Brian
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
jondwhite wrote:899 votes in total (averaging 0.19%?) thoughts?
The aim of our election campaign was not about a vote count but to get the case for socialism heard. Now we have to decide on what particular activity will effectively promote the case in the long-term. In this respect there is the Welsh Government elections next year and the EU referendum in 2017. In the meantime we need to encourage individuals to take the canidates test and for more Branches to contest elections, have street stalls, hold public meetings.
What is the point in trying to rationalise the irrational? Such negative discussions go round and round in circles and still come out the other end puzzled, perplexed and confused and dare I say it – irrational in their conclusions?
alanjjohnstone wrote:Apologies if i am showing the LBird trait (apologies to him too for taking his name in vain) …of linking all exchanges to one idiosyncratic purpose….my desire for a special post-election conference on the party and its future.I'm not so sure about having a "special post-election conference on the party and its future" is necessary. I would have thought ADM and Conference is suffice for such a discussion. However, I do urge all candidates, agents and members generally to be making a start on drawing up the positives and negatives so the Election Committee have feedback to add to the list the members of the committee are also drawing up.There will, obviously, be a post-morten by the Election Committee and our findings will be put to the Outreach Committee for further discussion and conclusions. That said, we knew mistakes would be made and accepted that they were part and parcel of the learning curve. We were also aware that there would be some suprises in store. So personally, I'm more than satisfied with our efforts so far and pleased to see that the enquiries for membership are of an even better quality than the Euro elections.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Again, to refer to Howard on his tv appearance, he agreed with Andrew Neil that their are aspects of anarchist influences within the party…but we shouldn't drag him over the coals for admitting that, should we? (another previous section of the SPGB would certainly have done so, IMHO, but happily they went off to do their own thing…)Just a small point, but nevertheless a very important one when discussing the origin of ideas. The ideas of anarchism originated from the socialism tradition. So historically, the anarchists are following us not us following them.This question was put to me during the Euro election on BBC Radio Wales and I pointed out to the interviewer that: In actual fact and historically, its the anarchists who are following us for the idea of anarchism originated with socialism.
With plenty of notice there is no reason why we can't go full out on this with publicity, leaflets, filming, etc.
ALB wrote:I imagine they will be saying that elections are a way of legitimising capitalist rule. They are but of course can also be used to delegitimise itAnd they do acknowledge this in one of their footnotes: 11 The Socialist Party of Great Britian is a notable exception to this rule. The SPGB “claims that there can be no state in a socialist society” and “that socialism will, and must, be a wageless, moneyless, worldwide society of common (not state) ownership”. The SPGB “seeks election to facilitate the elimination of capitalism by the vast majority of socialists, not to govern capitalism.” (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/differences.html) Leaving aside for the moment of whether this is a good strategy or not, it is clear from their party programme that the SPGB does not affirm the basic principles of the capitalist economy.
LBird I see no point in continuing this discussion whilst your capacity for critical thinking is only concerned with distorting everything I've suggested. You appear to be the judge, the jury and the jailer on everything and everyone in order to feed your obsession for endless twaddle that a vote is necessary on all scientific theory.Not satisfied with having a vote by the whole of the global community in a socialist society to establish the scientific method preferred by such a society your insistence that a further vote is necessary on each and every scientific theory illustrates to me at least, that your obsession is dogmatic.
LBird wrote:I’ll try to tie together an answer to the two latter posts, by Brian and Hud955. The class conscious proletariat will enforce a scientific method which is both democratic and comprehensible to the masses. So, rather than priests speaking Latin, or physicists speaking mathematics, we’ll have workers who can translate and explain ‘scientific theories’ in meaningful words in a language that is spoken daily by workers and which is thus open to the consideration of the mass of people on this planet. This would be the context of a science which is controlled by humanity, by democratic production methods. Our science will not be opaque and controlled by an expert elite. To allow this is to deny democratic humanity, to deny a naturalised humanity and a humanised nature.It looks like you introduced a big dent in your obession here with the mention of the scientific method being enforced by DPD. I doubt if any socialist would disagree with that procedure and process being put into practice. For unlike today, it would be a means of identifying science which is useful. Also by putting the theory through the scientific method and examined from all the angles necessary regarding its usefulness, it makes any vote on the actual theory irrelevant. So long has the (new?) scientific method is followed I would have no quarrel with the theory being examined for practical and useful purposes. The method itself should be the judge not the vote.
LBird you have an obsession. However, your obsession is not with communism its with the search for truth in the field of science and the proposition that DPD is capable of providing it. From a theoretical perspective its not necessary and from a practical perspective – logistically – its obviously impractical. And even if it were practical you would be no nearer solving the problem because only a very small minority would actually vote on the thousands of different scientific theories. So you are back to the problem of elitism ruling the roost on truth.Everybody is in agreement that DPD is how production and distribution will be organised in socialism. The question is about recognising that democracy can be a double edged instrument and can hold back social progress. Especially when the search for truth hampers and restricts the advancement of science in the way you are suggesting. For in practice all scientific theories will be on hold until its established by the vote whether or not they are in fact truth.The search for truth will go on whether we vote on it or not and a vote on truth is not the end of the matter.
SocialistPunk wrote:Brian wrote:In my debate with the Greens in Swansea later tonight its their blind contradictions and life on the treadmill which I'll be focusing on so the audience can get a sense of how stopping the treadmill is possible and necessary. I know my opponent will be making the claim that he considers himself an eco-socialist which will get my passion flowing! I will of course be using the paragraph above to hit home the point that the Green strategy is nothing new.Hi Brian,How did it go the other night?
See my report in the election thread.
The debate last night in Swansea with the Greens attracted 19 visitors and 9 members. Their candidate focused on a more robust tax system to provide the investment for the environment, welfare and community. A member mentioned they sounded like old labour.
alanjjohnstone wrote:But they appear blind to the constradictions…the reforms that are possible…reinforces the capitalist system ….and those reforms that are not achievable brings disillusionment or at most keep the movement on the perpetual treadmill of protest endeavouring to obtain them and distracts from the socialist objective….In my debate with the Greens in Swansea later tonight its their blind contradictions and life on the treadmill which I'll be focusing on so the audience can get a sense of how stopping the treadmill is possible and necessary. I know my opponent will be making the claim that he considers himself an eco-socialist which will get my passion flowing! I will of course be using the paragraph above to hit home the point that the Green strategy is nothing new.
ALB wrote:Our candidates in Swansea, Oxford, Islington and Easington have received what must be 400 emails via 39 Degrees about TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership). We've replied to as many as we can.Here's my response.Hi …….,The short answer to your question is capitalism only serves the interests of a wealthy global minority. The long answer is that the Socialist Party of Great Britain is an anti-capitalist party and are completely opposed to the system of wage slavery in all its manifestations, including trading agreements, cartels, monopolies, buying and selling, etc. A brief description on where we stand on TTIP is attached and is taken from our monthly journal theSocialist Standard. However, if you are inclined to question myself personally, on the party case, you have an opportunity to address your concerns at two debates the Swansea Branch are holding with the Green Party and UKIP at 7.30pm on the 9th of March and the 14th April respectively. The venue for both of these debates is the Unitarian Church, High Street, Swansea. Yours For Positive Socialist ActivityBrian JohnsonPPC Swansea WestSocialist Party (GB)
alanjjohnstone wrote:I'm glad it was resolved but their apology appears to be a little mealy-mouthed disingenious …of course, it was intended as the orginally informed us…we were not a "major" party. No decision was made to exclude us…we were simply ignored totally and no invite sent. As for their reference to the Lobbying Act, perhaps someone more in the know can tell me the reference. A quick google left me the impression that it is totally irrelevant to husting but is a financial regulation on payments to support political party campaigns. http://www.bond.org.uk/data/files/campaigns/Bond_-_Lobbying_Act_-_10_key_things_to_know.pdfPerhaps Rob will make an opportunity to remind the hustings that most of them were minor parties at one time …I look forward to the report of the hustingsSee here: http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/169480/sp-hustings-npc-ukpge.pdfIts the difference between holding a 'Selective Hustings' which are regulated and a 'Non-selective Hustings' which are non-regulated plus the declaration of expenses. All candidates must be invited to non-selective hustings and do not have to declare it as election expenses. Whereas with selective hustings the candidates attending have to share the cost of holding the event and advertising and declare them as their election expenses. At the local level attending a selective hustings has been found through experience too complex and argumentive between candidates on the share of the costs. Resulting in post election papers being presented too late for scrutiny, etc. Also the organisation which organises the selective husting, especially if they are a charity, will come under careful scrutiny from the Charity Commisioner and the Electoral Commisioner.Resulting in most hustings are non-selective and in order to qualify as such they must invite all candidates because it causes less trouble in paperwork, etc.
ALB wrote:I'm not sure what to call this truncated theory of democracy. The word "totalitarian" comes to mind but "totalitarian democracy" seems a contradiction in terms. All I can think of for what he's advocating is "the dictatorship of the majority". The trouble is, though, that democracy does involve the majority having its way ("dictating", if you like) but not on everything, not in particular on what people can think and say.Can anybody think of a better term?What about 'compulsory democracy'? Which by the way is how some anarchists describe democracy. Nevertheless, like I've mentioned previously LBird is consistently failing to make the distinction between the democratic method and the decision making process and consequently finding that his arguments are of no practical significance.
