Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I don't think he spoke, but he did write about the Hyde Park Riots which founded it, so perhaps he popped along…
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/17/upshot/danger-robots-working.html?smid=fb-share&_r=1
Quote:Robots have caused at least 33 workplace deaths and injuries in the United States in the last 30 years, according to data from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. That may not sound like many, but the number may well understate the perils ahead.A very good set of comments. The book takes it's place alongside the Spirit Level in scientific analysis. the important thing is they will have to take him on (some have had a pop at the Spirit Level, the main effect of which has been chaff for people to use as distraction rebuttals).The important thing, with Marx, wasn't every last line and formula of Capital, but the fact that he was with and of the workers' movement too, IMNSHO.
Quote:Did Vin break party rules and regulations, as has been insinuated recently by YMS? A simple question requiring a simple answer.Something I emphatically have not done. Please withdraw that remark. I have only explained the practical and procedural underpinnings of the party's democracy. I have made no comment about the recent events, other than to note their procedural validity.
Steve,say a member were to spout racist views, and criticise the party for race treachery? That would be action detrimental and would be them signalling non-acceptance of the principles. Yes, it would depend very much on the manner in which such views were put across. The question of changing the principles is a constitional knightmare (as we've seen before), but in essence one could avocate changing them whilst still accepting the current ones.
SP: "signifying acceptance of the object and principles of the Party." If a member criticises the party in such a manner as would indicate that they do not accept the object and principles of the party, their membership would be rendered invalid. Likewise, if they criticise from the standpoint of another organisation, they should go and join it. This would depend on the facts on the ground. Obviously, criticism while still a member is more protected than when a non-member but we'd still be entitled to take it into account (as it was when I rejoined).
If a non-member who has been publicly criticising the party applies to join, then we have the right to put a question mark over that application. Also, the right to criticise the party, since you ask, is limited by rule 1, obviously (and, to a certain extent, by rule 6).
Vin Maratty wrote:It would be extremely undemocratic for an administrative committee to make up there own minds about what to do. But I don't think you meant to say that. It would be simply absurd to have party rules, conference decisions and party polls and then elect an EC to make up their own minds.Erm, no.I believe it was conference 1935 pass the following resolution:"The EC shall stand and turn thrice widdershins if a black cat walks across head office roof during an EC meeting held on a Tuesday or a Thursday in an even month, unless there is a dog in Edgeley Lane."The EC members would have to make their minds up:1) Whether a black cat had walked across the roof.2) Whether it was a qualifying day/month3) Whether there was a dog in Edgeley Lane.Before deciding whether to stand and turn thrice widdershins. They would also have to decide how fast to turn widdershins. They might decide whetehr or not to designate someone to watch the roof durign qualifying meetings in case there's a cat, or should they ignore it unless a cat makes its presence known?
Steve,well, discussing procedures, Ed made up his mind, and that is procedurally valid.To take a hypothetical (based in part on fact) there was a relatively famous libel case involving a woman in Hackney who moved from the Labour, to Respect, to the Tories in a short space of time. If she applied, I'd support the EC refusing her membership, based on her recent fickleness. I'd say the infamous "balance of probability" test applies.As I've said, though, part of democracy is that this process isn't finished. There are other points to be raised, at the appropriate place and time.
You're not getting through because your point is baseless and mistaken. Don't go blaming me for you being wrong. I don't see a conflict of interest, ED has nothing to gain nor lose: he simply has an opinion, and has acted upon it. You're entirely right, the rulebook guides an open process, that is ongoing.
LBird,"the mind of the Party" is to not admit to membership anyone whose membership would be detrimental to the interest of the party: the EC members have made that determination, and are going to be asked to think again. The wider party may now intervene if it so wishes.I think that's slightly better than hoping for telepathy from our EC members.I have a couple of points I want to put to my own branch about this, but I'm going to show them some courtesy and raise the points there first.
I'm not hiding behind the rulebook, I'm pointing out the actual structures involved and rebutting accusations of anti-democratic practices. Some lurkers may find it useful to see.I cannot see any problem with members of the EC being from the same branch (certainly not one that could be solved by barring that circumstance), and frankly I feel it's more than a little insulting to two EC members in suggesting they can't make their own minds up on a situation.As a point of principle, I'd have no objection to the executive functions being handled by a branch (as has been known to happen in the First International and a few anarchist organisations),
Sigh.
Quote:Rule 17. The Executive Committee shall publish and control the Party literature. Election Statements and Election Manifestos must be approved by the Executive Committee before printing excepting handbills and leaflets. They shall establish a literature agency, from which all Branches shall be supplied, establish and maintain communications with Socialist Parties abroad and otherwise generally administer the work of the Party in accordance with Party polls, Party rules and Conference decisions, and to this end may appoint sub-committees. Names shall be called for, subject to the Executive Committee being authorised to appoint members directly to these sub- Committees if no nominations are received.Where no further instruction is available, the Object and the disciplinary rules apply (i.e. EC members should not act in a manner detrimental to the interests of the party and the furtherance of its Object). Rule 1 calls for the EC to ratify new members' applications: if they deem such ratification to be detrimental to the party's intrests they have an obligation to vote against ratification. If members and branches object to any decision made, they have the right to call the EC to account over it through a number of channels (EC members are under no obligation to consult a priori over the colour of Head Office furniture or other sundry decisions, it's up to the membership to call out a decision and say they think it important and worthy of wider attention).
1) the EC is not a representative body, nor a delegative one; it's irrelevent which branches EC members come from. They're responsibility is to the EC and to the membership as a whole (who have the option to reject EC candidates even when the number of nominations is equal or fewer than the number of posts being annually elected).2) The EC does, IIRC have a requirement to declare an interest; but I don't see one here. The question at hand was not the dispute between the two men, but the suitability of a candidate for party membership. Ed has provided reasons that are valid within the rules for the way he voted.3) I expect branches may well start sticking their oar in between now and the next EC meeting.Remember, kids, democracy is a messy business.
Skidelsky's review is slightly more readable and interesting:http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/book-review-capital-in-21-century-thomas-piketty/#.U5F599j4LwA
