[Brian]

robbo203 wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Wouldn't it be desirable if folk like ourselves, Robbo, unable to attend were able to watch a live video-link of the proceedings?I assume the technology is available and within the capability of the Party to arrangeIn fact, isn't it technically possible that you and i and many others could actually participate directly via our computers with those meeting up in Clapham High St, Robbo?It isn't just only Edwardian language we remain wedded to, but Edwardian methods to communicate and interact and practice our democracy.

 Indeed, Alan,  I remember some years ago my brother Andy made a proposal to the EC about introducing a system of video-conferencing throughout the SPGB.  Andy was in communcation with some company providing this service and was making use of it himself  I dont remember the precise details  or what become of the idea  but it strikes me that this is a proposal well worth revisiting

This will be revisited once the adhoc committee gets off the ground and the party is based on a national membership rather than a branch membership.

[Brian]

robbo203 wrote:

 Quora is  massive and even if only 10-20 members started contributing on a regular basis providing links to this site I am certain you will discover quite a significant increase in activity here

Yes Quora is massive and getting bigger by the day.  What I like about the site is if your answer is found to be popular and upvoted by 4 users it is then automatically distributed  to thousands of users who have a declared interest in the subject matter.   For instance this:  https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-components-of-Marxism/answer/Brian-Johnson-429?__filter__=all&__nsrc__=1&__snid3__=1592250133  was sent to 1000+ users which means at least 3 users from Quora visited this site.Currently, I have 1,537 answers and 196 followers of which at least four have used a link to this site in their answers.  But do the rough maths of 1,600 – 200 and its an approx for every 80 answers I've got 20 users interested in the socialist case. It follows if more socialists join Quora the more likely its users will get to know about the true socialist case.472.8k answer views40.8k this monthAsk yourself do we have that many views in a month on this site?

[Brian]

Vin wrote:

This is a tough one but necessary, I would think we need to start with our existing 'problems': List them and work out what changes would emeliorate them without compromising our democracy. The more input we have the better.Are there any existing models we could look at? Models that have worked for other groups? Or are we looking into the unknown and untested? 

The problems have been mentioned here:  https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/paid-organiser-and-other-paid-membersAs for any existing models we could look at begs the question do we really need to go down that road?  And are we incapable of figuring out for ourselves what measures need to be taken to turn the party into a national membership?

[Brian]

4 members in attendance for another good day in Cardiff.  20-30 leaflets distributed, 3 pamphlets, 4 Socialist Standards and one SOYMB.  Several conversations and our stock needs to be replenished.

[Brian]

Ever since its inception the party based its structure and organisation on a 20th C ‘trade union model’ where its officers are part-time [and unpaid] and the EC are all elected volunteers on an annual basis by the membership to administer party affairs. This structure was fine so long has the party membership was mainly based in London and there were ample volunteers ready to take up these posts. And also the EC met fortnightly. This is no longer the case for the party membership have diversified to all parts of the UK and also the membership has decreased, not only in London but also in other major cities. Which has led to the growth of Central Branch membership, who do not have direct access to the decision making process and are not actively encouraged to become involve in party affairs. Plus the fact the EC now meets on a monthly basis rather than fortnightly. Therefore, what we are witnessing is a diversification of the membership over a larger area of the UK with the knock on effect of a pool of volunteers no longer readily available locally to call on to administer the party through HO. However, what is most dis-concerning is the fact that many of the branches are either inactive or at a very low level of activity. These current issues and problems exemplify that such a structure has some very serious inbuilt disconnects regards to continuity and sustainability when the trade union model is projected to a national level and the EC meet less frequently. And begs the question whether the present structure is fit for purpose given the diversification of the membership. However, the main fault line of such a structure is all these posts [party officers and EC] are mainly reactive rather than proactive due to the fact they only deal with the administration of the party on a monthly basis rather than on a daily basis. And also their reactivity is a reflection of their role as a volunteer. Whereas, with a paid post the person holding the post is expected to be proactive and responding accordingly. Consequently, the remits, responsibilities and roles of all elected posts reflect this status quo. For instance the role of the General Secretary is to minute the proceedings of the EC/Conference/ADM and deal with party correspondence and nothing else. For the GS has no remit or responsibility to administer the day to day running of HO or provide oversight to any of the individuals or committees working from HO.  And when major things go wrong everyone usually has wait until the next meeting of the EC for them to get sorted. Which can lead and does lead to dysfunctionality on the smooth running of party business. A case in point is when a printer or computer breaks down and needs replacing only the EC can order the procurement. Why wait a month when all it takes is a phone call by the GS to the nearest dealer, or ordering over the internet? The fact of the matter is these problems and issues of diversification and the dysfunctional administration at HO is having a major impact on the central activity of the party – which is to propagate socialism – and it needs to be addressed and fixed urgently! If we are to seriously considering ridding ourselves of the major disconnects mentioned above we need to re-evaluate the present dated structure and assess and examine all the possibilities available to us in order to bring the trade union model up to date?

[Brian]

Piper wrote:

I am an activist for a money free world or an RBE.  Many people think that the ideals I talk about are similar to socialism.  One fellow advocate says along the lines of this about you:  "You are by far the most informed and logical authority on the money free society concept"One of the most jarring things about people advocating for the social change to an RBE is that they treat it as a novelty and do not properly educate themselves about what they are talking about so the process is proving slow to get enough people to see the necessity and real possibility of achieving change if we all work together.  When the person I mentioned also said that you were the oldest (by about 100 years) in realising the concept of a money free world I asked that person, "So why haven't they got us to an RBE yet then?"It was suggested that I pose the question to the WSM directly, so I am doing so.Thus, Why have you not yet acheived your object given that you have been around for a quite a while?  Do you truly propose that the society you envision will operate without any money, or indeed any kind of alternative trading mechanism?  Will everything be freely accessible and not in danger of being hoarded or claimed by any one individual again? I have not managed to fully digest your principles yet so if the answers to these questions are in there I would appreciate someone pointing me to specific sentences or paragraphs.Thanks.

Your friend is spot on the button.  The top menu bar About us and Publications in particular is a massive resource on a huge variety of subjects and provides an answer to your query:  https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/depth-articles/socialism/beyond-cynicism Enjoy.

[Brian]

Alan Kerr wrote:

Project Management also calls for choosing.The new society must still choose.How will they choose? Question #386This is really the same question as #289Crusoe also had to choose.For help see this month’s Socialist Standard.But don’t be slow.On the amount of dithering here, average worker will decide that the new society must descend into famine, dictatorship and Lenin’s New Economic Policy.

I take it the article in the Socialist Standard is the 'A World Without Commodities'.  In actual fact Project Management is not about choosing but about assessing what is and what is'nt and reasoning on the disconnects and why they occur and what is necessary to iron them out or replace them with connections which have a positive purpose/outcome.And like Tim confirms its not a matter of choosing but the application of deduction and reasoning on what particular materials are required in a given situation.Or like the article mentions, "If we expand the case of Robinson or the family to a social scale, we have in essence the production relations in a new socialist world. This is what Marx sketches in his next example, where he describes an ‘association of free men’ who are ‘carrying on their work with the means of production in common’ so that the ‘labour-power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour-power of the community’."

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

Brian wrote:

I suspect that when you admit that "you are not sure how the situation itself will obviate the need for conscious human activity" you are not being entirely honest and simply trolling. Because this admitance is in all honesty simply saying you don't understand the situation.   Pull the other one!Indeed by understanding the situation you would be fully aware that the outcome is a conscious human activity where the voluntary associated producers have decided that given all the relevant factors involved they have to determine what is appropriate and acceptable to arrive at a given outcome.The 'we' that do 'decide' is everything and everybody involved in drying the boards.  And that involves the facts of the situation which includes how the boards are dried and the urgency on drying the boards.  Indeed all they will be doing is applying the basic principles of Project Management (look it up). Which may or may not require a vote to be taken for it depends on the "situation".Anything else you are not sure about?

[my bold]Yeah, I'm not sure why you can't read what you write."the situation itself" is not "understanding the situation".'itself' excludes 'understanding', whereas 'understanding' includes 'understanding'.Anything else you are not sure about, including you own thoughts?And I note that your chosen political method is the well-known (and despised) bourgeois "basic principles of Project Management", which conspicuously don't include 'democracy' as a 'basic principle'.Isn't there anyone in your party prepared to defend the 'basic principles of Democratic Socialism', rather than serve as cheerleaders for bourgeois ideology, like PM? (look it up, as ideology)

Again I suspect you are trolling otherwise you would admit that the basic principles of Project Management under Democratic Socialism will be conducted with [and carry] no ideolgical bias, or baggage. If I recollect you are a big fan of deduction and not so for induction.  Pity, because under socialism both will prevail and find their expression of harmonisation within Project Management.  Deduction:  An amount that is deducted.  Induction:  A method of reasoning that proceeds from particular premises to reach a general conclusion.In a nutshell PM is about deducting was is'nt and reasoning what is.If you are so sure that your hypothesis on the basic principles of Democratic Socialism is the correct one surely you would take the opportunity of responding to the question by Alan Kerr?  But then you are not sure about anything are you for you are afraid to admit that Democratic Socialism has its limitations.

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

Brian wrote:

The decision reached will be based on …  There will be no need for a vote when the situation itself will determine the outcome. 

[my bold]I'm not sure how 'the situation itself' will obviate the need for conscious human activity, Brian.

Brian wrote:

In short, we will decide when and if its appropriate and acceptable to use technology in a given situation.

[my bold]Ahhh… so, it's not 'the situation itself', then?So, 'who' is the 'we' that do 'decide'?And, 'how' does this 'we' make a decision, if not by democratic means ("no need for a vote")?

I suspect that when you admit that "you are not sure how the situation itself will obviate the need for conscious human activity" you are not being entirely honest and simply trolling. Because this admitance is in all honesty simply saying you don't understand the situation.   Pull the other one!Indeed by understanding the situation you would be fully aware that the outcome is a conscious human activity where the voluntary associated producers have decided that given all the relevant factors involved they have to determine what is appropriate and acceptable to arrive at a given outcome.The 'we' that do 'decide' is everything and everybody involved in drying the boards.  And that involves the facts of the situation which includes how the boards are dried and the urgency on drying the boards.  Indeed all they will be doing is applying the basic principles of Project Management (look it up). Which may or may not require a vote to be taken for it depends on the "situation".Anything else you are not sure about?

[Brian]

Alan Kerr wrote:

This question is to everyone.Let’s say that we have got rid of capitalist society.Let’s say that new society needs some wood.New society must fell and cut trees into boards.Next new society must dry boards.The new society must choose.Will they 1) air dry or 2) kiln dry?How will they choose?There’s no need to answer that they will choose by votes.In that case, I will just need to ask how voter will choose.I do not ask if they will choose 1 or 2.But I do ask how they choose. 

Good question.  The decision reached will be based on what production facilities they have available in order to dry the wood.  If no kiln is available they will have to resort to air drying.  However, if a kiln is available and there's no rush to dry the boards they could decide for nature to take its course through air drying.The decision arrived at will be based on practicality and the pragmatic use of available resources and the urgency or priorities for drying the boards.  There will be no need for a vote when the situation itself will determine the outcome.  In short, we will decide when and if its appropriate and acceptable to use technology in a given situation.

[Brian]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

At the risk of straying from the topic, MB's latest offering on Dissident Vocehttps://dissidentvoice.org/2017/09/the-limits-and-deficiencies-of-dialectical-and-historical-materialism/#more-71852The article  "The Limits and Deficiencies of Dialectical and Historical Materialism (An Abstract of the Principles of Anarcho-Historical-Relativism)"is a very lengthy, very wordy one and i still have not given it a proper read.

Basically its yet another attempt to reiterate Descartes hypothesis 'I think, therefore I am' by clumping the whole cabdoodle of dialectic, historical and materialism in one wordy mishmash so it attains the desired result by swamping the intellect.LBird better get in there quick he's got a supporter to bring to the table.

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

Matt wrote:

Ultimately the people will decide…

I agree, Matt. That's why I think that the SPGB has the potential to develop workers' consciousness, in a way that the SWP, for example, hasn't. You're saying something that the Leninists don't.All you have to say to reinforce and complete your statement is to add 'truth'.That is, "Ultimately the people will decide truth".If you do agree, we're plain sailing.If you don't, who or what  decides truth?It's a simple question, Matt. Why won't the SPGB answer this political question?

Yes ultimately the people will decide " .. … in which applications of findings is the most appropriate, for their local, regional or global circumstances."  Such an edit fits in well with your lack of understanding on democracy and truth.

[Brian]

MBellemare wrote:

 May be we are talking two different languages, from two different paradigms, Marcos, Robbo etc. However, I do think, there are pathways where we do agree. However, the concept of creative-power, versus the strict Marxist parameters of scientifically quantifiable labor-time, appears to be an point of conflict…. that may remain unresolved…….  Michel Luc Bellemare

Exactly.  You are taking a subjective view whilst we are looking at the issue of value from the objective.  As a matter of fact you are using exactly the same argument has the green enconomists:  https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2007/no-1237-september-2007/can-capitalism-ever-be-green

[Brian]

Another good day on the 5th August. Four members turned up to man the stall. Had a party sympathiser drop by who picked up the latest Socialist Standard, and a back issue, plus a leaflet.   Several conversations with people stopping at the stall and handed out about 30+ leaflets.

[Brian]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

And Brian, stop gloating…you only got 96 votes

I'm not gloating far from it and it's the party not I who got 92 not 96 votes.  Indeed I incessantly promoted 'it's the case not the face' approach and consistently put over the message we were out to attract convinced socialists.  Much to the disbelief to those attending the last hustings.I've always promoted and favoured a long term election strategy which remains focused on consistently contesting specific and targeted constituencies.  In other words, wandering from constituency to constituency is not going to do us any favours.  

[Author]

Posts