[DJP]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I have suggested that we try the same with Kids Stuff…produce stand alone short clips from it

I think short clips are the way forward.This clip came through on my facebook feed this morning, not too bad if a little vague. Haven't watched the full film.http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/the-one-simple-truth-about-our-existence-that-everyone-needs-to-know/

[DJP]

robbo203 wrote:

he will continue to have zero credibility in my book

I'm sure the majority of people here think that, so therefore it must be true.. 

[DJP]

Vin wrote:

I notice a twitter account has been set up:worldsocialism@spgbinternetWhat comes after the @ I think it is more important. We need to take @worldsocialism before someone else does. It is suspended at the moment.

 We've already laid claim to@worldsocialism that's why it is suspended. The @spgbinternet is a tempory account name which will be switched to @worldsocialism once someone at Twitter pushes the right button…

[DJP]

Does he offer an explanation that, given there ability to create money out of thin air, banks choose not to utilise this when facing collapse? The books have to balance in the end, even if there is not an instantanious drawing from reserves the moment a loan is issued….

[DJP]

Vin wrote:

And your point of poking fun at 'people like' Brand? On a forum that is trying to attract members? 

Last time I checked this wasn't the Russell Brand fan club and religious mysticism was a bar on membership so I don't know what you're going on about..Criticising mysticism might even attract the right kind of people.. But that's another subject for another time..

[DJP]

Vin wrote:

Or perhaps you can explain what the video has to do with this discussion

I thought it was fairly self explanitory. It's poking fun at people (like Brand) who talk about 'spirituality' and showing, in a comedic way, how meaningless the term really is…

[DJP]

Perhaps he’s ‘ultra-spiritual’ rather than ‘spiritual’

[DJP]

ALB wrote:

The BBC have sent us a clip of what was broadcast but it's complicated to get to look at. Don't know if this will get you there.

Now on our youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUCtS7LU0y4

[DJP]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

I read the first issue that criticized the spgb for its hostility toward other parties which have the same goal and aim. Why does the spgb prevent you from associating with other parties and why is the spgb so hostile toward them? If we were to unite with like minded parties we could make a bigger difference and socialist ideas would spread faster. 

Which other parties with the sam goal and aim? There aren't any…

[DJP]

robbo203 wrote:

As I understand it, Kliman's argument is in part  that the  “slaughtering of the values of capitals”, has not been sufficient to offset the fall in the rate of profit since the 1970s and this is why economic growth has been comparatively weak, historically speaking, despite the ending of recession

Yes, I think that's about right he sees these conditions as an underlying factor contributing to the great recession..

[DJP]

There's nothing wrong with discussion for sure. But suggestions posted here will not automatically reach who ever it is that needs to see them…

[DJP]

..Like was said previously, if anyone has any suggestions about the twitter account (or any other suggestions relating to another committee etc) they are best of contacting that individual / committee concerned rather than posting messages about it here…@OfficialSPGB can be contacted via private message on twitter…

[DJP]

jondwhite wrote:

This doesn't seem like a non-commital position taken by the party in 1992 to me.

Quote:

this Conference instructs the EC to ensure that … all writers and speakers in the presentation and content of our case lay stress upon the positive aspects of it, i.e. they should ensure that we are understood to be advocates of a new world society,  where sound ecological values underlie productive activities

Of course we are not non-commital when it comes to "sound ecological values" but the question then remains, "what is sound ecologically".To be honest we, as a political party not a scientific advisory board,  do not have all the expertise and knowledge required to really know all the details when it comes to certain technologies, eg. if fracking (or nuclear power of GMO) can or could be done in a way that is not damaging to the environment then we would have no reason to oppose it. But this ultimately is a question for people in socialism to decide, once the profit motive no longer clouds the issue, we should not dictate to the future…First warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

[DJP]

steve colborn wrote:

I do indeed oppose fracking

You're free to have you're own opinion on this but should election candidates really be stating positions that have not been agreed on by the party as a whole? Or if they do should they not emphasise that this is their own opinion and not that of the party?

[DJP]

robbo203 wrote:

Profits can fall for reasons other than a change in the organic compostion of capital and the latter is too slow a process to account for a crisis anyway –  at least as I understand it.

Seems to me that you've understood Kliman too simplistically. See the interview in the Standard and this exchange with David Harvey:http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/economic-crisis/harvey-versus-marx-on-capitalisms-crises.html

[Author]

Posts