Wales Social Forum

[Socrates]

Well, I know how the SWP function. Ex-SWP members have forwarded me internal email lists from the STW 'head office' out of sheer exasperation at their highly exclusive policies, regarding the refusal to publicise events of others.

Eh, excuse me, surely the STW like any other organisation is only under obligation to publicise it's own events, not act as a general grapevine and bulletin board for everyone else?

Also, publicising other organisations events is problematic, as it leads to arguments over what events to publicise and what not to publicise, what is the criterion for publicising events. A lot of publicity for lots of other organisations can also mean that STW events get lost in a plethora of adverts.

As it happens, I have seen many events in Aberystwth advertised on STW website, even when they have taken place at the same time as STW events, including the SFC

 

[Socrates]

I was told by a witness that Jill Evans, the MEP, was called a bitch to her face during a public meeting. That sort of behaviour is unacceptable for me, and I'm just glad I wasn't there cos I'd probably have lost my temper with that sort of behaviour.

What was the context? And who was responsible? Was the individual responsible for this behaviour ejected from the event? Was it the mexican wannabe referred to in earlier posts?

 

[munkeeunit]

Eh, excuse me, surely the STW like any other organisation is only under obligation to publicise it's own events, not act as a general grapevine and bulletin board for everyone else?

Also, publicising other organisations events is problematic, as it leads to arguments over what events to publicise and what not to publicise, what is the criterion for publicising events. A lot of publicity for lots of other organisations can also mean that STW events get lost in a plethora of adverts.

As it happens, I have seen many events in Aberystwth advertised on STW website, even when they have taken place at the same time as STW events, including the SFC

None of this is a problem for Bristol Stop The War. Coalitions which aim to include should not exclude.

We have a well layed out newsletter which publicise STW events first, then has additional sections for other key notes events around the country. It's not an entirely perfect system, as it never possible to catch everything, but imperfection is a lame and disengenuous excuse to exclude. I'm very well tuned into the STW network, so I know what I'm talking about here.

EDIT: The history of STW 'head office' is that even those within the coalition have been excluded from their publicity.

 

[munkeeunit]

PS: The Bristol STW newsletter has around 3,000 subscribers, most other STW groups around the country are barely ticking over on 200 or less. That should tell you all you need to know about which approach works best.

 

[neprimerimye]

The SWP do vote rig through packing meetings with SWP members in diverse groups where it's assumed common decency will mean people only send representatives to vote. A way around that is to have representative voting, as opposed to an open free for all (which anyone can abuse), as opposed also to CDM. I am very open to working with the SWP. I think that is clear also.

The problem I would have with 'representative voting' is that it is predicated on the idea that those voting are representatives. Which if we are talking of delegates from trade union branches or similar is fine but what happens when you have bodies consisting primarily of individuals?

At one STWC meeting I was amused that the annual meeting elected onto the committee a student. Now it seems only logical that there should be a student representative but surely the students should have elected said representative? Quite crazy.

On the upside Wayne did a hissy fit and walked out of that particular meeting. Mind he didn't waste the rest of the veing like those of us who stayed did. Praise Satan I rarely attend the ever shrinking meetings of the far left these days.

 

[munkeeunit]

There definitely is no perfect system, and this is a major hole in representative voting you point to. An approach used is to first go for consensus, and if only one or two people are blocking the consensus to eventually go for a straight vote, but how many hours the debate should drag on for is another issue.

I've known debates to drag on over a number of weeks, but this is not always a bad thing. A flaw of voting is that it can cut short the necessary debate. And some will call for a vote once they sense they can win it, even if further debate may cause opinion to once more change. CDM may be tedious and time consuming, but it does also often result in a more rounded appreciation of everyone's position. It also results in deadlock and endless repetiton of mantras.

 

[neprimerimye]

There definitely is no perfect system, and this is a major hole in representative voting you point to. An approach used is to first go for consensus, and if only one or two people are blocking the consensus to eventually go for a straight vote, but how many hours the debate should drag on for is another issue.

I've known debates to drag on over a number of weeks, but this is not always a bad thing. A flaw of voting is that it can cut short the necessary debate. And some will call for a vote once they sense they can win it, even if further debate may cause opinion to once more change. CDM may be tedious and time consuming, but it does also often result in a more rounded appreciation of everyone's position. It also results in deadlock and endless repetiton of mantras.

To be frank there is no point in coming to a "more rounded appreciation" of the views of say Wayne or the SWP. Nor can I see anything to be gained by listening to the views of employees of NGO's or as I still think of them charidees. After all they only exist to dupe the masses and skim workers of money which is then used to further the agendas of liberal imperialism. For example I note the corrupting influence of NGO's on the LPP.

Lets be honest the organisational forms adopted by various bodies is a class question. If possible socialists should always argue for representative delegate based elections, after fair debate, but in general conditions have rarely been suitable for such forms in the last period given that they are predicated on the affiliation of other pre-existing bodies from whom delegates will be drawn and not on the more or less ad hoc type bodies that have actually come into being.

Until there is a sizeable revival of working class militancy I'm afraid i'm of the opinion that most leftists will remain confined to their circle jerks with others of the same ilk.

 

[munkeeunit]

Yes, I know how you feel, but beyond the parties, ngo's, etc that people are attached too are also people often secretly aching to have an opinion beyond the party line, ngo speel, and so on, they are primarily attached too.

That may sound wishy washy, but getting to know the opinions of people beneath the mantras can be very revealing and productive, but admittedly, this isn't always revealed at meetings where the peer pressure of others in the same party / ngo means that people are often very guarded about going beyond their designated mantras.

 

[neprimerimye]

Yes, I know how you feel, but beyond the parties, ngo's, etc that people are attached too are also people often secretly aching to have an opinion beyond the party line, ngo speel, and so on, they are primarily attached too.

That may sound wishy washy, but getting to know the opinions of people beneath the mantras can be very revealing and productive, but admittedly, this isn't always revealed at meetings where the peer pressure of others in the same party / ngo means that people are often very guarded about going beyond their designated mantras.

No I agree with you from a psychological point of view it is most intresting to observe the machinations involved in small group wadical politics. From a political point of view I rather consider that campaigns such as STWC and the CSF are dominated by a class of people who ae at best reformists without the connection to the labour mvovement that characterised the old school Labourites.

Now while I acknowledge that it is possible for socialist sects such as the SWP, SP, WP et al to recruit from this millieu in general I don't feel that they are worth the effort. The far left is already polluted by such petty bourgeois NGO types.

That many members of the sects would like to break out of the stultifying ossified norms that their leaqders pass of as 'Leninism' I do not doubt for a moment but I suspect that until a sizeable part of the class begins to move that they will conitnue to degenerate, politically speaking, due to the growing influence of the ngo petty bourgeois types they have recruited and who seem to form a considerable section of the leadership of the sects today.

 

[Col_Buendia]

I'm looking forward to the nineteenth century me

They say it'll be the century of revolutions

 

[munkeeunit]

The 21st century will make the 19th century look like the 18th century.

No wait they had revolutions then too. Ummm.... the 20th century then, no plenty of revolutions there as well.

Ok, the 21st century will be like any other recent century. Unheaval and change at a breathtaking pace.

 

[Col_Buendia]

Yes, but do you think Neprimerimye will one day join us in the 21st century, that's my concern

 

[neprimerimye]

The 21st century will make the 19th century look like the 18th century.

No wait they had revolutions then too. Ummm.... the 20th century then, no plenty of revolutions there as well.

Ok, the 21st century will be like any other recent century. Unheaval and change at a breathtaking pace.

The 21st century will be very like the 20th wars and counter-revolutions. Unless the far left gets its act together and turns its collective back on the ngo liberals.

 

[neprimerimye]

Yes, but do you think Neprimerimye will one day join us in the 21st century, that's my concern

You can keep your 21st century thus far it sucks.

 

[Col_Buendia]

You can keep your 21st century thus far it sucks.

Fuck - we agree

 

[neprimerimye]

Fuck - we agree

I doubt that very much.

In any case I find it deeply hurtful for a liberal to claim that s/he agress with me.

 

[Col_Buendia]

In any case I find it deeply hurtful for a liberal to claim that s/he agress with me.

We agree again!! I was going to say exactly the same thing to you - liberal

 

[neprimerimye]

We agree again!! I was going to say exactly the same thing to you - liberal

Oh dearie me now your simply being silly. As a Marxist I am, of course, in the field of politics an authoritarian. In the nicest revolutionary sense of course not personally or in my social views.

You my friend as an anarchoid of some type are politically indifferent, presuming you hold to the traditional cliches of that ideology, and therefore politically as bankrupt as any other liberal.

 

[Col_Buendia]

Ouch! Now you've really hurt my feelings

But come come, gentle Neprimerimye, don't try to pull the wool over watching eyes! You know as well as I do that you're a reformist at heart, no revolutionary you. A change of management in an existing structure is a reform - only those who seek to do away with the structure in toto can truly lay claim to the lofty status of "revolutionary".

Authoritarian you no doubt are, but in the nicest, reformist sense of course

 

[Col_Buendia]

double post

 

[neprimerimye]

Ouch! Now you've really hurt my feelings

But come come, gentle Neprimerimye, don't try to pull the wool over watching eyes! You know as well as I do that you're a reformist at heart, no revolutionary you. A change of management in an existing structure is a reform - only those who seek to do away with the structure in toto can truly lay claim to the lofty status of "revolutionary".

Authoritarian you no doubt are, but in the nicest, reformist sense of course

Threads do tend to wander about but we are now far off topic. So I shall not tarry too long on this latest silliness of yours Col except to remarks that as a Marxist in no sense do I consider that the social revolution can be reduced to a 'change in management'. Rather I hold that the entire mode of production must be swept away root and branch and replaced by a system of production democratically planned according to the needs of the vast majority of society in preparation for that time when even the plan will fall away a unneeded extraction and man begins into the realm of freedom. A transitional period that is which anarchoids reject in favour of sub-reformist utopian phantasies.

 

[munkeeunit]

I broadly agree with this, but do you study the economy, or is this cut n paste?

There's a thread here which everyone has abandoned, left, right and centre because it's got onto the topic of debating the economy in the here and now. Everyone has their soundbites, not matter how long and clunky they may be, but almost everyone seems not to understand the economy beyond them.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=161357

I'm on/from the revoltionary left, but wouldn't trust them with the economy for a minute, let alone with beginning to replace it root and banch with something else. The skills and expertise simply do not exist on the left.

Those skills may be their latently already due to everyone already doing the necessary jobs, but there is not a critical mass of people on the left who genuinely comprhend and study the economy, or know how to change it, beyond cut n paste clunky soundbites from some marxist book or other.

I'm not being critical of marxism in general, but I have become deeply sceptical that people who claim to be on the revolutionary left would be able, in any substantive form, to steer an economy away from capitalism.

That you are saying the left should get it's act together is a promising indication that you do, but most people who make these claims clearly don't once the clunky cut n paste marxist sounbites have been exhausted.

And for people like me who do study the economy, there certainy isn't a critical mass of peers around who are able to analyse in this way, which is often a necessary requirement to get the grey matter of all of us going.

 

[neprimerimye]

I broadly agree with this, but do you study the economy, or is this cut n paste?

There's a thread here which everyone has abandoned, left, right and centre because it's got onto the topic of debating the economy in the here and now. Everyone has their soundbites, not matter how long and clunky they may be, but almost everyone seems not to understand the economy beyond them.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=161357

I'm on/from the revoltionary left, but wouldn't trust them with the economy for a minute, let alone with beginning to replace it root and banch with something else. The skills and expertise simply do not exist on the left.

Those skills may be their latently already due to everyone already doing the necessary jobs, but there is not a critical mass of people on the left who genuinely comprhend and study the economy, or know how to change it, beyond cut n paste clunky soundbites from some marxist book or other.

I'm not being critical of marxism in general, but I have become deeply sceptical that people who claim to be on the revolutionary left would be able, in any substantive form, to steer an economy away from capitalism.

That you are saying the left should get it's act together is a promising indication that you do, but most people who make these claims clearly don't once the clunky cut n paste marxist sounbites have been exhausted.

And for people like me who do study the economy, there certainy isn't a critical mass of peers around who are able to analyse in this way, which is often a necessary requirement to get the grey matter of all of us going.

Do I study the economy? Not quite sure what you mean by that.

But I can say that i do what i can to understand political economy. Including reading the classics of marxism and trying to keep up to date with the more worthwhile Marxist work on the subject.

After all without an understanding of political eonomy Marxism is just another ideology like say anarchism.

 

[munkeeunit]

In order to move from the economy as it is, to another place, an understanding of the economy (root and branch) as it stands is necessary. Marxism tells us a lot about the trajectory of capitalism, but it doesn't tell us how to get from A-B in the here and now.

That's what is most often lacking amongst the left as it stands.

 

[Col_Buendia]

I broadly agree with this, but do you study the economy, or is this cut n paste?

This thread seems to be yielding a higher than average level of comedy genius!

 

[munkeeunit]

This thread seems to be yielding a higher than average level of comedy genius!

Is this the bit where we all try and remember what we said during the 4 hours of lost posts, and do our best to pretend it didn't happen and that we're not in a time loop.

 

[Col_Buendia]

You got it!

 

[llantwit]

Is this the bit where we all try and remember what we said during the 4 hours of lost posts, and do our best to pretend it didn't happen and that we're not in a time loop.

I'll sumarise (and paraphrase) for everyone who missed it:

Nep: You are indeed a comedian - you anarchoid liberal scum.
Col: Every comedian needs a straight-man you authoritarian wanker.
Nep: I am indeed an authoritarian in the strictly political sense, but I'm also a jolly nice chap with a social conscience, and I'm authoritarian for all the right reasons - at least I'm not a wishy-washy liberal like you anarcho fool.
Col: Callin' me a liberal - you're a reformist! Ha! So there! All you want is a change of management at the top of society, you liberal reformist.
Nep: I think you'll find I want a fundamental change in the ownership of the means of production, you anarcho-lickspittle. Bugger off and talk to your greenpeace-scum friends and never trouble me again with your corrupt ideology.
Col: Whatever. Talk to the hand you liberal reformist. By the way - you going to see Black Mountain down the bay on thursday?


This public service broadcast was brought to you by an inattentive reader who happened upon this thread before the boards went down, and remembered the general gist (maybe).

 

[munkeeunit]

That sounds about right.

The bit where everyone goes down the pub / bay, etc after calling each other lots of political names always makes me laugh.

Reminds of Bristol

I'm am of, course, the only theorotically pure one here, the rest of you deal merely inbred theories from some dusty book, or NGO pamphlet, or other.

 

[zog]

I'll sumarise (and paraphrase) for everyone who missed it:

Nep: You are indeed a comedian - you anarchoid liberal scum.
Col: Every comedian needs a straight-man you authoritarian wanker.
Nep: I am indeed an authoritarian in the strictly political sense, but I'm also a jolly nice chap with a social conscience, and I'm authoritarian for all the right reasons - at least I'm not a wishy-washy liberal like you anarcho fool.
Col: Callin' me a liberal - you're a reformist! Ha! So there! All you want is a change of management at the top of society, you liberal reformist.
Nep: I think you'll find I want a fundamental change in the ownership of the means of production, you anarcho-lickspittle. Bugger off and talk to your greenpeace-scum friends and never trouble me again with your corrupt ideology.
Col: Whatever. Talk to the hand you liberal reformist. By the way - you going to see Black Mountain down the bay on thursday?


This public service broadcast was brought to you by an inattentive reader who happened upon this thread before the boards went down, and remembered the general gist (maybe).

What excellent recall you have Llantwit - or are you keeping files?