulate that the IC report to the EC, they do NOT however, as far as I can see stipulate that any such report should only be made available to the party at large on the say so of the EC. If Mod 1 can quote me chapter and verse from the Terms of Reference that states that this is so I would be very happy to see it.

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

From friends' accounts the dirtiest players were either police or prison officers teams.

Quote:

I would prefer an evening in the local with a few pints, some rum chasers a couple of meat pies and a game of darts. Each to their own

In general, food production will be a social decision, not personal choice.Your beer will be from a local micro brewery, your rum locally made moonshine and your meat pies will be from some sort of slaughtered animal reared locally on a small-scale rather than produced on some industrialised livestock farm and then processed in a meat-processing factory. Of course, we are as socialists judgmental, Tim. It is an attribute we acquire as socialists, it comes with the territory…to look at society and be critical of it and propose improvements to it. Okay in capitalism that for you is acceptable but now you question its validity within socialist society, that people will not continue to be critical of our cultures and will not continue to advocate for it to adapt and evolve for the better. Here in Thailand there is a version of keepy-uppy. Acrobatic skills with a ball that you rarely see in football these days https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sepak_takraw

Quite funny that you say that production will be a social decision not a personal choice and then list what appears to be your personal choice for micro brewery ale, hooch and artisan pies. I hadn't realised that you had been tasked with writing the blueprint for Socialism, I must have missed that conference report. As I said earlier it is interesting how those who demand that we should be free to go back to small scale artisan production don't seem to be able to conceive that in a socialist society with DEMOCRATIC PRODUCTION it is conceivable that the majority may prefer mass produced food stuffs and keg fizz!In terms of being judgmental, I think you confuse making judgments and having an analytical approach to being judge mental in the sense of having an opinion on the behaviour and choices of others that are not in accordance with your own. As an example, and this may appall you, I would much rather see a hard crunching but fair, Dave Mackay style tackle than a game of keepie up.

[Bijou Drains]

Nothing on my computer Linda, that doesn't mean to say that it isnt something on the forum

[Bijou Drains]

what is the nature of the virus Linda?

[Bijou Drains]

ALB wrote:

Actually it presumes they are men, which has not always been the case

Good point, well made, you certainly have my …… in your hands

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Not sure why this was off-topic. The article i linked to did indeed question scientist's motivations in their analyses and studies of hunter-gatherer societies…that they had ideological reasons for their findings and we should be suspect of certain claims…  If LBird wished to remind the thread of his previous assertions supporting his earlier observations  i see nothing wrong with that.If he then went on with other posts to de-rail the thread then that is a different situation. To presume he would do because of past record is akin to giving a dog a bad name and pre-judging a contributor. …i'd rather wait til the person commits a crime before we chose to read someone's mind and read into intentions…As his comment was addressed to me , i noted it but was not prepared to enter debate about it because i was only providing some information for others. and not seeking an exchange since i am busy elsewhere on the forum

It wasn't L Bird's comment that was removed, but rather my comment which quoted his comment.I posted  "nurse, nurse he's out of bed again" which was removed. On reflection, perhaps it was fair to remove my comment, there was no malice intended, but it was slightly childish. (not to say I wasn't quite pleased and amused by what I'd written)

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I have always considered tattooing to be a form of self-harm rather than an art-form, YMS, particular when performed on visible parts of the body. Are we arguing ,Tim, that socialist society will approve of binge-drinking, bad diets, licientiousness and lewdness, outdoor pursuits without training. Or will they be considered social problems where society will try collectively to minimalise the detrimental effect it has upon communities. How? Peer-group pressure, perhaps. Do we approve of hill walkers who do not provide a timetable and itinerary? Maybe mountain rescue teams will refuse to offer assistance when recklessness is part of the cause. Will the RNLI decide idiots should be left at sea to flounder? Suicide is a voluntary act, shall we not try to mitigate it with various interventions but fully permit in certain cases voluntary euthanasia. Will there be a socialist police …a morality police…vigilantes…Always gets the discussion going in the pub.

By saying that people will be free to play dangerous sports, get their faces tattooed eat bad diets, etc. etc does not mean that  a socialist society approves of such things, nor does it mean it should disapprove. The point is that people in a socialist society should be free to do what they want to as long as it does not impact on the lives of others too much. Approval or disapproval is not an issue, nor would or should it be it be required.As to the medical profession's input, we regularly played against the Newcastle University Medic's team and the Royal victoria Infirmary team, I think their would be enough volunteers to deal with the exagerated medical problems presented by local football teams.I am always a bit suprised by the judgemental attitude (not saying any members in particular) of what I would describe as the "knit your own lentil stew" current in the socialist movement. I think in a Socialist societies those who want to spend their time in a mongolian yurt, eating braised tofu with mung bean salad, whilst listening to Fijian nose flute music, before an exctiing evening watching speed chess should be free to do so, personally I'd rather eat my own scrotum. I would prefer an evening in the local with a few pints, some rum chasers a couple of meat pies and a game of darts. Each to their own

[Bijou Drains]

moderator1 wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

There is a real question as to whether a member can be permantly banned from online party fora.  Members here have experessed disagreement with placing members under moderation (which I do favour, and believe the EC or Moderators could do) since that allows members to express themselves still.  But, realistically, if we're saying, as we would be wwere a member to be excluded from a party forum, that they cannot behave themselves sufficiently to do so, then really we should eb expelling that person from the party outright, not creating a second class member.If so, as per recent party discussions, the matter should be referred to the member's branch, and not the EC, per rule 29.

Rule 29 wrote:

29. Charges against any member shall be submitted in writing to the Branch and a copy supplied to the member accused who shall be allowed 14 days to enter the defence.

if the branch declines to act, there may be a case for enacting rule 31

rule 31 wrote:

The EC shall forthwith submit particulars of the charge to all Branches and at the same time communicate the charges in writing to the accused and enclose a copy of this rule. Branches shall hold at least one specially summoned meeting to discuss the charge. The Delegates at the next Delegate Meeting or Annual Conference shall hear the case of the EC and of the accused; after which no further circulation of arguments for or against the charge may take place. The Delegates shall submit their findings to a Party Poll and the result of the Party Poll shall apply as from the date of suspension. No parties to the charge or dispute shall be allowed to sit as Delegates or Chair at Conference, ADM or any EC meeting where the case is being reviewed.

  A permanent ban (or even a sustained ban) is a different kettle of fish to a temporary "go calm yourself down" ban.

Problem is that the IC, or any other sub-committee of the EC, cannot under the rules make charges against a member.  Individual members – from any Branch can make a case – under Rule 29  and forward the charge to the Branch for them to deal with but not a sub-committee.

I fail to see how that is a problem. The role of committees is not a policing role, but to carry on the work of that committee as per the terms of reference for that committee. Just like the role of moderators is to moderate, not join in discussion under the auspices of being a moderator

[Bijou Drains]

John Oswald wrote:

"Sagan points out an amusing fact: that, like chimps, the Romans and the Hebrews cemented political alliances by holding one another`s testicles." – "It's how arguments in the Socialist Standard Editorial Committee are settled too. Fact"I`ve suspected that for some time!

that pre supposes that the Editorial Committee have balls

[Author]

Posts