[moderator1]

mcolome1 wrote:

This is very funny. DJP is always accusing us of being elitist and proto-Leninists, but he is  denying that in a socialist society is where we are gong to express our own  real individuality which does not contract the concept of social production, which is related to the way that human beings are going to product and produce those things needed for the survival and well living, even more, religion is going to be based on personal incumbencies. The Soviets were the one who wanted to eliminate the individuality of the human being, and Marx was not against individuality, which is something different to individualism and selfness. As Marx wrote: We shall have an association under which  The free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. Capitalism promotes individualism and selfiness, but it does not  provide the real free individuality of all human beings

It appears you are mistakenly misquoting DJP here.  A bit of editing would not go amiss.

[moderator1]

Reminder: 14. Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not of the contributors. If you believe a post or private message violates a rule, report it to the moderators. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violations of the rules.

[moderator1]

Reminder: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.

[moderator1]

Vin was suspended in March. He didn't appeal his suspension until very recently.In June the IC notified the EC they had no intention of dealing with any appeal on his suspension. The July EC requested that correspondence from Vin to the IC is forwarded to them. This bypassed the IC stage of the appeal process Vin was told about, by mod1 at the time of his suspension. So any appeal by Vin goes to the EC.The EC did not suspend Vin.The resolution can be found in the July EC minutes.(b) Matters arising or carried forward from previous meeting(s) vii. Internet Committee report to EC 26/03/16 – Item 3 of the ‘Executive summary’(June Item2bd – c/f April EC): “We ask that the EC take such steps as are necessary to relieve the Internet Committee of the burden of further dealing with this member.” The matter had been deferred pending confirmation (now provided) that a reported resignation by the member had been withdrawn. MOTION 1 [Cox/Craggs]: “To recommend that the Internet Committee forwards any further correspondence from this member to the EC.” AGREED.This is my last response on this matter.  I have no intention of replying to any further queries on the forum, by PM's or emails.

[moderator1]

lindanesocialist wrote:

So has the EC suspended Vin or not? CDE Bond says it is down to the mods NOT the ECCan you please clarify?

I've already clarified this query.  I have no intention of going down old roads when you are fully aware of the answer.

[moderator1]

lindanesocialist wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

 I have no idea where such a silly sugestion originated from.

  Nor does the Gen Sec or the EC. Do you have any idea?  

It seems to have originated from Vin's letter to the EC above:  To the EC I had not realised that the EC had suspended me from the SPGB Party forum and this led to some confusion with the IC and Moderators . 

[moderator1]

lindanesocialist wrote:

moderator2 wrote:

The indefinite suspension stays in place until further notice from the EC for it to be rescinded. We advise he follows the appropriate procedure and makes a formal appeal to the EC for the ban to be rescinded. Cde V Maratty should take the initiative himself of seeking redress from the EC and present his case so to ensure it contains a sincere contrition for past conductAgreed by Moderator 1 (Cde. Johnson), Moderator 2 (Cde. Johnstone) and Moderator 3 (Cde. Davison)

From Oliver Bond   Hi Vin, I am a bit confused about the first paragraph.                                                                                                                                                                                    .                                                       I am not aware that the EC passed a resolution suspending you from the online Forum. According to the post #142 dated 10th March 2016 on the Forum thread – "twitter account @worldsocialism.org", the Forum moderators issued the suspension.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Cde Stephen Davison, aka SocialistPunk, posted a link to this post from post #125 on the Forum thread – "Moderators decision on Cde. Maratty's indefinite forum ban".                                                                                                                                        If you have any evidence that the EC, not the Forum moderators, issued the ban, then could you please let me know.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Thanks. YFS, Oliver  I would appreciate a comment from the Mods on the General Secretary

The facts of the matter is:  The IC notified the EC in a committee report of April 2016 that due to Vin's past behaviour they were unwilling to deal with his current suspension applied in March.  And that a resolution to the issue was now with the EC.Nobody has made the suggestion that the EC imposed the 'ban'.  I have no idea where such a silly sugestion originated from.   

[moderator1]

lindanesocialist wrote:

As you know comrades, Vin can no longer make a contribution on this issue.

I think it's reasonable to say that the ideas being pitched here do not require a contribution from Vin.  Just a message from you saying the links are duly noted and bookmarked would be sufficient imo.What's the saying about adapting and surviving?

[moderator1]

Found a ready made script on Quora:  I think the viewing figures and upvotes speak for themselves.From here:  Why do so many people hate their jobs?https://www.quora.com/profile/James-Altucher James Altucher, Blogger, author, social media, investor, wall street investorUpdated Apr 12, 2013 Jobs are modern-day slavery. We are paid just enough to live and not more. You are punished if you ask for more. We are often verbally abused on the job. Sometimes (more than is reported), physically abused, raped, castrated. The government gets up to 50% of your paycheck and then 10-20% of that goes to kill people on other parts of the planet, including our own children. We are deluded into thinking our job-friends are our real-friends. With our job friends we talk about pens and cubicles. We stop having real-friends. There's a glass ceiling. It doesn't matter if you are a woman or minority or a white man. The glass ceiling is that you aren't allowed to make more than your Master, even if he's an idiot. From 7am to 7pm you are either going to work, at work, or coming back from work. The times when you can be most creative are garbage-compacted into your cubicle. You eat shit at work. And, even worse, you have to shit next to your co-workers and Masters. Unless, like I have, you make a map of all the secret bathrooms in your local urban blight. When you are paranoid at a job, you are probably correct. THEY are, in fact, talking about you and backstabbing you right now. You realize that all the dollars you spent on degrees to get you a job that will make you happy were completely wasted. You were scammed but you can't let the next generation know so now you become part of perpetuating the scam. A trillion dollar marketing campaign forced you to buy a house you didn't really want and now you will "lose a house" you never really owned if you don't bow down to the Masters every day. The words "The American Dream" were coined by Fannie Mae in a marketing campaign 40 years ago to sell mortgages to slaves. Your spouse is tired of hearing about your job after six months. And you couldn't care less about hers. Ten years later you wake up next to a total stranger. 40 years later you die next to one. Your IRA was not intended to provide for your retirement. It was intended to take money from you every month so you remain chained to your cubicle. Inflation then takes 90% of your IRA. By definition: you create more value than you earn. That spread, minus executive salaries, is called "profit". This is not an "-ism". Just a definition. When you were a kid you liked to draw, and read, and run, and laugh, and play, and imagine a magical world. You're never going to do any of that again. Over time everyone is getting fired and being replaced by younger, cheaper, more temporary versions of you. You see this but are afraid to do anything about it. You see homeless people and think, "there but for the grace of God go I". Ok. Now. What are you going to do about it?276.8k Views · View Upvotes · Answer requested by 1 person Upvote9.9k 

[moderator1]

ALB wrote:

lindanesocialist wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

without prior permission from the moderators.”

May I ask via what channels would permission be requested  and on what grounds would permission be granted/decided upon? How long will it take to come to such a decision?

Good point, Vinda. And yet another reason why this proposed amendment to the forum rules (which would only ever need to be applied to one user) should be dropped — it will provide an opportunity for further skirmishes between users and moderators. I can't think why the moderators want to create this rod to beat their own backs. Maybe they're masochists or enjoy a game of cat and mouse?

By allowing this practice to continue the moderators were faced with the possibility of being confronted with an even bigger dilemma.  Namely, what action could we apply under the old Rule 8. which was appropriate and acceptable if the "Vin said" messages contained a further breach of the rules?Do we suspend Vin for a second time?  Which would literally mean applying a double suspension!  And if and when Vin decided to appeal to the EC would this not be unpleasant reading for them?  Also, to ensure there's no reoccurrence do we take a major step and suspend Linda without issuing any warnings?  Neither actions are appropriate and acceptable and undoubtedly inflammatory.Rather than go down that road it was decided to close this loophole in Rule 8. so that in extraneous circumstances a party member could still gain access to the forum despite being on a suspension.May I take this opportunity to remind users that the present situation has been unusually prolonged due to Vin failing to appeal to the EC since May of this year.  Also the lessons learned from this episode and others are currently being addressed by the IC which if adopted by the EC will make positive inroads on forum moderation and indirectly on party democracy.

[moderator1]

lindanesocialist wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

 without prior permission from the moderators.”

 May I ask via what channels would permission be requested  and on what grounds would permission be granted/decided upon? How long will it take to come to such a decision?

Seeing you are currently in correspondence with the moderators via PM's on this very subject it appears this question is unnecessary.

[moderator1]

lindanesocialist wrote:

gnome wrote:

No not him, just came back. Cyril Bloody May!!!!!!!

Vin said He came and spoke in the NE I remember. Wasn't as friendly as Cdes Slapper and Coleman. Harry Young came up, too. He was invited to (the now) Sunderland University to  talk on his experience of  1917. (Orgaised by my good self)When we approached the door of the meeting Harry was allowed in  handed a glass of sherry and the door was slammed in our faces. I waited briefly for my comrade to come out and protest but the little shit didn't.You can guess how North east members voted on their expulsion..It was reported to members later that he had commented, 'Workers in the North East are only bothered about their beer and bingo" To which Steve Coleman replied  " So what! Better than sitting reading Shakespear."They were an arrogant bunch

2nd Warning: 8. Do not register or operate more than one account without first obtaining permission from the moderators. Do not share your password with others or allow anyone else to use your account. Do not use your account to post messages on behalf of any suspended user, without prior permission from the moderators.

[moderator1]

lindanesocialist wrote:

What about a Video on WHAT SOCIALISM ISN'T,1.Back to Barter2.Sharing Money out3.State ownership4.Giving our money to poor and hungry people5.Peace and Love6.Taking your car and 50 in TV  from you to feed the hungryetcI think these are the things that people think when Socialism is mentioned.  Needs to be aimed at a broad audience. Nothing technical or theoritical but simple. Any ideas?

Please note for convenience I've numbered the suggestions.Yes,yes.  From my daily experience on Quora getting past the negatives is the biggest problem.  In order of priority it would be 3. along with making a false distinction between communism and socialism.  2.& 4. are about the same. 1., 5., & 6. are way down the line.If I had a link to vid rather than to text the viewing figures would go way up.

[moderator1]

lindanesocialist wrote:

? I am simply requesting clarification of the OP as are other members: Tim, Alan, SP et al. Where is the EC resolution banning Vin from the forum?If it doesn't exist, then we can end this farce. Instead of dragging it onIf it does exist then show it then we can move on from there? Comradely

1st Warning: 15. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.

[moderator1]

Rem,inder: 15. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.

[Author]

Posts