SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Alan,I think you were right first time. When I first saw this thread it was in General Discussion. Mod'1 must have moved it.
ALB wrote:Head Office has been sent this statement asking us to endorse it and circulate it to our members and readers, presumably under the misapprehension that we too are Left British Nationalists.Could well be that some see, at first glance, the Great Britain tag in the name as a suggestion we are a nationalist organisation. Who knows?
I was under the impression that internal disagreements and squabbles have always been a part of the colourful fabric of the SPGB?
A word of warning before anyone clicks on the link in the opening post.My Norton security reported it as a dangerous site and blocked my entry.
Found an interesting quote that might shed some interesting light on the issue.
Quote:I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. “That’s easy,” he replied. “When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.”ALB wrote:SP, this is a discussion forum where the views of one member are not necessarily the views of all members or of the Party as a whole. A discussion took place on the NHS at the SPGB 2010 Conference. Here's the Report of the Proceedings on this item which shows a variety of views:Quote:Item for Discussion from West London: “What is our attitude to the NHS?”Bond, West London In the forthcoming election, all the major parties have pledged to safeguard the NHS from public expenditure cuts, and the TUC is organising a rally in support of the NHS. Many workers value this public healthcare service. When the NHS was introduced in 1948, the Party regarded it as a capitalist scheme to save money, to get workers fit for military duty, and to appease workers’ demands for a better society. Since then the Party’s position seems to have softened. We now recognise that there is popular support for it, and that the workers do benefit from it, despite its inadequacies. What do other delegates think on what our attitude to the NHS ought to be?Martin, Central London Some American politician recently said that their recent healthcare reforms would impact their military effectiveness and spell the end of American imperialism. The NHS is commonly pointed to as a model of free access, though it still contains elements of private ownership, and some people are trying to bring it under greater influence of market forces. We don’t support the NHS; we support a world of free access. If you accept the idea of a national health service, why not a national food service, a national food service, and a national clothing service? And why not worldwide rather than national? We have to be clear in our propaganda that the NHS is still very much enmeshed in the world capitalist system. Perhaps we should put out a leaflet with the title “We don’t support the NHS”.Allen, East Anglian Regional I am extremely grateful to the NHS, as their only concern is my health. I also support the anti-smoking reforms. I know this isn’t socialism, but these reforms make capitalism much more pleasant to live in. I think the NHS is a wonderful institution.Buick, non-delegate We are prepared to concede in theory that some reforms can be in the interest of workers, and the NHS can be given as an example of this. Many party members applauded Michael Moore’s film Sicko as it indicted America’s private health care industry. We shouldn’t participate in pro-NHS demonstrations, but we should be present to hand out our literature.Corey, non-delegate Surely the Party is not being challenged over this issue. The capitalist system needs a healthy working class and healthy army recruits. I get necessary treatment under the NHS, but this is irrelevant. We want socialism, not the NHS under capitalism. The working class may be compelled to avail themselves of benefits offered under capitalism, but we should be demanding the whole cake.Kelly, non-delegate We’ve all used the NHS. In many parts of the world basic preventative medicine is not available; here we take it for granted. Any improvement in our health should be recognised, and we don’t want to alienate people by disparaging it.Shodeke, non-delegate I agree fully with Cde Martin’s statement. We want free access to goods and services for the world, not just health care here in England.Hart, South London We shouldn’t make a point of claiming opposition to the NHS, though we should recognise its limitations and restrictions. Americans are completely gobsmacked when you tell them you can walk into a doctor’s surgery here without paying money.Bond, West London I agree with Cde Martin that the NHS is enmeshed in capitalism, that doctors’surgeries and pharmacies remain in private ownership, and that the NHS is a capitalist rather than socialist institution. But for all its limitations, the NHS does benefit workers in capitalism.Hi ALB,I take your point. I guess I also forgot I'd just rejoined, meaning I'm once more one of a number of Party members with differing views on this issue.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Is the NHS a benefit? It's hard to say, we can look at other European an d industrialised countries, and their health outcomes, and we're about par, I'd expect. If we look at the value side of it, I'd say it probably doesn't amount to a big expansion of the social wage or wages generally.We naturally support workers in struggle, on general principle that the alternative is that they are slaves. But we can also show how the wages system itself harms health care, as, under labour, lots of extra spending went to those sections of the workers with the most industrial muscle. Also, it's worth pointing out that important as Doctors are, they are only as good as the support staff around them, and that the porters and recptionists and cleaners need support as well."Is the NHS a benefit?"Not sure what planet that statement belongs to. For an answer I guess we'd have to go back in time to a place before the NHS was set up and try to compare health care provision for us working class?I see this issue as one in which it could be possible for the SPGB to connect more with the public, via an issue important to us all. Yet statements like "Is the NHS a benefit?", shows how disconnected the SPGB are with other workers. If the British government came out directly and told the public the aim was to copy the healthcare system of France, there probably wouldn't be a problem. But the fact the government squirms and wriggles, claiming it's safe in their hands, blah blah blah, while slashing funding and opening up the wound to the private sector to feast on, I think says it all really. It looks to me like the present government, along with the last Labour one, are under funding the NHS into the ground, to allow them to claim once more that nationalised models always fail. Then they can proclaim an American model to be the way forward. A multi-tiered health care system, where you get what you can afford.According to various sources I've come across regarding the best healthcare systems in the world, it's probably a tie between the UK and France. However under current circumstances I expect France to come out on top. France spends more GDP on healthcare than the UK. Provides healthcare for everyone and is apparently very much defended by the public. It's essentially a national health service.I've also never claimed that doctors are the only important aspect of a health system. All levels of staff are vital. And as I've already stated and Gnome has confirmed, funding is the issue. [edit]
moderator1 wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:Anyone can write to a branch, NERB chose to host their branch meeting place on a party site where anyone, member or not, could post, as opposed to a closed invitation only list. We have to accept that different meeting formats have different rules, in a physical meeting, you'd have to wait for the chair.I was under the impression that a non NERB member had to introduce themselves and be welcomed by the members before posting?Once welcomed onto the meeting by NERB members, the guest is free to contribute.An important reason to be welcomed into the meeting, is to prevent unwanted bullshit plaguing the branch meetings. It was agreed early on that if needed the NERB would request the forum moderator/s assistance in dealing with disrupters.This is how I understood the NERB system to operate. Of course, I could be wrong.
The NERB section on this forum is open to any user on this forum. The section includes topics and Branch meetings. I assume any contributions by non-members of NERB to Branch meetings would have to go through the chair via a PM to the secretary.However, to set the record straight, Matt did not disrupt a Branch meeting but posted a topic in reference to the twitter account held by the Branch. Which he's entitled to do. In fact if you go through records you will see that I've contributed to a topic which didn't at the time create any queries on breaching party rules, simply because it was a topic and not a Branch meeting.
I think the issue of online meetings and physical meetings has been discussed before. They aren't the same, people can post one after another without needing permission from "the chair".I don't think any specific rules were written in stone, regarding the NERB site, more a system of etiquette of how the members would like it to function. Hence every time I pop on I say "Hi" and wait for a welcome before I post further. Sending a PM to "the chair" or branch secretary is unnecessarily formal for such an online set up. If that were to be adopted then why not send a PM to the elected chair everytime anyone wishes to post? Try running it like a physical meeting and it would quickly grind to a halt.As for Matt posting such a subject openly on the NERB site, why not send Vin a courteous private message informing him of the issue regarding the twitter account in question?
steve colborn wrote:Just a final point, then I'll let it lie. If reminders are posted after posts by a particuler postee but not after posts by others, can people not see that this, although mod1 states "Reminder are not posted for any particular post or user, but for all posts and users." can in and of itself be seen as a chastisement of a "particular" postee? and a form of targetting!I know full well that this will be understood and can in no way be taken out of context, the point is will the "meaning" be taken in and fully comprehended?Over to others.Steve, an important thing to consider is that a moderator may not be available at all times. This will mean them having to ost a reminder when they log on, if they deem it necessary.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Anyone can write to a branch, NERB chose to host their branch meeting place on a party site where anyone, member or not, could post, as opposed to a closed invitation only list. We have to accept that different meeting formats have different rules, in a physical meeting, you'd have to wait for the chair.I was under the impression that a non NERB member had to introduce themselves and be welcomed by the members before posting?Once welcomed onto the meeting by NERB members, the guest is free to contribute.An important reason to be welcomed into the meeting, is to prevent unwanted bullshit plaguing the branch meetings. It was agreed early on that if needed the NERB would request the forum moderator/s assistance in dealing with disrupters.This is how I understood the NERB system to operate. Of course, I could be wrong.
Young Master Smeet wrote:We shouldn't allow ourselves to be blinded by loyalty to the NHS badge, what matters is the care we receive, and we need to be aware that it is a bargain between us and the capitalists.Not sure who's blinded by loyalty to the NHS. The whole point is the care we receive and it is slipping as we speak, it has been for some time now. It's not slipping because the people in the NHS don't care, from my extensive experience of the NHS, most of the staff are dedicated to the well being of their patients. The problem is the funding. Good healthcare within the current economic system is extremely costly.Medical expectations in Britain are high. An ageing, disease ridden population being kept alive beyond economic usefulness is very expensive. From a economic perspective it makes no sense for capitalists to provide costly, long term health care to unproductive workers. That's why the changes are taking place.The issue is what should the British workers do about it. From an SPGB perspective the junior doctor strikes are another example of industrial action, workers fighting to maintain a certain level of financial protection. If the junior doctors use the tactics that are necessary to apply serious pressure on the government, then it will cause serious harm to fellow workers. The government know this would cost the doctors public support. Therefore it is an industrial action issue that involves us all.Does the SPGB support workers struggles in industrial action? Is the NHS a reformist measure that has been of huge benefit to British workers?
DJP,I get your point, but if you suggest we participate in a capitalist issue, just for the sake of a "bigger cell" then I see no difference in socialists advocating and fighting to save the likes of the NHS. There's more at stake than just a "bigger cell", as without the NHS it is likely that many of us wouldn't be here today. Having Cystic Fibrosis, I know I would have been dead before I reached double figures.My inclination is to spoil my ballot should an EU referendum actually take place.
