Jones
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“Strangest reason for leaving the Party I’ve heard. If that’s the only problem, why not rejoin?” This makes me think that you have not read my original post, where you may find it’s not the only problem.
There was a discussion about why people left that I listened to, and since my reasons for leaving bore no resemblance to those itemised I thought I would put them down as a courtesy, but it rather became bogged down in specifics such as nuclear power, when my point was that if socialism is the desired outcome, then discussion about socialism ought to be there, with perhaps stuff on what issues there would be, particularly in the transition. Serious consideration of the benefits, and the challenges, may well interest non-members. And we’re not talking set in stone blueprints, that would be stupid, just discussion and consideration of the future.
But (unsurprisingly to me), the replies generally seem to think this a bad idea. Fair enough.
Also, I wonder if many members think about what socialism would be like. As I pointed out earlier, when I once mentioned in a meeting that commodities would no longer exist, I was told I was a hair shirt socialist, which seemed to be a consensus of the meeting. Whereas when people ask me what socialism is, I usually say it’s the abolition of commodity production, and then go into details as to what that means. So, again, I’m out of kilter with the party (or, I should say, the two dozen who go on the Friday Zoom meeting).
So that’s why I’ve posted, for what it’s worth. I’m sure a lot of you will disagree with this too; of course you will.
But you really should not allow people like me to have access to the members’ area. I am in favour of the party, in a benign way, but other ex-members may not be as well-intentioned.
It’s not at all a version of “who does the dirty work”. It’s “who will do the work that will shorten your life in a painful way”. And this is by no means restricted to the nuclear power industry. There are many other industries, lithium mining, for example, which rely on such work. This is the specific point, with the nuclear industry as an example. As for technical expertise, do we need to be pulmonary surgeons to be qualified to speak about the hazards of smoking? As it happens, I have worked on epidemiological studies on stage 4 cancer of workers in dangerous jobs, including uranium mining (which may be why it’s an important point to me) but I don’t think that gives me more right to discuss these matters.
But I’m getting away from the point of my original post, that I thought might be of help to the SPGB. Where I think the party fails is that there is no serious examination of problems that will be encountered under socialism, particularly in the short term, such as getting resources to poor countries, and how to create alternatives in areas where dangerous work will no longer be done. Which, for what it is worth, is one of the reasons why I left the party.
Yes, socialism is not established with the click of a switch, and there will be (I think an interesting) period of change. But resorting to nuclear power means resorting to uranium mining, a job that shortens lives painfully (not to mention the environmental consequences, which also put at risk nearby communities). Capitalism sets vulnerable people to work in such jobs, or convinces them that talk of such risks is scare-mongering, but why would a socialist colleague even consider it? Would you volunteer? Now that would be putting on a hair shirt, and besides which, socialism, in my view, is not about sacrifice. Instead of nuclear power, future comrades would need to consider/develop alternatives. This is what I mean about the need for the party to spend time thinking about what society will be like once we emerge from these prehistoric times.
Heyup, I can see you like the forest charter.I don't. But I looked at it from the point of view of the serfs and not the freemen, foresters -in-fee, beadles or nobility. But first let's deal with…"The Forest Charter legacy as claimed by modern-day forestershttp://www.newforestnpa.gov.uk/info/20088/fascinating_history/135/mediev…"Don't believe everything you read on a government website. The Surrey government website tells us that Magna Carta has brought us 800 years of democracy. This one (it's a quote from a very old work on the charter) ' abolished mutilation as a lesser punishment' – not true. The 1198 statute that prescribes blindness and castration for "trespasses against the venison" remained in place. What was stopped was capital punishment and the removal of limbs. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to keep my eyesight and knackers, even if it costs me an arm and a leg.The forest charter applies mostly to freemen and above, so 90% of the population are given no extra rights by it.Where it specifically includes serfs is only in clause 17 (laymen also have to obey these rules) and clause 7, which prevents foresters and beadles from making scotale, that is, brewing ale which forest inhabitants were obliged to purchase. As the practice of scotale continued into the 14th century, then this was not the privileged giving the serfs a break, but officials carving out de facto protection racket territories between them as to who will get the scotale money. So this meant less ale and, with the supply restricted, a higher price for the workers.Rules that apply to all (and may possibly apply to serfs) are:clause 2 – men living outside the forest need only go before justices if they are involved in forest crime. Courts are limited three times a year and every 40 days. Some restriction.clause 10 – no one will be killed or lose a limb for venison, but see above.And…clause 15 – at first sight this looks like serfs are included in this general amnesty for people outlawed for forest offences from the time of Henry II to John, but as this amnesty requires providing a pledge for good behaviour, which serfs could not do, it does not relate to them.Yes, it's wonderful, isn't it, if you are a freeman and above – if you are a merchant you can go through the forest and there will be a limit to the tolls you have to pay. If you're a knight or a baron you get your lands back. Freeman can pannage, dig marl pits and cut down trees so long as they don't upset the neighbours. And, well, yes, it does affect the serfs. It means that they are now burdened with more work – who else will be doing the building and tree surgery? So the effect of the forest charter for serfs is that they have less ale, at a higher cost, and a vicious increase in their workload. I'm up to being put right on this, Alan, but I'll need a bit of convincing that this charter brings anything positive to a thirteenth century serf. Or it being 'crucial' in any aspect of the class struggle, any more than the large charter was crucial, despite being quoted by levellers and chartists.But happen rather than continue this internet forum ping-pong we might discuss this after a party meeting or something, eh?
And how about this from a Surrey libraries email?Join us to celebrate the 800th Anniversary of the Magna Carta Magna Carta Foundation of Liberty – Runnymede 800On Monday 15 June the national commemoration event to mark the 800th anniversary of the sealing of Magna Carta will take place in the presence of HM The Queen, HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, The Duke of Cambridge, The Princess Royal, Vice Admiral Sir Tim Laurence and other dignitaries from the UK and around the world.For safety and security reasons the event is invitation only. Everyone else is welcome to come to watch the ceremony on large TV screens on the meadow near the National Trust lodges at Runnymede – but please bear in mind that the usual access routes to Runnymede Meadows will be extremely restricted throughout the day and the National Trust car parks at Runnymede and the nearby Runnymede Pleasure Grounds car park will be closed. So we'll be treated to a royal 'you can look but you can't touch' event.
Hi Alan,Thanks for the comment, and I read your article.Your quotation from Chomsky (“Its goal was to protect the source of sustenance for the population, the commons, from external power”) causes me to put down something I never expected I would ever write: Chomsky was wrong. He’s looking at the Forest Charter through 21st century eyes, and seeing it as some attempt to right injustice. Sadly, this is like the long and tedious history of people assigning similar goals to Magna Carta.Of the charter’s 17 clauses (using the link in your article), no more than five, if that, pertain to serfs, and none deal exclusively with serfs. All the others concern people who were definitely not serfs: nobles, clergy, officials (foresters, verderers, etc.), dog owners, landowners, freemen.This was no act of charity to the poor by those who drafted it. It was about the king gaining a bit of wriggle-room against the nobles who wanted the end of forests – that is, areas set aside for the king to hunt in and generate extra revenue. I’m of the opinion that when the point of the conflict is disagreement between royalty and nobility, there is no time out by the protagonists to show concern or to uphold the rights of their de facto bonded labourers. I don’t think any serfs were consulted either, but this could be socialist prejudice on my part.And the kings took about the same notice of it as they did the great charter – it didn’t take long for the nobles to whine that Henry III had “cancelled the charters of the liberties of the Forest” as Roger of Wendover put it.Possibly it is the more significant of the two, but would you be made aware of it, if you're labouring on someone else's land in the middle of the thirteenth century, at the bottom of a long line of bosses, all of whom have interests contrary to yours? No.
