[Ed]

What possible function could the institution of marriage serve in a propertyless society?

[Ed]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

  The project fizzled out due to the fact that reformists cannot run capitalism in the interests of our class.  

I would substitute reformists with workers. Workers cannot run capitalism in their own interests they are reformists because they think/thought they can.

[Ed]

gnome wrote:

Alex Woodrow wrote:

Anyway gnome, may I ask, in what regions do the Socialist Party of Great Britain plan to stand in come the next european election?

This has yet to be decided but there was overwhelming support at the Party Conference only a couple of days ago in favour of contesting the 2014 European Parliamentary elections.  It could be that we stand in Wales and/or Scotland or even in all the regions which is what I would personally like to see.

Well there was signifigant skepticism over whether we could contest every region in the UK, which was the original subject. A floor resolution was passed unanimously to pursue either the Scottish or Welsh elections. After consultation with the local branches. Two of which were unable to attend conference.

[Ed]

SocialistPunk wrote:

My point is, the party is failing to tap into the frustration that is out there in the real world. Part of that failure is due to an aloof stance. It comes across a bit like the old saying "everyone is marching out of step, except our…..party".

Sorry but the vast majority of the world's population is wrong about capitalism. This includes the left. This of course does not mean that the party are the only genuine socialists but we are significantly different than all the rest. You seem to be suggesting that we change our position to pander to popular opinion and abandon scientific socialism.

SocialistPunk wrote:

Sometimes simple gestures, can have a powerful effect on how others perceive us as individuals or groups. But it looks like ALB sees them as mere "caricatures", with no use. No aloof stance there then?Sorry if it is a little uncomfortable ALB, but it wouldn't take too much energy for the SPGB to reach out and try to make friends every once in a while.

I know for a fact that individual branches and the party do, do this. Members spent a lot of time talking to the occupy movement when it was around. We've been incredibly patient and understanding towards the zeitgeist movement, even though some of their members and especially their speakers are a million miles away from our position, which renders meetings with them extremely frustrating, yet we persist in engaging with them. On a local level I could specifically name what three branches are currently doing right now to reach out to their local communities and that's not even including the stuff that comes up during the year like stalls and local trade union festivals and so on. Could we be doing more of this? Of course and every single branch would love to and would be able to if more members were active within their branches.Perhaps if more branches were to publish their minutes online there would be a greater understanding of the work they do.

[Ed]

I'm not sure how useful "omnia sunt communia" would be as a slogan for us. Surely the point is to try to make ourselves more accessible. Not require workers to have a basic knowledge of latin to be able to read it. 

[Ed]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

Ed, are you suggesting the SPGB should not take advantage of the horrors of capitalism in order to bring about a socialist majority?

haha good point

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

I do understand where you are coming from.  Perhaps the party could simply give our sisters the same conditional support it gives the TU movement

But we don't give support to trade unions in the form of signing petitions to the authorities. Especially not asking for prosecutions, no matter how vile the crime. If the petition was for the abolition of capitalism and class society with this incident as the focal point, then yeah, it might be worth consideration. But really all this is, is a plea to further liberalization.I think an article for the standard and a blog post voicing our concern with the treatment of women at the hands of ideologues would be more appropriate.

[Ed]

SocialistPunk wrote:

ALB wrote:

It seems that the ex-Muslims have got things well in hand on their front. Good luck to them.

So much for solidarity.I expect rejecting any religion that you were born into is a big life changing commitment, and may see such individuals more open to real socialist ideas. If contact showing solidarity and support is not attempted how can the WSM expect to make any inroads with sections of the working class that may be more immediately open to an alternative to the misery that is thrown up by a controlling minority, of religious, political or economic minded control freaks.Good luck to the WSM.

So we should sign it in solidarity? Or to try to take advantage of their desperate situation in the hope of converting a few people?Insubstantial gestures or cynical opportunism.

[Ed]

I've always maintained that Chavez is not the issue in Venezuela but the Venezuelan workers themselves are. In my opinion there isn't a more progressive working class anywhere in the world. Chavez's government unlike the Bolsheviks and their clones actually turned workplaces over to the control of workers. I first came across the Grafitos movement a couple of years ago when they marched in their hundreds of thousands, for the workers control reforms which Chavez agreed to in 2008. They were marching because Chavez had not been implementing them fast enough. So what does this say about Chavez? Well the fact that he agreed to the demands of workers to turn the control of nationalized industries over to them says a lot. I'm not saying he was a socialist, not by a long shot. But while in government the Venezuelan workers movement has flourished with a level of democracy in workplaces unseen anywhere else and a working class with the desire not only to defend but expand this concept. There's still abject poverty in the slums of Caracas, with one of the highest homicide rates of any city in the world, a ridiculously corrupt prison system and probably plenty more very bad stuff. But it comes down to the old question, what happens if a radical leader comes to power before the rest of the world is ready for socialism? Engels answer was that he would be "irrevocably lost" and that has certainly been the case in every instance since. However, Chavez has done better than most in this impossible situation. If you can't abolish capitalism what's the least you can do? Increase workers democracy and foster a strong independent workers movement. So for me Chavez is worthy of respect but certainly not emulation. There's also something I found very endearing about his unreserved attitude towards the USA and others. In the end I'm hard pressed to think of another social democrat who was more successful than Chavez.

[Ed]

steve colborn wrote:

BTW, wtf is an ableist joke? Steve.

Ableism is a form of prejudice or discrimination against those with a disablity. An ableist joke is a joke about someone's disability. I was asking about the context of your remark about MS affecting your hearing. It didn't make sense to me, especially to someone with partial hearing.

[Ed]

It's not a voting issue, it's an item for discussion not a motion. To me it seems quite obvious that it's talking about any forum as it uses the plural "forums". In the supporting statement they start by mentioning that their motivation for putting forward this item is due to "acrimonious posts on our internal e-mail lists". While that may be the motivation for the item it does not limit us to merely discussing that particular part of it. And in fact it would have been strange for a member of Lancaster branch to specify this forum as their motivation as I'm unaware of any of their members using it.P.S. Steve you wouldn't be making an ableist joke would you?

[Ed]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

Ed wrote:

If I wrote an article for the standard and it was terrible not just bad but really really boring, ignorant, badly written, badly researched, objectively false. If the editors of the standard decided not to publish said article would that be censorship or quality control?

I don't think that's a fair analogy. A discussion forum is not a publication. A better analogy would be  If I chaired a public forum at the BBC  with the SPGB,  SWP, Conservative Party and the BNP but I did not let the SPGB speak because I opposed their opinion, would that be censorship?

I wasn't trying to be analogical, more just trying to work out the boundries of what we mean by censorship. I find the use of the term in the context of an internet forum to be hyperbolic which for me detracts from the merit your argument may have. Anyway no offence intended, it was just something that popped into my head, a trivial comment.

[Ed]

ALB wrote:

What is it you want, SP? Would you be satisfied with the ending of "mod queues" and the only sanction against persistent rule-breakers, after due warning, being suspension (for, say, 72 hours)?

After a couple ofd warnings sure you could start at 72 hours. If that doesn't work a week. If that doesn't work a fortnight, a month, 2 months, a quarter. In my personal opinion that's still better than moderation queues, especially for the length of time OGW has been in it. If you're suspended at least you're properly removed from the argument it gives time for the dust to settle and tempers to cool. If you're waiting for your posts to be checked every single time that's going to be more aggravating, for me at least. It also creates needless extra work and an extra reason to get pissed off with the moderators. I think for these reasons most forums I've ever been on don't use moderation queues.

[Ed]

If I wrote an article for the standard and it was terrible not just bad but really really boring, ignorant, badly written, badly researched, objectively false. If the editors of the standard decided not to publish said article would that be censorship or quality control?

[Ed]

As someone who has been warned and suspended (not just on this forum) here's my input on forum moderation. A warning is not a big deal. If you abide by the warning and don't persist then the warning will be completely forgotten about by everyone. I'm sure the moderators don't have a little black book where they record every warning they give out. It's intended purpose is to get the recipient to leave whatever altercation they are involved in alone. It only exists in the moment it's been given.For this reason I literally could not care less about getting a warning. Even though the warning I received on this forum is in my opinion unjustified, I actually have no idea what it's for. But at the end of the day, who cares? As I said it's a couple of meaningless bytes on a computer screen.A suspension for a week if you do not abide by the warning (usually warnings) already given. When I was suspended I pretty much expected it. I'd been warned not to continue posting and I did. In other words I knew the effect but still applied the cause. But still who cares really, it's hardly the end of the world, you'll be back in a week.Moderation queues is something I'm completely against. As I said to socialist punk the other day it must be like a slow torture. Very frustrating I imagine and only likely to get people's blood pressure up more than it already is. I think this tactic should be scrapped.Deleting posts or editing posts should only be done in extreme cases. It should never be done for "bad or "strong" language. There is however, two types of deleting, a hard delete where a post is permanently deleted from the forum never to be seen again and the second is a trashed post where a post is moved to the rubbish bin. In this second case it can be seen by anyone who wants to reference it. Removed from the thread but not censored. Trashing is the only type of deleting that should ever happen except for in extreme cases or when dealing with spam bots.The EC should not be involved in resolving disputes involving the internet forum. Firstly because that makes something which means nothing into something that does mean something. Secondly and probably more importantly it undermines the authority of the forum moderators. If we can bring any trivial disagreement to the EC the forum moderators are powerless to do there job. The EC end up being the final word on all issues, in this case they may as well moderate the forums directly as the moderators. This stops them from doing the things they should be doing. For example at the last EC meeting issues of the moment like the fire bombing of Freedom bookshop were not raised because they were too busy dealing with forum issues. We have forum moderators to do a job, moderate the forums, let them do it and accept their word as being final on forum issues even if you disagree with their decision. Give them your consent to do the job they've been assigned. What if a moderator is perceived to be doing a bad job? Pass a motion in your branch to have them removed from the position.The future, as I've said should not include moderation queues. The EC should refuse to deal with issues directly relating to forum moderation. The EC's only role should be when a motion comes from a branch asking for the removal of a moderator. Finally the role of moderator should be a directly electable position so if you dislike a moderator you can use your democratic rights to remove them or accept the democratic decision of the party or don't.

[Ed]

Well twc pursued the same line that I would have. The question of providing empirical evidence that socialism will work is an impossibility. I feel the reasons for why this is impossible have been stated clearly. There are just too many unknown variables to come up with any concrete plan let alone prove it. Marxism looks at today's problems and looks for the underlying economic and historical conditions which are the cause. We then look to eliminate the cause entirely rather than applying a quick fix.So the only line of discussion I see is the second part of your argument which is why people become socialists. In my experience there are three main types of revolutionaries. (by revolutionaries I mean anyone who sees themselves as such from Maoists to insurrectionary anarchists to primitivists to you name it)Moral revolutionaries – People who see the effects of capitalism on others and around the world and are compelled to seek ways to find a just and better society for everyone.Intellectual revolutionaries – People who usually come across socialism as part of their studies while at university. They read Marx and find his analysis of capitalism to be correct. They then feel it necessary to pursue that line of study.The material revolutionaries – Those whose personal experience of capitalism compels them to act to change it. Often they will be drawn to the conclusion without any prior knowledge of socialist theory.Now I'd say you're in the intellectual revolutionaries group and what you can't figure out is why it will be in your best interests. At the moment the majority of revolutionaries are from the first two groups. Who, while absolutely committed to revolution do not have the same level of needing to end capitalism that the third group does.To use a metaphor it's like being trapped in a burning building. You are either going to be compelled to find your way out or curl up in a ball and accept your fate. While being in the first two groups is like being nearer the door but being compelled rush back in to rescue the people trapped inside. It takes something a little bit special to be able to do that. Not everyone has it. Many people would stand on the outside thinking they should go in but having second second thoughts about whether they really needed to.The fact that you can't understand why anyone would support the end of capitalism without the absolute evidence before hand only shows that the material conditions specific to you are not compelling you to do so. Revolution will happen when the material conditions force enough people to see no other alternative but to seek something new. The question then becomes what next? Well what else is there, that isn't capitalism and isn't a regression? Nothing I've ever come across.

[Author]

Posts