Ed
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
This was only a year agohttp://javiersoriaj.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/marchan-zapatistas-en-ocosingo-las-margaritas-y-san-cristobal/ Ocosingo , Chiapas. From the early hours of today thousands of Zapatista supporters from five snails began to peacefully occupy the central squares of cities in Ocosingo, San Cristobal de las Casas , Las Margaritas, Altamirano and Comitan .At 6:30 pm the bases that came to Ocosingo began to gather near the University of the Jungle , and from there began to march towards the city center .At this point in the square bases Ocosingo keep coming and occupy all spaces not wide woodlands from the City Hall Square to the city parish .It is expected that the Indigenous Revolutionary Clandestine Committee General Command of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation ( EZLN) issued a message in the coming hours .At the time that many unsuspecting believed the world would end , Mayan communities EZLN support bases , with their faces covered , most of them very young , wait in silence perfectly formed under a persistent drizzle .Unusually for this period has been raining all night.[ Hermann Bellinghausen , sent Published: 21/12/2012 -c Or, as we read in process:SAN CRISTOBAL DE LAS CASAS, Chiapas – . Thousands of members of indigenous communities EZLN base area and the high jungle surprised this morning with marches in the villages of Ocosingo, Margaritas and the municipal seat .Earlier, indigenous balaclavas and bandanas over their faces out of their communities and traveled hundreds of trucks to wager on the inputs of the three municipalities .No guns , with the national flag and the Zapatista (black with a red star in the center) the thousands of farmers in these demonstrations began three locations , the same as in 1994 took , but with guns to declare war on the government of Carlos Salinas de Gortari.Without the presence of Subcomandante Marcos, the Zapatista indigenous will focus on the municipalities to raise awareness around noon a message to the people of Mexico .Since May 2011 the EZLN support bases did not manifest . At that time they expressed their support for the victims of the war on drugs Felipe Calderon , integrated in the Movement for Peace with Justice and Dignity , led by poet Javier Sicilia .Now a political message is expected because coincidentally manifested in the boot of government and Enrique Peña Nieto chicpaneco president Manuel Velasco.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH8nxafgKdMhttp://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/01/201313014344451496.html
One of my favouriteshttp://roarmag.org/2011/02/i-shit-on-all-the-revolutionary-vanguards-of-this-planet/
Sorry for the belated reply I've been busy.
DJP wrote:Does drawing an income from a pension that is derived from investment funds make one a capitalist?A pension is an insurance policy which you purchase. The money you pay into it, is no longer your money, it is the policy providers money, which they are free to do with as they wish. Owning an insurance policy does not mean you personally own any shares in anything, it simply means you own a policy. Same with bank accounts.
DJP wrote:Does owning a paultry amount of shares make one a capitalist?No, but we're not talking about paltry sums are we.
DJP wrote:Does the fact that the socialist party now (or soon will have) has funds in investment banking mean that it's members will no longer have to sell there labour-power in exchange for a wage?No, but the party's money does not belong to the individual members but to the party. Otherwise people would be making a withdrawal every time there's a form f. If what was proposed at ADM, a highly ambitious estimate of covering our annual deficit, then the parties primary income will be from the forced labour of workers rather than voluntary contributions of the membership.
rodshaw wrote:And how can you possibly think that by investing in stocks and shares some money which would otherwise sit in a bank account (which the bank invests in stocks and shares anyway), the party suddenly owns the means of production and exploits the working class? It beggars belief. We'll still only own the current value of the money we invested.I assume you weren't at ADM Rod, it was conceded that owning shares was indeed the same as outright owning a company by the main proponents of the yes vote. So I'd like to hear your reasons as to why you disagree. There's a chance that interest rates will recover in the future to a degree where depreciation will effect us less, certainly by a year or two down the line when we could actually implement this. What strikes me as really odd though, and particularly concerning, is that you and presumably many others seem to see only two options. Invest in stocks or let the money sit in a bank account. There is of course the sure fire way to beat inflation, and that's to spend it, what with the upcoming elections. But why are we hearing of no other alternatives? Perhaps it's because no alternatives have been looked into?
How does owning the means of production and exploiting the surplus value of workers make us part of the owning class?I apologize, I don't know how to answer this in a way that will not come across as completely patronizing.
DJP wrote:Ed wrote:I take it as a given that capitalism and ownership of the means of production is 'unethical' to most.Well it's actually the actions of the working class that reproduce and expand capital. It's something we're all tied up in wether we like it or not.It seems to me the only way that you are going to avoid being ethically implicated in day to day doings of capitalism would be to live in a cave and eat moss. Hence the bankruptcy of trying to condemn capitalism from a moralising position..
That is merely included for those who do see capitalism as a moral conundurum. I don't. Although I am aware that many members of this party do taking into account the party polls in the not too distant past about whether the case for socialism is a moral one. When writing that particular sentence I was also taking into consideration that some members of the EC were considering "Ethical investments". Which this article also suggests as a viable alternative. My intention for posting this is also to move away from the strawman argument that a vote against implementing investment funds is based on a moral argument and to move it onto the issue of the material consequences of joining the owning class. I litterally do not want to spend another second being diplomatic on the question of morality and if you would like to see my views on morality I would point to the last long thread we had on the subject where I debated with Robbo for several pages about whether morality mattered or just click here.
rodshaw wrote:If this post intended to make a point about the ‘ethicality’ or otherwise of investments to be made by the party, in my view it should have said so and it should be in the party business section, not the general discussion section.Well it's not strictly about party business either. It's about capital investments contradicting the aims of an organisation. A matter of theory. I take it as a given that capitalism and ownership of the means of production is 'unethical' to most. What I want to talk about is the material consequences of joining the owning class, of having to always chase a profit and the contradictions that brings.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Do i detect an underlying agenda and message in this thread?Yes comrade you did Rather than the thread being about the evils of charity, I am more interested in the fact that in order to secure the greatest return on their investment they had to compromise their principles and contradict their aims. This is as we have seen throughout history what always happens when well meaning people with noble aims start getting involved in the management of capital. To be a capitalist you must always look to maximize your return or you will end up losing your investment. Which is what we must do if we wish to become the socialist corporation of great britain.
gnome wrote:If there is its come too late, unfortunately…I think the party poll is not all that important. The real test is the conference motion on whether to implement these investment funds. Although I certainly did not expect the vote to be so heavily in favour of a yes.
I do understand where you're coming from Alan. I have at times even felt some sympathy for Steve C, then I remember the personal vendettas he conducted against others via e-mail. It's much easier to feel sympathy and forgive when you've not been the one on the recieving end.
But what of trust Alan? Surely that's the issue.ALB and I have disagreed over many things too and still do. However, he's never conducted a campaign of bullying against me, accused me of being an undercover cop, had his brother threaten to kick my teeth in and then gone on to do similar things to a variety of other members. That's the difference there. Personally I have a problem accepting the word of known liars.2nd 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.
alanjjohnstone wrote:The real disrespect being showed has been to myself, has it not?The use of foul language issue is a complete irrelevance but failing to discuss my point but instead preferring to attack another poster was the real massive mistake and betrayed another agenda for the poster, which does not acknowledge my right to expect a serious engagement of the ideas in my post, even if some may consider it not of much merit. That is an opinion they are entitled to, just as i am entitled to post my observations, which granted i tend to do so a lot. The wisdom of declaring certain subjects in my original post off-limits ,(despite the caveats i used), in itself raises an issue that is part of the situation i feel still has to be addressed by the party. Toleration of expression on this thread has been addressed by the moderator and that should be the end of it. Full Stop. No More. It was, IIRC, not bad language that sparked off previous animousity but the failure to abide by the moderator's decisions. Let us accept whatever he decides and give him his due respect.I am addressing your topic and the posts about whether it is 'naval gazing' or notThe topic is on interactions within a socialist party, which is what my post addressesIt was your own poor choice in choosing such an incendiary topic. Seriously what do you expect pouring petrol on a fire?Toleration of expression has not been addressed by the moderator and no disrespect has been shown to the moderator.Perhaps your memory has failed you or perhaps you simply didn't give a fuck. It was Vin and Steve's calls for moderation of me which started it all. It was their victim complex which carried it on. Don't believe their propaganda Allan.
I think it was a massive mistake from the outset to start talking about ongoing situations, which at least to my knowledge are yet to be resolved. Not least because I suspect that seeking attention is part of the motivation for those particular members resignations in the first place. Much like a child throwing a tantrum due to it's inability to communicate properly.I think we as a party, as socialists, as human fucking beings need to intraspectively examine our own behaviour and our own ethics, to recognize the effects of alienation which capitalism forces upon us. The point of this is to gain a little clarity when heated situations arise. So far from a pointless excersise I would say it is a vital part of building a movement that is capable of overthrowing capital and building a society which we all want to see..Rather than an enforced, fake comaraderie as Alb objects to, what we need is appropriate levels of tolerance.not for others ideas but for the way others chose to express themselves. I am of course referring to Steve's mention of Jonathon's 'foul mouth'. Surely an accusation in it's self as it's an entirely subjective opinion, one which I do not share. Let us not forget that much of this started as a reaction to the use of the word 'shit' and 'bullshit' before dragging in half the party. People use language in different ways, which for me is part of it's beauty. Both parties in a conversation need to take responsibility for achieving an understanding. The outright moral objection to certain words or phrases makes that impossible and generates a feeling that you are dealing with a Mary fucking Whitehouse figure attempting to impose their bourgouis moralism on to you. Conversely we must always try to remember that those we are speaking to may assign different meanings to certain words we use and must conciously acknowledge that this may make them feel uncomfortable. Communication is a two way street and personally I think the only type of 'bad' language is that which fails to convey your (fucking) message.p.s. yeah I took a shot at Steve & Vin in the first paragraph. Happily accept my 7 day ban. T'was worth it.1st 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.
admice wrote:This is confusing. Then what do you call socialists who are in the US or American socialist types?We call them socialists, if they are socialists. If you mean like democratic party senators who might describe themselves as such or that one councillor who got elected in seattle then we would probably call them social democrats.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democrats
Looks like this one got missed so I'll have a go. Trotsky was most certainly a vanguardist. He was a Leninist, he was on the central committee of a vanguard party. There is no evidence whatsoever that he would have behaved any differently to Stalin had he managed to oust him from power rather than the other way around. In fact the massacre of anarchists and other socialists at Kronstadt show him to be every bit as ruthless.But Trot organizations today are more of a problem than a long dead fool. The most prominent of these being the ISO from which the socialist workers partys are members. While they similarly to us recognize the soviet union as being a capitalist nation there are still major differences in theory. Especially regrading the history of the USSR. See they think it was socialist in it's early days (while Trotsky was still in power) and later became capitalist (when Trotsky wasn't in power). They are by far the largest groups in the west claiming to be socialists yet they tell their members and other workers to vote for main stream parties like Labour or the Democrats "without illlusions of course".They have a top down organization based on the bolshevik model with leaders dictating to the membership how to behave and how to think. They take sides in wars between capitalists claiming anti-imperialism as their basis.A very short rap sheet of the sort of anti worker policies they encourage. Supporting Iran during the Iran/Iraq warfrom,The Socialist Worker 1987"we have no choice but to support the Khomeini regime""there will be instances where it is wrong to strike""socialists should not support actions which could lead to the collapse of the military effort"Northern Irelandfrom,The Socialist Worker 1969"The breathing space provided by the presence of British troops is short but vital. Those who call for the immediate withdrawal of the troops before the men behind the barricades can defend themselves are inviting a pogrom which will hit first and hardest at socialists."Egypt & the muslim brotherhoodfrom,The Socialist Worker 2012In fact the choice is clear. A vote for Shafiq would be a vote against the revolution. A vote for Mursi is a vote against the legacy of Mubarak and for continuing change. Revolutionary activists will not enjoy voting for Mursi. If they do not do so, however, they are likely to experience the real nightmare scenario—a president cloned from the dictator they overthrew last year.They've also had various accusations ranging from anti-semitism to a central committee member raping a young woman.Above all though they are just the same as any other capitalist party, but merely wrap themselves in a red flag and call it socialism. p.s. anti-revisionism is a maoist/stalinist thing.,In fact they don't call themsleves Maoist or Stalinist but prefer to be called anti-revisionist.
