lindanesocialist
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Young Master Smeet wrote:Wikipedia wrote:Each triangle has a payoff for those playing it. The antithesis of a drama triangle lies in discovering how to deprive the actors of their payoff.
So how would we deprive a moderator of the satisfaction of blocking someone at will? Perhaps new rules?
Young Master Smeet wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karpman_drama_triangleI think we all need to work together to get away from drama, nad back to socialism.I think it is very interesting and I couldn't agree more. But I believe Karpman displays an equalateral trianglean equilateral triangle is a triangle in which all three sides are equal.So it cannot be applied to this forum in its present form. Could I repeat that – despite the 10 month ban and all the other rubbish – Vin is still willing to draw a line under it and concentrate on 'positive socialist activity'
ALB wrote:In fact it is unbelievable that such a thing could have been written by a party member. Party procedures may be slow and cumbersome but they are still democratic. ADM floor resolutions are not self-enforcing but recommendations to the EC which decides if and how they are to be implemented, so the moderators could not simply act on the one in question but had to wait for what the EC decided and instructed them to do. For all they know (and we know) there might be conditions attached to lifting the suspension.Confused and wrong again Adam. The Executive Committee doe not have anyone suspended. The internet committee does and it has the authority to reinstate but is deliberately using the delay to extend the suspension. Other party members and forum members have criticised moderation. See malcolm, for example. He has only witnessed anything like it in Stalinist and Leninist groups. 'too many rules and interference'.I cant remember you saying at the time that it was inconceivable for a member to criticise the party in such a 'nasty' attack?
ALB wrote:It wasn't just foolish. It was framed as a nasty attack on the party as if it had come from an opponent:Rather than refer to it as a 'nasty' attack on the party, why not logically refute it.? So when a member criticises the party it is dismissed as an 'attack' You made no comment on malcolm's observation of moderation; he has only observed such behaviour in Stalinist and Leninist groups. Someone who has been blocked from online participation in party activity for 10 months does not have the right to criticise the party?The party has told us via conference resolutions that members may openly criticise the party. Vin and I will continue to critisise the party where necessary unless and until the party decides that its members may not do so. Don't bother trying to tell us we can't criticise the party, it is nowhere in the rulebook and never will be.But I think you have hit the nail on the head. Vin has been suspended for 10 month and will remain suspended for criticising the party and in particular the internet committee. This is the only thing that seperates him from other ‘outspoken’ and ‘off topic’ or 'abusive' members. Members are free to set up accounts anonomously, ALB? YMS, Gnome, Socialist Punk. The party TOLD Vin via ADM and EC resolutions, to go back on the forum after a 10 month suspension, a 'small elite' (using LBird speak) is ignoring that and has blocked him yet again.The online SPGB is run by a few members who ignore the democratic wishes of the party. It has used rule after rule to keep a member suspended for 10 months for criticising it. Now that it has been told by the party to end the farce, they come up with yet another rule to apply. How do we describe such behaviour without breaking some 'rule'How would 'hollyhead' for example feel if the mods set up a special thread revealing his real identity?Is it no wonder Vin appears angry and frustrated. Adam, your 'logic' appears upside down:It is not 'action detrimental' to criticise the party but it is definitely action detrimental and undemocratic for a committee to ignore the declared wishes of the membershipSee Socialist Studies
Tim Kilgallon wrote:Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:Socialism will fail is sex is not used for group cohesion? Yes and here's why. . . look at the world socialism declaration of principles.point 7) That as all political parties are but the expression of class interests, and as the interest of the working class is diametrically opposed to the interests of all sections of the the master class, the party seeking working class emancipation must be hostile to every other party.point
The Companion Parties of the World Socialist Movement, therefore, enter the field of political action determined to wage war against all other political parties, whether alleged labor or avowedly capitalist, and call upon the members of the working class of each country to muster under its banner to the end that a speedy termination may be wrought to the system which deprives them of the fruits of their labor, and that poverty may give place to comfort, privilege to equality, and slavery to freedom.http://www.worldsocialism.org/english/object-and-declaration-principles the website declaration of principles is anti-sex. In the make love not war bias of cultural norms it uses language like "hostile" and "wage war" from the patriarch lexicon. So socialism without sex or matriarchy seems to devolve into tribalism imperatives at least here at world socialism website. Conversely, in a society where sex was used for group cohesion, we wouild have a pro-sex bias to language usage and choosing words from the Matriarch lexicon. Instead of "wage war" our declaration would say "seduce". and instead of "hostile", our declaration would say "subvert". And the difference it makes is significant. A small group of people can seduce a larger group of poeple successfully with words or entertainment, or knowledge or yes even sex very successfully. But a small group of people can not "wage war" against a larger group of people successfully. So the sex opposition in our cultural and linguistic norms leads us to see solutions in a way that leaves the solutions for small groups to seduce larger groups to their way of thinking as not an optioin for socialism. I see the attitude in the declarations of principles as the attitude that works well only for a larger more powerfull group with the ability to enforce their will on a less powerfull minority they seek to destoy. That's how war works. you need superior numbers and power. BUT, In a world where sex was used for group cohesion, I'd see the attitude in the declaration of principles as the atttidue that works well for a smaller less numerous and less powerfull group that seeks to seeks to co-opt or seduce a larger more powerfull majority. that's how seduction works. You benefit from being a smaller number and don't need to force people or events against their will. P.s. on a related note, how is it possible to agree with this declaration of principles to "wage war" legally? Presumably they just meen figuratively "wage war" because literally wouild get this board shut down by govt. The langauge in the declaration of priciples is confrontratioinal and aggressive and not inclusive. it's the attitude of chimps beeting their chest proving their determination and threats. Why can't it be the attitude of bonobo's luring in outsiders and seducing them to be supporters? . interesting that this poster is tolerated, whilst clearly posting material which is off topic, disruptive and clearly aimed to disrupt
moderator2 wrote:The moderators concur that we view this not just as a serious breach of the forum guidelines but one which raises an issue of the integrity of a party member. We feel we have no recourse but to once again take up the valuable time of the EC to seek its advice and recommendation. Until then and until we are further instructed, the accounts of Cde. V. Maratty and Cde.L Maratty will remain suspended."The 2016 Annual Delegate Meeting democratically decided to recommend that the EC instruct the Internet Committee to end Cde V Maratty’s indefinite suspension.On November 5th the EC agreed to this.Vin Maratty then set up an account and the Internet Committe suspended it A committee that stubbornly ignores the democratic wishes of the party as expressed by branch delegates and the Executive Committee also raises issues of the integrity of the members of that committee.
alanjjohnstone wrote:http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1129/letters/But i have to give CPGB/WW credit for their letter policy. Can anybody imagine SWP's Socialist Worker being so generous with their space? Kudos to the WW editors.Vin said:Perhaps they agree with our argumentMy explanation of exchange value was minimum, leaving out the all important 'socially necessary' bit. But I hope I got my main point across vis a vis That in a market system a workers labour power is a commodity…..
Sorry to hear about the problems the branch is having: It has been so active and productive and it has been encouraging to hear of your activities.
lindanesocialist wrote:EC criticism of the video“ the appearance of cartoon capitalists, the emphasis on individual rather than a class approach"November Socialist Standard lol
'One member one vote'!! On what? A vote on who will control the online discussion and who will decide who can take part for the next 12 months? I would remind members that while you are discussing 'democracy' , a party member has been excluded from party discussions for 8 months and not via 'one member one vote' but by committee. A committee which was not elected via 'one member one vote' either.One 'member one vote' is meaningless if a committee has the power to exclude who it chooses to exclude.Indeed if it wasn't for me using my account to help Vin air his views, he would be invisible. What does the party intend to do about that? Leave it as it stands?
rodshaw wrote:If the Money Free Party are in fact anything like the SPGB, as has been suggested in another thread, then maybe we can use them as a gauge of how socialist ideas spread without the use of the S-word. See how many Facebook followers they get compared to us, etc.Money Free Party has over 9,000 followers on FacebookAnd over 72,000 followers on Twitterhttps://www.facebook.com/nick.tapping.16?fref=tshttps://twitter.com/moneyfreepartyCompared to the SPGB unofficial Facebook which I cannot access but I believe it has less than 2,000 followers.And its Twitter account has 6000 followershttps://twitter.com/OfficialSPGB.There could be other reasons for this difference rather than the use of terminology .
ALB wrote:That's what the Brexiteers said they wanted, isn't it, parliament "taking back control" and becoming "sovereign" again? The dominant section of the ruling class is mounting a determined rearguard action against the crazy decision (from their point of view) that Cameron took the risk of allowing the electorate to take.Although there is no written constition I would have though that this is a constitional question. It could be logically argued that if there was a written constitution a 52% majority is not sufficient to make constitutional changes. I am no expert on the US constition but I believe a two thirds majority is required.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I suppose the other option is to have voting at regional conferences (or branches) and not have the central conference.A suitable replacement for the branch could be the activity group: so members could join the AV group, the Elections Group, the Socialist Standard Group, etc. and pick their activity. The main suggestion I'd have, though, is scrapping departments, and handing reponsibility to branches or such groups (e.g. Birmingham Branch is Summer School Branch at the moment)…Some good ideas. Food for thought
Socialist Party Head Office wrote:MINUTES OF THE 10th MEETING OF THE 113th EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN HELD ON 1st OCTOBER 2016Letter from Lancaster Branch (“we agreed to write a letter without making a formal resolution on it, but in any case there were 4 members present with all agreeing to send a letter”):“At our branch meeting of 11th September we discussed the ongoing matter of the video which has been produced by Vincent Maratty and strongly endorsed by some members on Spintcom and elsewhere (though not by the EC).Having viewed the latest version of this video on 11th September, we were concerned that it appears to use a large number of still photos and at least one animation without any obvious licence or permission. More alarmingly, the video also uses uncredited BBC interview footage. The only 'credit' given at the end is for the background music.As all members will be aware, the Socialist Standard is required by the EC to reproduce licensing details for any images used. This is a sensible precaution because with today's communications technology, copyright infringements are very easy to root out and prosecute. Members need to understand that the internet is no longer a Wild West where anything goes, and using images, video or animations without permission is likely to result in action by the copyright holder. Worryingly, this video displays official Party emblems which make it look like an official SPGB video, thus inviting court action against the Party by licence holders including the BBC. Since we don't make a secret of our considerable financial assets, such action may be deemed attractive and worth pursuing.In view of these factors, we feel that uploading this video to a public channel on YouTube was the height of irresponsibility, and we urge the EC to take immediate steps to have it taken offline, pending an investigation into what permissions have and have not been acquired, and what sort of guidelines need to be in place for any future video projects.Yours fraternally, Paddy Shannon, Lancaster Branch Secretary”.Thank you for taking time to watch the video. However your information to the EC is ill informed and misleading.Why did you not inform the EC of the use of BBC footage and footage from other TV channels that have been uploaded and displayed for last 12 years on the Party's official Youtube? You failed to inform the EC of this risk to party funds when offering your ‘expert’ adviceSee https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFZgYrHuoQfjE0JBkd_h57g Vin Maratty thoroughly checked the 'legality' and copyright of the video including pictures and music. The only problem being the BBC footage. The Video was originally a draft and would have had the 'credits' added upon acceptance.Having checked with the BBC, in no way would they allow the use of their material as used by the party at the moment on Youtube, with the exception of the Video produced by Vin Maratty which they may licence at a cost because unlike other BBC videos used by the SPGB it is not identifiable as 'BBC' You have advised the Party to take down a 'legal' video while the party remains wide open to prosecution. You should really do your research before offering legal advice to the Party.
