Brian
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
mcolome1 wrote:jondwhite wrote:Nothing wrong with being active, as long is its not for activity's sake ie. activism.
That is all what they do
For an example of that see here: http://climateandcapitalism.com/2014/01/25/towards-european-ecosocialist-action-network/
ALB wrote:That's not bad at all. Ok it's a bit of an underconsimption theory of crisis ("He argued that the relentless drive for profits would lead companies to mechanize their workplaces, producing more and more goods while squeezing workers' wages until they could no longer purchase the products they created.") but let's not look a gift horse in the mouth or nit-pick (too much).Has this magazine got a circulation in Britain? If so, it might be worth placing an appropriate ad in it to follow this up.Its global, reformist: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics
How long is it going to take to decide on a short program of activity – an hour tops – with all the experience and skills you have in the N.E.! How long is it going to take to write up a Statement of Intent – less than hour – with the breadth of understanding available in the N.E. ! How long is it going to take for comrades to acknowledge that such display of motivation is based on a committment to positive socialist activity -minutes!
Vin Maratty wrote:I thought I might regret rereaising this matter but I am pleasantly suprised and appreciate the positive attitides. I have applied to rejoin NE branch of which I was previously a member.Good on you. If you all put your skates on and get it sorted before Conference it will be welcomed by the delegates and hopefully promote a lively discussion on the resolution calling for the EC to officially close the Branch, albeit at some time in the future.Obviously questions will be asked that its purely to get you back in the party. So be ready with a 'Statement of Intent' which clearly states that the N.E. Branch is back on the party map with a written program of activity planned for the months ahead.
In reference to #97 my mistake, and thanks Dave. I stand corrected. In reference to #99 the sooner this comes about the better for all concerned. For this relatively small step will eventually mean bringing this matter to a head.
Vin Maratty wrote:Brian wrote:There is a problem with all applicants having the right to appeal to Conference in that it opens up the possibility of Conference business being taken up with day-to-day party administration. Which is not the business of Conference but of the EC.I agree. Perhaps: " An applicant rejected by the the EC but has otherwised displayed an understanding and acceptance of the object and declaration of priciples shall have the right of appeal to Delegate Meeting or the Annual Conference.” By the way, Brian, I was a member of central branch as I don't think NE branch was operational at the time of my application.
I've already thought of that but only in relation to former members. Presently, under a Conference decision former members do not have to re-apply through the questionnaire. Their application is based on the acceptance of the object and declaration of principles.Which is why I'm puzzled on your rejection, and can only mean your rejection must be based on your past behaviour. And like I've stated previously, there have been quite a few members who like myself have left the party under a cloud of possibly facing charges of action detrimental. But after a period of years re-applied with few if any objections being raised. On top of this there is the confusion caused by the EC asking you twice to re-consider and now rejecting your application. Where is the logic in this was put to Swansea Branch and they overwhelmingly agreed there is none and promptly informed the EC.OK even if you did apply to join Central Branch my suggestion to get the N.E. Branch back on the party map still stands.
Vin Maratty wrote:Brian you have mentioned Action Detrimental before but as I pointed out the EC voted to delay acceptance of my Form F to give me time to reconsider my decision to leave; not once but twice. That does not appear to be the actions of an Executive Committee preparing to charge me under rul 31! I have suggested an amendment to Rule 1 of the party rule book." An applicant rejected by the the EC shall have the right of appeal to Delegate Meeting or the Annual Conference.” As Rule one goes at the moment the EC can decide who enters or re enters the party, without giving any reasons. An applicant has no right of appeal.In contrast a member who is actually expelled for action detrimental has the right of appeal to conference and ADM under Rule 29This suggestion is not technically an ammendment but an addition to Rule 1., in that it does not alter or amend the present text. However, if the right to appeal to Conference (not ADM) only applied to applications from former members it would admitedly make for a more democratic procedure. There is a problem with all applicants having the right to appeal to Conference in that it opens up the possibility of Conference business being taken up with day-to-day party administration. Which is not the business of Conference but of the EC.Under the present rules and conference decisions the EC would not have been able to bring charges against you of action detrimental. They are only allowed to bring charges against members of Central Branch and seeing you were not a member of Central Branch – but on paper a member of the N.E. Branch – any charges would have been a matter for the Branch. However, because the N.E. Branch is effectively only a paper branch unfortunately it means your present application to re-join is being dealt by the EC.A practical way out of this mess – from my point of view – is for the N.E. Branch to put itself back on the party map, and for you to re-apply through the Branch. If then the EC decides not to ratify your application the Branch can then turn to Conference and attempt to overturn the ruling through a Conference vote.Whatever action you decide to take you have my support in your endeavours. Indeed, I'm just has puzzled as your good self on the reasons for the rejection of your application to rejoin. This is a party mess and like all such messes it can only be sorted out by the membership.
Vin Maratty wrote:I ask this because I intend to address the Annual Conference as an appeal against my rejected Form A but I do not know what I am defending myself against!If this is the case it will be up to the Standing Orders to accept your request. Then it will be up to the delegates to agree to hear your appeal. Then it will be up to them to propose a floor resolution addressed to the EC recommending your application be accepted. And at each step of this process you will encounter resistance. If you are up to all that you deserve to be welcomed back into the party on the merit of determination alone!Sadly, you should have not have resigned in the first place. And if charges had been brought against you so what? A sincere apology at the special meeting would have sufficed and you would have made your point and still be a member.
alanjjohnstone wrote:12 years for the Bloody Sunday inquiry5 years for the Chilcot Iraq inquiryA year for fracking…is it too much of a rush to judgement?You forgot to mention Hillsborough which far longer than those two combined!
steve colborn wrote:The economic benefits of the fracking boom have been challenged as being over-hyped and short-lived. As the industry has overproduced its own product, driving the price of natural gas down to historic lows, companies have been forced to shut in operations in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.This is its Achilles' heel within capitalism. But having said that if a socialist society agrees that fracking is found to be feasible and potential risks can be mitigated, and also there is no scientific reason for opposing its adoption – there is no doubt it will become part of the energy strategy for maintaining human needs.In the meantime we don't support this technology of resource extraction due to the lack of scientific investigation on the risks involved.My pennyworth.
ALB wrote:Surely you were not expecting Robert Peston to explain value within capitalism, were you?Anyway, as value is an expression of a social relationship (between people organised in separate units producing goods and services for sale) once this social relationship is ended (through the establishment of the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production by society as a whole) value disappears. Simple. Anybody can understand that, can't they?Nice one! Now have a bash at explaining value within capitalism – simply – and if you can follow on from where Robert Preston left off by simply explaining the value of labour power it would be great. Or is it necessary to explain use and exchange value before we head down that road?By the way don't worry about proofreading I'll take care of that. Lol.
If the first sentenced was amended to read, "You are given £1 a week because the people who 'imagine they' look after you think that's fair." It provides a simple explanation on how class conflict comes about but the article requires further development on explaining value within capitalism.As for bringing the end to value in socialism that's for another thread.
ALB wrote:I see that the main speaker for the proposition is Martin Jacques, formerly of the old "Communist" Party. He can't be returning to his roots can he? I thought he'f moved a long way since those days. Didn't he end up as an adviser to Blair or something?Either way of his past, a few party members scattered in the audience would have a field day at this event.
alanjjohnstone wrote:If we simply accept Gramci's hegemony of capitalist cultural dominance theory tacked on to the fact that Marx said that the ideas of the ruling class are the prevailing ideas of all society, there is no hope of socialism.Once more we are all in search of how and why and when will class/socialist consciousness spontaneous arise. Once more we ask ourselves how do we reach the point where the power of knowledge of the person behind the vote is used to get political power. i have no idea despite all the pat explanations that class struggle produces this consciousness for socialism …if it does it should be here now without any need for us in the socialist/syndicalist parties if we accept the premise of it being deterministic and automatic development of class dynamics.Class consciousness is not necessarily determined by class dynamics, or an automatic development , and even of direct involvement in class struggle. If it were how do we explain the significant number who left the party and joined the opposition? Does this mean they are no longer class conscious in every single case?But this only suggests we hold a very narrow definition of 'class consciousness' in that it equals a basic support for our case. If we were to broaden the definition it would not only include ' the thin red line' but also some supporters of Zeitgeist.
LBird wrote:Brian wrote:Or, 'How can you have a democracy when a minority own the means of living?'Yeah, parliamentary democracy means 'One pound, one vote'.We have to argue over the meaning of 'democracy', and insist that until there is 'One person, one vote' in the economy, then 'democracy' will remain the sham that it is, at present, in all countries that profess to be 'democratic'.
Of course and that is exactly what we do. But having said that you have to be ready with a feasible alternative which can only outline possibilities on how Direct Participatory Democracy (DPD) may function. Any attempt to draw up a blue print – by projecting speculation on the conditions of the future would only lead to misunderstandings, besides being undemocratic and dogmatic.But nevertheless an excellent opportunity to distribute party literature.
