[Brian]

Cjames1961 wrote:

I dont have time to engage in every comment section, my book has all the relevant facts and notes on this subject. Thank you

Having listened to the podcast and glanced through your book, unfortunately I failed to find any facts and notes which explain why a RBE refutes valid economics.  I may well have missed them so it would be appreciated if you would kindly narrow down the search by referring me to the relevant chapter(s) which explain your assertion in more detail.

[Brian]

During your interview with Serious Wonder you mention:It also shows the futility of the present groping after a transeconomic mechanism that will allow us to solve today’s problems that movements like the Venus Project and the Zeitgeist Movement are trying to find in a mythical Resource Based System, but failing to, as they don’t have an understanding of valid economics which an RBE refutes. Having followed TZM since its formation I'm intrigued on how you reached this conclusion.  How does a RBE refute valid economics?  My understanding of a RBE is its end goal is socialism. A system of society based on production for use, free access to human need, where money has no function, the state no purpose and capital and labour a mention in the literature dedicated to system analysis and the revolutionary process.

[Brian]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Brian wrote:

 

Good point.  By usual channels and procedures is meant communications that end up on the EC table.  Just making a posting here is not the usual channel of communications.  If on the other hand a posting is made here and then a duplicate sent to HO for the attention of the EC it becomes part and parcel of the usual channel and procedure of communications. Which I hope is what happened with all such 'Statements' posted on this forum.The problem with some of the posters is they presume that by posting a message titled 'A statement to the EC' on this web site it will by some magic wand waving in the ether automatically end up on the EC table.  No such thing will happen even if by chance some of the EC members are aware of such 'Statements' or any other information for that matter. Such information cuts no ice with the EC and it will quite rightly be treated as hearsay or second hand information, or ad hoc and filtered.Until the communication is sent to the EC through the usual channels and procedures it wont be dealt with at the EC table. The EC acts as an Information Clearing House/Network and it can only deal with the written information it receives.  

Thanks BrianSo effectively what you are saying is that:"Your call for urgency is unfounded.  This statement will go to all EC members throught the usual channels and procedures for discussion at the EC table."Is actually not the current state of affairs, and that the statement made by Vin will not (as things stand) be made available to the EC and that Gnome's contribution, stating that the EC should be made aware of this statement as a matter of urgency is actually founded, rather than unfounded and if this statement is to be made available to the EC, it should be sent through the "usual channels and procedures" not the ones it has been sent through to date. Effectively what you are saying is that Vin, or someone acting on his behalf should either email or send a hard copy of the statement to the Acting General Secretary for consideration at the next EC meeting, which I have got to say is not how your original statement  "Your call for urgency is unfounded.  This statement will go to all EC members throught the usual channels and procedures for discussion at the EC table." reads to the me.YFSTim[/quote]The remark was made on the assumption that the statement would be communicated by the author throught the usual channels and procedures to the EC.  Clearly, this is not going to be the case.  And begs the question why all the fuss over something which is not going to happen?  

[Brian]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Brian wrote:

gnome wrote:

Quote:

Statement from V Maratty re EC Motion 9 2016 May EC

It is vital that this statement finds its way to individual EC members in some way, shape or form, because, without going into any specific detail for much the same reasons the EC minutes were deliberately vague in some respects, it is quite apparent that due to most EC members' reluctance to visit the forum, confirmed by the absence of any contribution from them towards this thread in the eight weeks it had been running prior to the May EC meeting, they are inescapably and understandably labouring under certain misapprehensions.  They need bona fide, unbiased information.  Fast.

Your call for urgency is unfounded.  This statement will go to all EC members throught the usual channels and procedures for discussion at the EC table.

BrianCan I go back to the question i asked yesterday. You state that the statement will go to the EC memebers "through the ususal channels", yet in other parts of this thread I read that the EC did not have knowledge of the develoment of the video by Vin, because Vin did not approach the EC but rather explained his progress through the forum. It seems very odd to me that a statement on the video made on this forum by Vin "will go to all EC members through the ususal channels and procedures for discussion at the EC table" yet information about the development of his video, posted in good faith on this forum, which had responses from members of the IC amongst others did not "go to all EC members through the usual channels and procedures". I would be grateful if you could specify exactly what usual "procedures" there are to ensure that EC members are made aware of statements made on this forum. If there are not any procedures then it would seem that information from this "gossip chat room" is passed on to the EC in an ad hoc and filtered manner.

Good point.  By usual channels and procedures is meant communications that end up on the EC table.  Just making a posting here is not the usual channel of communications.  If on the other hand a posting is made here and then a duplicate sent to HO for the attention of the EC it becomes part and parcel of the usual channel and procedure of communications. Which I hope is what happened with all such 'Statements' posted on this forum.The problem with some of the posters is they presume that by posting a message titled 'A statement to the EC' on this web site it will by some magic wand waving in the ether automatically end up on the EC table.  No such thing will happen even if by chance some of the EC members are aware of such 'Statements' or any other information for that matter. Such information cuts no ice with the EC and it will quite rightly be treated as hearsay or second hand information, or ad hoc and filtered.Until the communication is sent to the EC through the usual channels and procedures it wont be dealt with at the EC table. The EC acts as an Information Clearing House/Network and it can only deal with the written information it receives.  

[Brian]

lindanesocialist wrote:

As to comments about vin perhaps you should direct them at him. At the moment he has no way of responding. YFS Linda  

He has my email address and can always use it if so wishes.  However my comments in my previous post was not directed at Vin in particular, but at all members of the party.   I don't blame him for what has occurred, despite the fact he's been at fault in many respects.  I blame the decision making process of online meetings.Its not fit for purpose imo.

[Brian]

lindanesocialist wrote:

Brian wrote:

In this respect his experience and his postings on this forum is not doing him any favours. 

I posted it on this forum, it is a statement Vin has sent to the EC. The only posts vin has posted on the forum since receiving an indefinite ban have been on the NERB site to enable him to attend a branch meeting or where I have specified it was from him.

I was not referring to the statement by Vin to the EC, but to his general (mis)behaviour on this forum which to my recollection includes numerous warnings and three suspensions.  One would expect such an experience to be a positive learning curve for Vin, sadly it had the opposite effect, for his several apologies for his behaviour amounted to zilch with no accompanying explanation.The statement does go someway of providing an explanation.  However, I note it unfortunately omits to explain on the reasons why Vin or the branch failed to consult with the EC before embarking on this project.  With hindsight the lessons are plainly:1. Initial onsultations with branch members on the idea. 2. Branch meeting advise member to sketch out project and summarise content.  3. Further discussion at branch level.  4.  Branch inform EC of project and request signposting on possible pitfalls and of support from its sub-committees.  5.  All practice runs on possible content are confined at a branch level.  6.  Branch decides to include other interested party members in the content of the project, but with the caveat that all communications are conducted by email and there are no postings of practice runs on social medium.This process unfortunately did not occur and the reasons for this are Vin was aware that the online structure of the branch decision making process is cumbersome and decided to go his own way whilst the creative juices were in full flow.Resulting in the project is now facing a derailment! Problem now is how to get the project back on track and how to persuade Vin he needs to stay on track, otherwise the creative juices will tend to dry up?Hope this helps.

[Brian]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I think the usual channels is to e-mail the EC direct and have the content of your e-mail placed on the agenda for June EC meeting. Oliver Bond has to be commended for his diligence in that matter. He always tries to ensure members gets the attention of the EC. As for urgency, Brian, as some branches meet every two month and if timed wrong regards to meet the EC dead-line, that is another month gone by so some business if we are to follow the advice of some that insist that the branch is the unit of Party organising and we should go through that at all times so quarter of a year can go by to conduct everyday party affairs. As Tim suggests, we need the conduit for communication and information and decision-making to be made more efficient.It definitely seems as Gnome seems to imply…individual EC members won't break from the herd and voice independent opinion.Where is the gag order in our rule book?  

There is no "gag order in the rule book" for sending correspondence for the attention of the EC.  It happens most months and in most cases the EC welcomes any correspondence which raises concerns on how it conducts its business.However, what is not welcome, by some of the membership, is when individual members go off and do their own thing without consulting with their branch or not informing the EC on this bright idea they may have before they even start putting it all together.  In such cases when faced with a lack of previous consultation the EC have a duty to challenge the due diligence, or the lack thereof, taken with such ventures and if found to be wanting or it raises concerns of uncertainty on legalities have a further duty to disassociate itself and the party from such ventures.In short, the EC are mitigating the risks of the party facing possible prosecution by declaring non gratis on such ventures. And with some of the EC members looking in here and on facebook ignorance after the fact would be no defence.I agree that party procedures can be a long drawn out frustrating experience but that said it has a purpose in that in 99% it gets it right first time.  And I suspect that eventually this little venture will be completed to everybody's satisfaction once Vin understands and agrees procedures, guidelines and rules need to be adhered to.  In this respect his experience and his postings on this forum is not doing him any favours. 

[Brian]

gnome wrote:

Quote:

Statement from V Maratty re EC Motion 9 2016 May EC

It is vital that this statement finds its way to individual EC members in some way, shape or form, because, without going into any specific detail for much the same reasons the EC minutes were deliberately vague in some respects, it is quite apparent that due to most EC members' reluctance to visit the forum, confirmed by the absence of any contribution from them towards this thread in the eight weeks it had been running prior to the May EC meeting, they are inescapably and understandably labouring under certain misapprehensions.  They need bona fide, unbiased information.  Fast.

Your call for urgency is unfounded.  This statement will go to all EC members throught the usual channels and procedures for discussion at the EC table.

[Brian]

DJP wrote:

Proof that Galen Strawson reads this forum:http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/opinion/consciousness-isnt-a-mystery-its-matter.html

OK seeing there's no confirmation in the link how come you can assert that conclusion?

[Brian]

lindanesocialist wrote:

 According to May's EC The central committee also intends to try and close or take this account which is doing good work for soscialism.   https://twitter.com/World_Socialism

As usual you are being disingenuous in your use of words.  In particular if this account indeed was "doing goodwork for socialism" how come these concerns were raised and addressed by the EC regarding accountability and authorisation by the branch?This is from the Report from the Internet Committee (1st May 2016)."The @World_Socialism Twitter account continues to occasionally post or re-tweet items which without comment could be construed as supporting other parties and movements. Some confusion exists between two very simmilarly named accounts [@WorldSocialism and @World_Socialism]. It is unclear just who “owns” the accounts. The committee finds the branch unresponsive to their enquiries." The EC rejects the accusation that the Internet Committee has exceeded its Terms of Reference and resolves to take no further action on this matter.” With regard to the Twitter account @WorldSocialism the EC also resolve:(1) To ask NERB to confirm whether @World_Socialism is their Twitter account, and if so, what arrangements they have made to ensure it is under editorial control. A reply is requested no later than the date of the next EC meeting (4th June 2016)(2) In the absence of any satisfactory reply the next EC meeting will consider further:(a) authorising the Internet Committee to take action as suggested in their Report of 26th March 2016,(b) whether any further action is required in respect of the actions of individual Party members.It seems you are determined to continue sowing seeds of distraction and confusion so the these two important issues of accountability and authorisation are not addressed under the party rules.  In short, you are deliberately avoiding the democratic decision making process as set out by Conference and the membership.

[Brian]

This report seems to have put this issue to rest:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36231138

[Brian]

ALB wrote:

For comparison, here's the result in the same constituency in last year's general election:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/W07000047Turnout then was 60% compared with 40% on Thursday.

This result confirms that the election strategy adopted by Swansea Branch in 2014 " To ascertain support for the party case  in Swansea West" was correct.  We now know, from the three elections contested, there are at least 50 committed supporters for socialism in Swansea West.The next step is to ensure these supporters are provided with every opportunity to approach us face-to-face on the streets, at meetings, through letters to the press and during local elections.

[Brian]

AHS wrote:

Brian wrote:

You claim to have read our statement on the EU referendum.  If so you need to weigh up your assumptions above against this little gem, "A State can choose that its government and parliament take the decisions required to comply with capitalism’s basic economic law (as the leavers want) or it can delegate some of these decisions to some inter-governmental body (as at present and as the stayers support), but in the end it doesn’t matter who makes the decision. Nor where, whether London or Brussels. the decision is made."The EU referendum is, like our statement explains, just another political and economic argument amongst the boss class.  For those who are supportive of either side of this argument by default they are also supportive of capitalism.

While the EU referendum may indeed be just another argument amongst the "boss class", the EU constitutes a much wider arena for the class struggle than the UK does. Do we wish to fight the good fight only here in the UK or at a European level? After all, the European level is one step closer to the world level.For me the referendum is about the size of the arena, parliamentary and otherwise, within which to make the case for socialism. Wanting to carry on the fight for socialism within the EU is NOT being supportive of capitalism. After all, do we not want this party to have a place at the table? Folding one's arms and saying "nothing to do with me" is being supportive of capitalism.

In or out of the EU does not restrict the class struggle.  And we don't say its "nothing to do with me" what we are saying is to abstain from the bosses struggle(s) and support the struggle for socialism.  Your narrow vision of class struggle implies the struggle will benefit more from an area by area approach when the examples of class of class struggle are global in their effects rather than being isolated to one particular trading bloc.

[Brian]

You claim to have read our statement on the EU referendum.  If so you need to weigh up your assumptions above against this little gem, "A State can choose that its government and parliament take the decisions required to comply with capitalism’s basic economic law (as the leavers want) or it can delegate some of these decisions to some inter-governmental body (as at present and as the stayers support), but in the end it doesn’t matter who makes the decision. Nor where, whether London or Brussels. the decision is made."The EU referendum is, like our statement explains, just another political and economic argument amongst the boss class.  For those who are supportive of either side of this argument by default they are also supportive of capitalism.

[Brian]

DJP wrote:

Normal user can't "block" themselves nor delete their own accounts.The moderator is viewing the site with elevated permissions.If anyone doesn't want to use the site anymore the best thing to do is to cancel any email notifications and then stop logging in.

So how come when I sign to my account  under Brian the Edit is visible and when clicked the Blocked and Active boxes appear?

[Author]

Posts