[Ed]

I think it's a very interesting question LBird. But I agree with others in saying that we can't formulate an idea now and make the as yet unknown evidence of the future fit that idea . There will of course be many unknown factors which we cannot take into consideration now, even in this hypothetical situation. The party should merely be a tool of the working class as a whole. If the class does not know what their interests are at that time then we are not ready for socialism and we end up in the same mess as the bolsheviks and mensheviks. So assuming that the working class does realize our own interests, the immediate task would be the dismantling of the state apparatus. That is essentially what a vote for the socialist party would mean. If we were elected with an overwhelming majority then that would be our mandate as directed by the class, who would also be formed into workers councils. So I have always seen the relationship between party and class as more symbiotic than with either being dominant. I recall Marx defining sectarianism as "putting the interests of the party above those of the class" but as I've said the party would have already been directed by a vast majority of the class, that's why I see it as more of a symbiosis, as in not separate from the class as a whole which is inferred from the subordinate dominant phraseology.

[Ed]

There's also this article from 1968 which may be relevant http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1960s/1968/no-762-february-1968/politics-pop

[Ed]

I like the suggestion of streaming E.C. meetings. Perhaps just audio though as some comrades like to use pseudonyms and keep their identities hidden from big brother and the man and what not. But I think anyone would be able to sit in on an E.C. meeting via skype if requested. That should be possible right now. In K&S branch we've agreed to have our second online meeting in the next month. I don't particularly like them as they're slow and cumbersome, but perhaps that's just the application being faulty. It's something to keep practicing as it's sound in theory. As for full online democracy like for a party poll or something the pirate party in Germany tried that but from what I heard encountered several problems both technical and personal and eventually stopped. At least that's my recollection. Using any third party software though could lead to hacks and outside interference. So in theory great, actually getting it to work properly there seem to be some drawbacks.edit: here's the article on the pirate partyhttp://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-pirate-party-sinks-amid-chaos-and-bickering-a-884533.html

[Ed]

You know way back when I was involved in the other thread on this discussion I started thinking about Nietzsche's famous "God is dead" quote. Is he using the same logic as you LBird? That god existed because people believed in him but now they don't, he's been murdered. Except for the fact that now in 2013 the majority of humanity still believes in god and thus in any world wide vote on whether it was true that an omnipitent being exists the vote would be returned in the positive and at least in your eyes would be a scientific truth. The likely-hood as well is that immediately after revolution the majority of humanity will still believe in a god. So the paradigm shift in this case would be that from a bourgeouis scientific perspective there is no evidence for the existence of God, yet from a socialist scientific perspective God would be 'born again' so to speak.

[Ed]

Aston university would also be worth checking outhttp://www.conferenceaston.co.uk/Content.aspx?PageId=1808

[Ed]

A membership application is subject to E.C. ratification. Since you've become hostile again I have nothing left to say to you.

[Ed]

OK how about a completely hypothetical situation. What if a member had been suspected of embezzling funds from a branch. But had resigned when the suspicion had become known before action could be taken officially. They then re-apply for membership a couple of months later. Should the E.C, in this situation accept their membership?Following the understanding of the rules stated above they should accept as long as they are a socialist and can complete the questionaire to satisfaction. Even though the party could not trust the individual to act in the party's best interests.Now as I said I think you may have a point about the rules needing to be clearer and more specific. But the way it stands now is that each individual application is subject to ratification by the E.C., which means they must take into account past behavior and the likelihood of that behavior reoccurring.

[Ed]

No I'm not saying you are not allowed to try to discuss it. I'm saying that you should persue it with the people who proposed and voted for the motion. None of which are here or are even likely to see this thread. It would seem that your best course of action would be to go to the source. Rather than asking people who were not privy to the discussion which preceded the motion and its vote.I have answered the question of the title of the thread which is that the E.C. has the right to refuse membership on a case by case basis.

[Ed]

Ah, I see, oops. Irregardless my point still stands. These are not the correct channels on which to raise this issue. It's probably best for the individual in question to raise these points with the E.C. directly. Especially as the division shows that none of the members voting in favour of the motion are regular forum members.On a side note I was going to raise a very similar issue at ADM but unfortunately missed the meeting where we were to submit motions. So sorry for that I will have to wait for conference. I do certainly think the rules could be tightened in some way to make sure there is no confusion over the potential of a member leaving in bad standing then re-applying only a few months later with a clean slate. It could be an easy way to avoid facing a charge of action detrimental. However, others think that the rules are already adequate for dealing with that kind of situation in that the E.C. does have the right to refuse anyone on a case by case basis.

[Ed]

I take it you are referring to this?2c.ii. Re Motion 10 (“That the EC refers BM’s application to the Membership Application Committee and ask them for a report back.”), report of the Membership Applications Committee (30 July):The Membership Applications Committee has discussed the application from BM which you passed on to us and asked us to deal with. Given the history of this ex-member and previous EC decisions on this matter, this is obviously a difficult case for us to deal with. However the view we take is that in considering his application it would not be appropriate for us to take into account past events and we would have to base any recommendation for membership purely on answers to the Party’s questionnaire (and/or discussion with the applicant following therefrom), as we do for all other applicants. If the EC wishes us to go ahead on this basis, we are happy to do so and therefore to contact the applicants and ask him to complete the questionnaire. However, if the EC takes the view that it must consider other factors, then we believe that the decision to accept or reject the application must be made directly by the EC. Motion 22 – Browne and Cox moved that the application be dealt with by the EC, and that the General Secretary send a Form A and a copy of the membership questionnaire to the applicant and inform the Membership Application Committee. Agreed.From the E.C. minutes. If you have further queries about this motion I suggest you address them to the E.C. or General Secretary directly. As the vast majority of people on the forum were not at the E.C. meeting may have even less information about this than you do so will not have the relevant information about why any course of action was taken and therefore will not be able to give you a proper answer.

[Ed]

dankolog wrote:

The other point I still need to clarify is the question of the Russian revolution and the Leninist strategy. I have been taught since my young age that Rosa Luxemburg had deeply criticized the Blanquist attitude of the Bolshevik party in Russia in 1917

I've heard this many times but never seen the actual article she supposedly wrote. Luxembourg did write of Blanquism and the Bolsheviks, but in their defence against Plekhanov's charges. The article Plekhanov wrote, I have not been able to find. However the article by Luxembourg was written in 1906, so she could have changed her mind, but from this article it seems unlikely.http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1906/06/blanquism.html

[Ed]

jondwhite wrote:

Interesting developments that bode badly for the 'Socialist Platform'.

I'm shocked. I Never saw it coming.

[Ed]

rodshaw wrote:

Out of interest, does anyone know of any societies whose language doesn't differentiate between the sexes? No 'he', 'she', etc?

Not that I know of I think it's a pretty standard thing to have a word which differentiates between who carries the babies. The first division of labour was also along sex lines so makes sense to have a two different words. Although the concept of gender has changed radically and is radically different in different parts of the world.We do have some linguists about and certainly people better read on anthropology than me so I too will be interested to see if they can come up with anything.

[Ed]

Hi Alf a couple of comments.The 1991 socialist studies "split" is not really a split but an expulsion of 4(?) branches,I think you're probably right that the 5 currents named are probably a little narrow. However, I'd disagree that syndicalism should be included. Most syndicalists I've spoken to or literature I've read of that kind. Seem to suggest that their ends are to create localized autonomous communes where the laws of capitalism would still apply. As I said in the other thread Bordiga does a superb job of demolishing syndicalism, aside from his anti-democratic arguments of course.On the issue of the petit bourgeois being integrated. The party's position for a long long time is that there are only two classes, we were championing the 99% vs 1% thing long before occupy came to the same conclusion. Personally I think this is an oversimplification since there are obviously small capitalists who are at odds with the bourgeoisie proper and have conflicting interests with the proletariat. There's also a problem of the catalyst for class consciousness being absent. Although the main point is that due to their inability to compete with the bourgeois proper their interests have been brought in line with those of the proletariat. In that socialism is now in their best interests as opposed to the maintenance of capitalism and their own meager property relations. It is most likely that the petit-bourgeois class will split it's allegiance the majority of which will consciously decide to side with the workers thus willingly relinquishing their property rights. After that what else does a small shop keeper need to do to be integrated into the working class?Good review and an enjoyable read thanks Alf. Might have more later when I give it a second read.

[Ed]

ALB wrote:

Why not take it a stage further:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/10305258/Arise-Sir-Baldrick-Tony-Robinson-knighted-in-Queens-Birthday-Honours-CBE-for-Blackadder-Rowan-Atkinson.htmlAnyway, looking forward to seeing you at the meeting on Sunday.

There may be something in that you know ALBhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPAat-T1uhEYou're never too old to start you know give it a try this Sunday.

[Author]

Posts