Deconstructing The Socialist Party
- This topic has 51 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I recently found an interesting document, (the title of which I have used for this thread) that was circulated to party members back when I was in the party, dating around July 2000. It is an interesting document for a number of reasons, the most important, for me at least, is the idea of making the party more democratically inclusive by utilising the internet more effectively.
However it is particularly interesting in relation to what has been happening recently within the EC and its refusal to let back in to the party certain ex-members. A paragraph or two will serve to enlighten.
………. EC minutes are notoriously hard to read, and many members consequently don't bother. To make them comprehensible, the General Secretary would need to write a small pamphlet every month. Aside from the work involved, members would be put off by the size of the reading necessary to keep up.
The result of this is that, whether they like it or not, activists involved in the central operations of the Party form an inner clique, with access to information unavailable to the wider membership. Most members are outside the loop, and frequently have not the faintest idea what is going on. When a dispute arises, they are in the dark. When help is needed, they don't offer. When opinion is courted, they are too uninformed to give it. ……..
The Executive Committee
We are always having to explain to sympathisers that our EC is not like a Leninist Central Committee, yet the similarity is obvious. Despite our protestations, it is hard for members to escape the impression that this body does indeed wield power. It has for example the power to call a Party poll, issue a Party press statement, appoint any committee, bring a charge, instigate any meeting, refuse any A form or F form, sanction any act by any member or branch, and dispense or deny permission like any good old-fashioned dictator. The fact that its teeth are drawn does not detract from its influence. The fact that it cannot create policy by the front door does not entirely prevent it doing so by the back door, through its subcommittees. To insist that it has no power is, unfortunately, unrealistic and somewhat trusting. In the past, the EC has been dominated by non-democrats, and the membership was obliged to organise what amounted to a palace coup to dislodge them. In general, EC members are honest democrats with no wish to dominate. The structure, however, is clearly open to abuse, and nobody can guarantee that it will not be abused in the future. …….
There's no technical barrier to EC meetings being broadcast online live.Indeed meetings with SPGB speakers at TZM have probably been broadcast online live already on livestream or ustream.The full 'Deconstructing the Socialist Party (2000)' document can be read herehttp://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/spopen/conversations/messages/3704
Thanks for this post SP. It adds fresh impetus to the fact that, even in the SPGB, eternal vigilance is the order of the day. It would be interesting to find out who the author of this document was? Moreover, if he/she are still in the Party, what their opinion is, of the present events within the Party!Steve Colborn.
The irony here is that Paddy Shannon seems to be pointing out flaws embedded within the workings of the EC, yet has recently taken part in clique like EC decisions, with little in the way of adequate explanation, regarding the application to rejoin the party from two ex members.
As one of these "attempted rejoinee's", I can do no other than totally agree with SP! The EC minutes are as follows;(e) Form A for SC (application to rejoin)Some EC members argued that this application should be rejected on the grounds of the applicant's behaviour when he was in the Party. Other EC members did not believe this was relevant in deciding his application.Motion 7 – Browne and Cox moved that the Form A be rejected. Carried (3-2-2).Division – For – Browne, Shannon, CoxAgainst – Bond, BuickAbstain – Craggs, FosterWhat must be asked is, what behaviour? Disagreement with other members of the forum? Disagreement with forum moderation or, in this instance forum immoderation.Or could it be the actions of "members" of the SPGB who, after I left the Party, slagged me off personally, even though they knew, as a now, non-member, I could not defend myself!Accused of, I can only surmise, "improper behaviour" when a party member, specifics not provided! Possibly because "other" members, were complicit in these events but have not been caught up in the "shit storm".The actions of the current EC are exactly what comrade Shannon refers to in his refered to polemic. Indefensable in a democratic party. All I want, is to be allowed back into a party that I have done so much to promote. A party I resigned from, was not ejected from. Did nothing of any difference, than "current members" of the SPGB did but are still within it's orbit.Actions of the type I refer to above will, deconstruct the SPGB but not in the intellectual sense intended.Of course, in the intervening months since my resignation, I have contributed to the SPGB forum and the WSM forum. I have not "kicked off" as infered but have been constructive. So where is this "bad behaviour"?Deconstructing The Socialist Party? why? on this road we will do it to ourselves! Letting personal vendettas and disagreements rule? way to go.I've nothing to apologise for, as I have done, nothing.Steve Colborn.
I can imagine that some party members will be thinking that I am merely trying to continue an old argument. That I am using this as a battering ram to bash the SPGB. I even expect some will not believe me when I say they are mistaken.I set this thread up for two reasons. The first was to discuss ways to make the WSM more democratically inclusive. I found the document, of the thread title, and thought it made a number of valid observations regarding the working of the SPGB and how things could be made more inclusive. My view is that the internet and digital communication is not being exploited enough by the party. That is a tragedy given the fact that digital communication technology is here to stay and will continue to make the world a smaller place. I have a couple of ideas how it could be improved and would like an opportunity to discuss them.The second reason for this thread, that has unfortunately high jacked the more constructive part, is the abuse of the democratic process by some in the EC recently. This places the document of the title, slap bang in the spotlight for the wrong reasons. The document talks of cliques forming around the EC and it's committees, not as a deliberate attempt to subvert democracy, but as a consequence of the lack of wider party member inclusivity.I agree with the statement in the document, that EC members are genuine democrats and I regret having to highlight the issue in this manner, but I am not a party member and this is my only way to debate this issue. The interpretation I put on this specific problem, is that people often find it hard to put prejudices and personal value based judgments to one side when making decisions that really should be based on logical, evidence based assessment.When I was twenty I was called for jury service, and I saw first hand the difficulty some found separating their emotive based judgments from the facts of the matter at hand. It is why the jury system in the UK does not allow a persons previous criminal history to be brought into account.Socialists pride themselves on evidence based assessment of the failings of capitalism. We don't just go around saying to people, capitalism is not a very nice system. We leave that to the protest movement. We provide, wherever possible, evidence of capitalism's failings and suggest an alternative.
After checking out the Russel Brand, Paxman interview from the titled thread in general discussion, I thought now would be a good time to get to grips with the main aim of this thread. Brand refers to instant global communication as being a driving force for change and he is spot on.One of the criticisms aimed at pure democrats such as members and supporters of the World Socialist Movement, is that the democracy we advocate is too slow and unworkable. That in essence was true in the past. But thanks to the internet, instant democracy on a global scale is possible.A couple of questions to get debate going.How has the Socialist Party and WSM companions embraced such powerful, democratic decision making tools?How could digital communication be harnessed to make The Socialist Party and WSM, more democratically inclusive?
SocialistPunk wrote:A couple of questions to get debate going.How has the Socialist Party and WSM companions embraced such powerful, democratic decision making tools?How could digital communication be harnessed to make The Socialist Party and WSM, more democratically inclusive?Found this moments after replying to you on the other thread. Let me suggest to you here as I did there – what, in essence, are your own ideas/answers to the questions you pose?
We seem to reach a consensus on one particular problem. Like evolution , the party's democracy develops at a glacial speed…unfortunately. It decision making could do with speeding up and the internet and the web may well be the tools. The other issue raised initially of cliques and bias. On some things, i am geographically well out of the loop but again via the internet , i do insist that my views are heard, if they are not always heeded. The Gen Sec, Oliver is very helpful, offering to place my complaints or suggestions from the discussion lists before the monthly EC meetings. Sometimes, my opinions are mistaken because i do not have at hand the full facts. They are more informally known in Clapham High St for various reasons. I rarely apologise since how am i expected to read between the lines on something that's being deliberately made obtuse. However once the full picture is presented privately i usually understand and accept it. This is occasionally the price of transparency and openness, that some "secrets" will still exist. (got that from the conspiracy thread) In regards to the recent decisions to block the re-membership of two ex-comrades, i made my feelings public , long ago. I accepted their regrets for what took place (and acknowledged they were not the only offenders) and that it would not be repeated. That should have been the end of the story and their re-admittance a formality. If bad-mouthing the party and its members after a resignation meant never being re-admitted, i would not be in the party now. I'm not going to throw stones in a glass-house, have one rule for me and another for somebody else, whats good for the goose is good for the gander and all those other cliches sayings.
I've just done a very quick online search for free online voting systems and found these. I don't have time to look at them in any detail, but could something like this be utilised in the decision making process of the party?Bobhttp://www.gnu.org/software/free/http://ballotbin.com/
Actually, some progress that has been made towards incorporating modern communications into Party decision-making. Apart from the internal forums which permit discussion on issues that may come to a vote, the model branch standing orders have been amended to allow branch members to vote by email under certain circumstances. The EC's Standing Orders have been amended to allow EC members to participate via Skype and we even held one entire EC meeting by this. Overseas members vote in Party ballots by email if they want.Complete electronic voting is hampered by two problems (a) some members are not on email or the internet and (b) verifying that the voter is who they say they are (encryption).Personally, I don't think that there is a real substitute for face-to-face meetings where all the aspects of an issue can be thrashed out and participants' opinions changed. Sometimes, electronic voting is in effect just a way of recording already established opinions.
Hi JanetI am very pleased someone has taken the time to consider what I am trying to unravel here. Thank you very much.Before I get down to some attempts at suggestions, and they are just suggestions to get debate flowing, I would also like to thank Alan for his acknowledgement that there is a problem regarding the snail pace that change seems to travel at in the party. Also for his spot on observation regarding the EC decision to block re admission into the party of two recent ex comrades. We can only hope the EC at some point, heeds simple logic, rather than being swayed by hyped up party mythology.Now back to the issue. I do not pretend to have all answers to all problems, but firmly believe problems need to be addressed openly.We socialists advocate a global system of common ownership and democratic control, the likes of which has never been seen before. Such a global system can only work if the democracy we advocate can be made to work with full openness, accountability and inclusivity at every stage. I am not suggesting that every single administrative decision be voted on globally, but everything needs to be fully open to scrutiny. That means if people wish to access the process behind important decisions they should be able to do so. No cliques, no secrets, no information that can only be found out by accessing people in the know etc. Such practices are not in keeping with the spirit of democracy and as such have no place in a genuine socialist organisation.But what to do about it. For starters, Adam mentions the EC meetings being held via skype, that will allow them to be viewed by anyone interested in how the EC goes about its decision making. A step in the right direction, if a little late in coming. Perhaps such openness may avoid future decisions based on personal grounds, as dubious discussions will be open to full scrutiny.I agree with Adam that physical, face to face meetings are the best way to get to grips with the issues the party face on a day to day basis. But for many members, Central Branch for example, it isn't possible on a regular basis and voting is normally only on a bi annual basis. Full democracy is about taking part, whenever possible, in decision making. Could central branch be given its own online meeting space? Central Branch members could be personally invited to take part. I would even suggest members could be helped and encouraged to get online, perhaps assistance could be offered for those who may be willing but unable to afford the initial outlay required to access the internet.I've checked out the links provided by BTSomerset regarding free online voting. As usual the main problem is security, so for the time being it is probably an area where my enthusiasm is way ahead of the practicalities.A couple of suggestions for starters. Lets get some discussion going.
SocialistPunk wrote:For starters, Adam mentions the EC meetings being held via skype, that will allow them to be viewed by anyone interested in how the EC goes about its decision making. A step in the right direction, if a little late in coming. Perhaps such openness may avoid future decisions based on personal grounds, as dubious discussions will be open to full scrutiny.I agree with this but on a technical point, skype isn't being used to broadcast EC meetings, online streaming (which isn't difficult) will be necessary to do this. This could even be done using the SPGB webhost and free software as a platform.
jondwhite wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:For starters, Adam mentions the EC meetings being held via skype, that will allow them to be viewed by anyone interested in how the EC goes about its decision making. A step in the right direction, if a little late in coming. Perhaps such openness may avoid future decisions based on personal grounds, as dubious discussions will be open to full scrutiny.I agree with this but on a technical point, skype isn't being used to broadcast EC meetings, online streaming (which isn't difficult) will be necessary to do this. This could even be done using the SPGB webhost and free software as a platform.
Thanks for the clarification JDW. Glad someone thinks broadcasting the EC meetings would be a step in the right direction to make the party more democratically inclusive and open to scrutiny. If the wider membership can gain full access to the internal workings of the party then the cliques and Leninist feel of certain aspects of the party that was alluded to in the document of the thread title, could possibly be averted. At the very least it would be a start. However the chances of such change happening soon are not good given the track record of the party responding to technological change. But I remain an optimist.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.