[Young Master Smeet]

I was a convert in the debate, and this recent story about Comic Relief (and previous one about the CofE) convinced me that although there is no reason in principle not to invest, the reputational risk is too great.  Whilst there is no substantial difference between the surplus value we'd accrue through bank interest, there is the matter of directly linking our name with given firms.Likewise, in this week's Private Eye, a more comparable case, is Newcastle councillor's who criticised Wonga, when it turns out that Newcastle Pension scheme invests in them (and even there the council itself is not directly responsible).Unfortunately I forgot to post my ballot paper back.

[Young Master Smeet]

Well, according to this report:http://leftunityleamingtonspa.wordpress.com/2013/12/01/a-report-on-founding-conference/The following is in their aims section:

Dinner Unity wrote:

to win a mandate to govern and introduce radical and fundamental changes in British society based on our belief in the benefits of cooperation and community ownership instead of the chaotic competition of capitalism; universal human rights, internationalism and peace; social, political and economic equality for all in the fullest sense, without which true democracy and mutual respect cannot flourish; a democratically planned economy that is environmentally sustainable, within which all enterprises, whether privately owned, cooperatives or under public ownership operate in ways that promote the needs of the people and wider society; an inclusive welfare state which operates on the principle that each will contribute to society according to their ability to do so, and society will in return meet their needs.

Well, that's that.

[Young Master Smeet]

I think one common description of a sect, drawn from Charlie's writings, is a group that emphasises differences over similarities.

OED wrote:

A school of opinion in politics, science, or the like; also, more or less jestingly, applied to a group of persons who attach importance to some peculiar crotchet about matters of social custom or the like.

or

OED wrote:

b.  †(a) A system of belief or observance distinctive of one of the parties or schools into which the adherents of a religion are divided; sometimes spec. a system differing from what is deemed the orthodox tradition; a heresy. Obs.  (b) A body of persons who unite in holding certain views differing from those of others who are accounted to be of the same religion; a party or school among the professors of a religion; sometimes applied spec. to parties that are regarded as heretical, or at least as deviating from the general tradition.

[Young Master Smeet]

Not necesarilly authoitative, but it matches similar check-lists I've seen over the years.http://www.anandainfo.com/cult_checklist.html

Cult Check-List wrote:

"Comparing the following statements to the group with which you or a family member or loved one is involved may help you determine if this involvement is cause for concern. If you check any of these items as characteristic of the group in question, and particularly if you check many of them you may well be dealing with a cult and should critically examine the group and its relationship to you or your loved one.1) The group is focused on a living leader to whom members display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment. 2) The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members and/or making money.3) Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged.4) Mind-numbing techniques (for example: meditation, chanting, denunciation sessions, or debilitating work routines) are used to suppress members' doubts.5) The group's leadership dictates how members should think, act, and feel (for example: members must get permission from leaders to date, change jobs, or get married;) leaders may determine types of clothes to wear, where to live, how to discipline children, and so forth.6) The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, it's leader(s), and members (for example: the leader is considered the Messiah or an avatar; the group and/or the leader has a special mission to save humanity).7) The group has a polarized we-they mentality that causes conflict with the wider society. The group's leader is not accountable to any authorities (as are, for example, military commanders and ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream denominations).9) The group teaches or implies that its "superior" ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group (for example: collecting money for bogus charities).10) The group's leadership induces guilt feelings in members in order to control then11) Members'subservience to the group causes them to give up previous personal goals and interests while devoting inordinate amounts of time to the groups." 12) Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/cultchecklst.htm

Quote:

(a) engage in deceptive recruitment practices? (recruiters typically disguise the true nature and aims of the group when seeking converts)(b) tend to target vulnerable individuals, as outlined above?(c) offer unconditional affirmation and support initially, but soon make its continuance contingent on obedience?(d) have a closed social system that makes a special effort to isolate acolytes from family, friends, etc.?(e) use constant bombardment with pro-group and pro-leader messages and exclusion of other messages?(f) have a rigid, authoritarian hierarchy?(g) have a leader and ruling clique that are perceived to possess infallible insight, supernatural powers, etc.? Do they claim to have been chosen by some higher authority to rule, and thus to be excused from the normal social restrictions on one’s behavior?(h) have an eclectic, often muddled and internally contradictory, set of teachings – usually a magic-laden philosophy that claims to have infallible answers to those “big ticket” questions of existence?(i) have a strict behavior code that governs all aspects of how one should think, feel, and act? Are there strong penalties for deviation?(j) instill fear of outsiders (the “bunker mentality”)? Does the group try to convince members they are powerless to act without the group’s support and that the world “out there” is uncaring and hostile?(k) engage in major forms of exploitation (e.g., financial, occupational, or sexual – of self, spouse, or children)?(l) demand immoral, unethical, or illegal activity on the part of its members?

[Young Master Smeet]

Oh, and Bone also links to this interesting Maurice Brinton article:http://libcom.org/library/suicide-for-socialism-jonestown-brintonI'd never heard of the incident described.  On a quick skim read, I think this paragraph is relevent:

Brinton wrote:

Many sects live in political isolation. This is a further mechanism for ensuring the control of the leaders. The members are not only 'rescued' from their past, they are 'protected' from their own present. Such sects refrain from anything that would bring their members into too close a proximity with the outside world. Recruitment is encouraged, but closely monitored. Members are urged to give up their hobbies and their previous friends. Such external relationship are constantly scrutinised, questioned, frowned upon, deemed suspect. United action with other groups – of a kind that may involve discussion or argument – is avoided, or only allowed to 'trustworthy' leaders.[…]Open, non-authoritarian organisations encourage individuality and differences of opinion. But criticism impairs the pain-killing effect of cults – and the cohesion of sects. When a cult is threatened both Leader and followers may go beserk. The best analogy to this is the withdrawal reaction from a drug on which someone has become hooked. Criticism impairs the efficacy of such drugs. So does any suggestion that the Leader doesn't know, or that perhaps there is no hard and fast answer to certain questions.

[Young Master Smeet]

Ian Bone picks up a good point:http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2013/11/25/a-surfeit-of-cults-lambeth-central-by-election-1978/

Bone wrote:

If you didn’t fancy the Maoists on Acre Lane you could choose from these six socialist candidates that came bottom of the poll. Cultist Corin Redgrave fought the seat for Gerry Healy but I love the Socialist Unity candidate….followed by five non-unity candidates. Left Unity beware.

[Young Master Smeet]

Slothjabber wrote:

1 – it damages the anarchist Bookfair when SPGB members imply there is some hypocrisy or conspiracy in the selection process;

Damage the Anarchist bookfair?  What a good idea…

[Young Master Smeet]

I don't recall us ever describing ourselves as the "Parliamentary wing of the anarchist movement", and it wouldn't be true, we're not anarchists.  Which will also the the reason we dopn't ask to have a stall in the Anarchist Bookfair (If in the past people have asked, and we've been repeatedly turned down, it might also be reasonable to conclude that it's not worth asking again).I hope we don't, though, issue any clarification. 

[Young Master Smeet]

jpodcaster,And? At least it's the restaurant I want.  In my opinion, this is the best course of action, and I need to be able to argue for it clearly, rather than curtailing my comments in the name of unity with people whose objectives are massively at variance with mine.  I might be wrong, I might be right.  I've no problem with people trying something different (and I reserve the right to voice my opinions on their efforts).  I see no viable alternative to my activity now.

[Young Master Smeet]

Of course, this debate does revolve around our raison d'etre, possiblism/impossiblism.  We would not for one second deny the need to fight for our living standards here and now: only that a political party (one aiming to use the offices of state) shouldn't do so.  Leftists can use other, more effective avenues than Left Unity: you can join the Labour Representation Committee without joining Labour,  You can join Labour.  You can join the community section of Unite, so even within the principle of fighting back, it's far from clear that a new small party will really be the most effective way to do it.  These are the issues we could have discussed (and have further back in the thread).

[Young Master Smeet]

I see the ghost of Stuart is still eating duck (after asking for a bit of robust debate and getting it).  he seems unable to answer the question of how you achieve unity between people with different objectives: he's never answered that one any time it was raised.  good uck to Tactical Unity, they'll need it.

[Young Master Smeet]

jpodcaster wrote:

Welcome to politics Bill – its a messy business. Alternatively you could always establish a central dinner committee to tell everyone where they'll be going?

Or, we could organise a Dinner group based on the agreement of what a restuarant is, and how to get there, first, instead of trying to reconcile incommensurates.  The idea of unity between Labour reformists who don't want socialism, Stalinist and Trotskyist totalitarians and woolly libertarians is the opposite of politics.  Politics is deciding what you want to do, and how to do it, not agreeing to submerge those two key things for the sake of 'unity'.Or, to use Alistair Campbells very useful TLA: OST Objective, Strategy, Tactics.  Left unity looks to unite around tactics, and knock O & S into the long grass.

[Young Master Smeet]

stuartw2112 wrote:

As for dinner, you try telling someone who's hungry that unhealthy snacks are a diversion from the glorious Michelin starred restaurant that awaits us at the end of a 40 year journey. I'll hold their coat while they smack you about the head.

I see you're having duck for dinner.  Anyway, eating sweets between meals can ruin your appetite.  It's the snackers that are delaying dinner, that's the point.

[Young Master Smeet]

I'm in the middle of organising our works Winterval Dinner.  We are united around going for dinner (except those who don't actually want to go).  Some want to go to an Indian restaurant, some want to go to Thai, but we are all part of Dinner Unity.  We are united in Dinner Unity, and we can work together, despite wanting to go to different restaurants.  We believe in Dinner.  Just don't ask us to define it (some think it has to include meat, others don't).  But we want to go to each restaurant we want to go to by different routes.  But we are still Dinner Unity.  Some people think that we don't need to set a time for arrival, so long as we travel together, and while dinner is nice in principle, we have to eat lots of unhealthy snacks in the meantime as a lesser evil.  Some think that the restuaraunt is inimportant, and it is the journey that matters.  But we are still Dinner Unity.  Oh, and we all hate each other, and are sneaking behind each other's backs to try and undermine each other, and impose our choices of Restaurant, route and time on each other.  But we are still Dinner Unity.Now, I have a ballot to re-run using the Condorcet count.

[Young Master Smeet]

A fascinating book on this general topic (well, science) is: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Peoples-History-Science-Midwives-Mechanicks/dp/1560257482

Blurb wrote:

We all know the history of science that we learned from grade school textbooks: How Galileo used his telescope to show that the earth was not the center of the universe; how Newton divined gravity from the falling apple; how Einstein unlocked the mysteries of time and space with a simple equation. This history is made up of long periods of ignorance and confusion, punctuated once an age by a brilliant thinker who puts it all together. These few tower over the ordinary mass of people, and in the traditional account, it is to them that we owe science in its entirety. This belief is wrong. A People's History of Science shows how ordinary people participate in creating science and have done so throughout history. It documents how the development of science has affected ordinary people, and how ordinary people perceived that development. It would be wrong to claim that the formulation of quantum theory or the structure of DNA can be credited directly to artisans or peasants, but if modern science is likened to a skyscraper, then those twentieth-century triumphs are the sophisticated filigrees at its pinnacle that are supported by the massive foundation created by the rest of us.

A copy is available in the Party Library…

[Author]

Posts