[Ed]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

My view has been consistent if you have followed my discussions. My original gripe was the un moderated personal attacks against forum members by party members.  Preventing forum members launching personal attacks is not censorship. It is one of the main reasons for moderation.I really don't know how many times I need to repeat myself. The posts I have had moderated were not personal attacks. The forum is not the place to make personal attacks on other members.Another Strawman I'm afraid, Adam:-)

This is completely non-factual, what will it take for you to stop spinning these lies? The fact of the matter is you asked for me to be moderated after I had used the word "shit" and "bullshit" to critique someone's argument. It was not a personal attack by any stretch of the imagination. Yet you did indeed try to have me censored for it. As a result of the subsequent happenings big questions were asked about how the party's internet forums are moderated. This has lead to a hardened position where moderators are more afraid of being accused of "gross negligence" through inaction than they are by taking the wrong action. Ironically you ended being the biggest victim of the new stance that moderators were forced to take. At what point do you have to start questioning how much of what keeps happening is down to your behaviour and not solely the fault of the party?

[Ed]

SocialistPunk wrote:

EdI am sorry for being a bit snappy on my last post. I have a flu like illness right now, I feel like shit and suspect it will lead to a chest infection and medical intervention. The joys of Cystic Fibrosis.

Don't worry about it bro, I'm a little under the weather myself, it's going around at the moment. Steve's right, it was to him. Thanks for pointing me to Spopen (a forum I don't usually read) otherwise I would have continued to be bemused.

[Ed]

You do realize they're talking about Steve Coleman and not you? Have you "served as specialist adviser to the House of Commons Information Select Committee inquiry on ICT and public participation in Parliament, policy adviser to the Cabinet Office, a member of the Royal Society committee on public engagement in science and a member of the Puttnam Commission on parliamentary communication with the public." 

[Ed]

This is the relevant part to which I was referring

Quote:

The S.P.G.B. is always ready to consider new facts and phases when these present themselves, and therefore the question of whether Socialist representatives should support any such measures in Parliament, is one that we do not, in January 1910, pretend to answer.

Clearly that's not a position is it? I have my personal opinion which is workers cannot run capitalism in their own interests. No reform is in the interests of workers which would indicate how we should vote, if at all. My understanding is that it would be debated and voted upon at the time. Are you trying to tell me it's already pre-decided? It would be a crying shame if the party ever made it that far to suddenly turn around and end up like the Guesdists.

[Ed]

First time I did it I was a little genorous with my answers and I got Emerging service workers. I did it again giving slightly harsher answers and I got precariat. The questionaire is rubbish it's even worse than the political compass, far too narrow. And as ever they draw no distinction between social and economic class.

[Ed]

Alex Woodrow wrote:

Ed, I guess you could well be right regarding the European election BUT, if we stood in regions, then we need to do LOTS of work so people see that we care about people in this region unlike other candidates who are full of nothing but sleaze.When I mean lots of work, I mean both before the election and after if elected. Though anyway, this is an opportunity for the party, and I am willing to help the party as much as possible so we can spread our message of people power democracy, but we all need to pull our weight because this will not be easy. Nevertheless it will be worth it in the end.

Yeah I agree, it was actually my main concern about contesting every region and why the EC will make the final decision after corresponding with the local branches. The other thing about which elections to stand in is creating a continued presence where people see that we're not a flash in the pan. Council elections are better for that. So I guess I'm saying that there are pro's and cons to both strategies.

[Ed]

J Surman wrote:

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1910/no-76-december-1910/case-free-love-some-capitalist-hypocrisies-exposedDon't understand how this happened – This link to a relevant article in the Socialist Standard from 1910 came by e-mail in response to a post but I don't see it on the forum thread. It says what we've been saying, and more.Thanks to the one who posted it. No need to explain!

I posted it in the post that now says retracted. While there is a lot of good stuff in there which is still very relevant. When I re-read it I found some parts which I found objectionable. Stuff about "degenerate kids" and so on.

[Ed]

Alex Woodrow wrote:

I agree with SocialistPunk that we read into Alan's comments a bit too much. I don't mean to go on about this subject Ed but it's just, if you don't want us to focus too much on Council seats then, may I ask, what is your alternative?

I don't think I've said that and it's not my position. I think the amount of propaganda generated through the Brixton Hill by election was very positive and worthwhile. However, it's not a patch on the amount we would generate from say contesting a whole nation such as Wales or Scotland. To put this in context in the European elections there are only two constituencies in Wales and three in Scotland. For covering either of those nations we would get a three minute thirty party political broadcast on national television instantly reaching hundreds of thousands of workers maybe even millions. Alternatively I don't know anyone who pays any attention to local council elections we also have to work quite hard to generate the media response that we do get from them. Leafleting ourselves or at a cost to the party whereas with the European elections our leaflets would be distributed by the Royal Mail. Contesting council elections on a grand scale also requires us to have many more members than we currently do who are willing to stand for election. Many don't even want their names recorded in branch minutes let alone as a name on a local ballot sheet.Finally I see the party's role in contesting elections as purely propagandist. We should only be doing it in order to get people thinking about capitalism. To do otherwise would be to fall into the trap of parliamentarianism. My position is that we should take absolutely no part in the running of capitalism. While if elected to a parliamentary seat it would provide us with a great deal of propaganda in a council seat it would seem fairly petty taking that position over whether the town should have a new set of swings for the park.So as ever we should be looking to reach as many people as possible with our message rather than trying to find the best way to get elected.

[Ed]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Hi EdPost #27

alanjohnstone wrote:

I think what you would like to see, SP, is an example of local activism which would be the Independent Working Class Association centred around Oxford who successfully managed to build up a local power base and gained council seats.  The project fizzled out due to the fact that reformists cannot run capitalism in the interests of our class.

Maybe Alex and myself read more into Alans words than he meant, but they seemed to suggest I advocate a socialist run council, trying to make the system work for the people.Sorry if I'm the one who's got it wrong!I'll give the matter of elected socialists some thought and get back to you later. I'm a bit tired now.

Yeah I'm pretty sure he was referring to the IWCA. However, as I pointed out it wasn't because they are reformists that they cannot run capitalism but because workers cannot run capitalism in their own interests. They are bound to the restrictions of the market and because self exploitation does not make it any better, it's still exploitation after all.Good night mate look forward to hearing your views on what actions an elected socialist should take.

[Ed]

SocialistPunk wrote:

I would genuinely like you to give me details. I think it important that such efforts are shared, it may help others. If I am barking up the wrong tree, I am not afraid to admit it. I would love to be shown wrong, as it would suggest things are on the up for real socialism.So far all I am getting are false accusations leveled at me for daring to suggest all is not going well. 

I'm in Kent and Sussex branch so if I get details about other branches wrong or slightly incomplete then I apologise.Kent & Sussex have recently had a very positive meeting with a group called the Wealden Progressive Movement. We plan to set up a discussion forum to discuss capitalism, alternatives, organization and well whatever else. The local zeitgeist chapter have already accepted and invitations to other groups and advertising the meetings locally will all be done in the near future.West Midlands branch are also in the process of organizing a discussion forum with another group, which will be held in Leicester. I believe that's quite a distance for them to travel.East Anglia which from my perception is probably our most dynamic branch (no offense to anyone else) regularly attend various meetings of many groups. One that was mentioned was a philosophy discussion group with a wide array of views. From my knowledge East Anglia tend to get more visitors than any other branch and I've been told that it is the result of attending as many groups as they can.I'm sure other branches are doing exactly the same thing. It's just I specifically spoke to members of these branches about this yesterday. Apart from these forums which I think are a great opportunity to put the socialist case to those who are interested in discussing it. I think we all do stalls on occasion. I find them a little hit and miss sometimes you get great interactions and sometimes no-one stops to talk to you. We also attend various trade union festivals, I believe we've got an ex-miners one coming up in the near future. Our next branch meeting we'll be discussing how to contact the protesters at Sussex university to investigate the "communia" banner.At Kent and Sussex for instance for a long time we've only had 4 regular members attending branch meetings. From now on we'll have 6 regularly attending as a result of this I expect our level of activity will increase (hopefully by 33%). Other branches have more members on paper but only the same few people are attending branch meetings. The more members and or sympathizers that turn up to these meetings the more we can get done on the local level. Of course though our members are all workers who suffer from all the hurdles that capitalism throws in front of them health concerns, financial constraints, travel restrictions, work commitments, family commitments and so on. Those that do attend meetings on a regular basis give up massive amounts of their free time, energy and money to party activity, so some may be slightly offended by the suggestion that they are not doing enough and some may find it slightly disheartening to be constantly reminded that we have so far to go. However, I'm sure that we are all open to positive suggestions about how we could be organizing more effectively on a local level. Like you I am extremely committed to organizing on a local level and believe it's the way forward so lets hear your suggestions?

[Ed]

SocialistPunk wrote:

I would like to ask what activity, and what good is such "socialist activity", if it is not getting across the message effectively after over 100 years? Please keep in mind I was heavily involved in all branch activity during my time in the party.Does the "scientific" in WSM socialism apply to the practice of bringing socialism into existence or only to the analysis of the failings of capitalism?

twc wrote a particularly good post on the processes which determine class conciousness. http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/social-reproductionAs a p.s. I would like to see more articles like this published in the standard on occasion.

[Ed]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Alex Woodrow wrote:

It's fair enough you are question SocialistPunk's views, though SP has not expressed any reformist views so why are you trying to make out that SP is reformist?

I in no way advocate any kind of reformism. Attempts to tar me with that brush are juvenile.

To be honest I don't think anyone has done this. I certainly did not see that in Alan's post.I am interested in both Socialist Punk and Alex's opinion on what a Socialist should do if elected to either a council seat or a parliamentary seat? I should add there's no set party position on this. Rather it would be debated and put to a vote when the candidate is elected. Just interested to know where you guys would stand in that debate.

[Ed]

retracted

[Ed]

Even a civil ceremony is a legal contract between two people giving certain assurances over their shared property in the event that one side does not fulfil their part of the contract.Just to make myself clear I think it would be ridiculous to oppose an event where two people express love for one another with friends and family. I also don't think there's anything wrong with committed monogomous relationships but neither do I think that such relationships are inherently better than any other form of relationship.

[Ed]

Then that's not really the institution of marriage. Especially if it has also lost it's religious signifigance as well.

[Author]

Posts