A socialist speaker on question time

[SocialistPunk]

ALB wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

such a huge flaw in the plan.

That's where you are wrong, on other threads as well. Socialism is not some "plan" that the Socialist Party is going to implement. I know we are often accused of that, but that's utopian system-building. Socialism is a system of society that the working class is going to establish by prosecuting the class struggle to a victorious conclusion. We today don't have to have the answers to everything. We haven't got them and it would be stupid and arrogant of us to think we could have. All we can say with certainty is that the common ownership and democratic control of productive resources would provide a framework within which all the problems humanity faces can be dealt with, certainly a better framework than the present one of minority ownership and control. The rest can only be speculation, interesting and instructive perhaps but not a "plan". Having said that, when the socialist movement is much larger and nearer to winning then, yes, I'm sure, groups of workers will be drawing up plans on what to do when capitalism is ended, but we are nowhere there yet.

ALBI would be interested to know where I advocate some sort of "plan"? I simply think that as human beings and members of the working class, the SPgb should not shy away from subjective human issues, as if the revolution must only be  an objective process. You can't seperate messy human issues from a socialist revolution. This issue was sparked off with YMS stating the obvious about being against rape, yet when myself  and Vin ask further questions, no one answers. But you are more than willing to jump on a single word I use rather than discuss the awkward issues being addressed here. Talk about distraction.The "plan" I refer to is not some "five year plan", with all answers to every issue, but a Party flaw when it comes to such issues as this that YMS stated.

Young Master Smeet wrote:

 Now, at first, I wondered what a Socialist Speaker could say on the question: after all, we would have no party policy on the matter. But that sort of null answer is poor.

So if a Party speaker were asked what the policy regarding sex offenders is, what would be the answer? The answer would be silence or worse still some fudged excuse. Hence a flaw in the "plan" to attract supporters and potential members, because if the SPgb is seen to condone such anti human behaviour, what message does it send?

[Brian]

SocialistPunk wrote:

 I would be interested to know where I advocate some sort of "plan"? I simply think that as human beings and members of the working class, the SPgb should not shy away from subjective human issues, as if the revolution must only be  an objective process. You can't seperate messy human issues from a socialist revolution. This issue was sparked off with YMS stating the obvious about being against rape, yet when myself  and Vin ask further questions, no one answers. But you are more than willing to jump on a single word I use rather than discuss the awkward issues being addressed here. Talk about distraction.The "plan" I refer to is not some "five year plan", with all answers to every issue, but a Party flaw when it comes to such issues as this that YMS stated.

Young Master Smeet wrote:

 Now, at first, I wondered what a Socialist Speaker could say on the question: after all, we would have no party policy on the matter. But that sort of null answer is poor.

So if a Party speaker were asked what the policy regarding sex offenders is, what would be the answer? The answer would be silence or worse still some fudged excuse. Hence a flaw in the "plan" to attract supporters and potential members, because if the SPgb is seen to condone such anti human behaviour, what message does it send?

Good point for the party has buried its head in the sand on this issue ever since Conference passed a resolution on 'sexual preference' which inadvertably opens the door to paedophiles.

[DJP]

SocialistPunk wrote:

So if a Party speaker were asked what the policy regarding sex offenders is, what would be the answer?

I'm surprised an ex member is asking this. We don't have any policies save the democratic replacement of capitalism with socialism. Such issues would be dealt with democratically by society, it is not our place to dictate.

[Anonymous]

Brian, rape and paedophilia are not 'sexual preferences', so they don't come under the conference resolution. 

[SocialistPunk]

DJP wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

So if a Party speaker were asked what the policy regarding sex offenders is, what would be the answer?

I'm surprised an ex member is asking this. We don't have any policies save the democratic replacement of capitalism with socialism. Such issues would be dealt with democratically by society, it is not our place to dictate.

DJPI think it's cute the way you miss the point entirely. I'm not on about the Party dictating social policy for the revolution, though I expect racism would be deemed an unacceptable concept "come the revolution".Vin and Brian get it, but just to spell it out clearly have a read of what I wrote earlier.

SocialistPunk wrote:

Getting back to the opening post about a socialist speaker on question time and the Party not having a particular policy on such matters. What would be the policy if this footballer were a Party member?

I'm asking about what would the Party response be to having unsavoury characters in its ranks.I'll put it even simpler for anyone who doesn't get it. Does the SPgb welcome racists into its ranks? What about homophobes, male chauvinist sexists? I expect most socialists would feel very uncomfortable knowing such people were accepted among them. So how would members feel about being in a political organisation that accepted rapists or paedophiles?The SPgb doesn't have a policy regarding letting unsavoury characters in, so long as they accept the DoP. Oops…silly me, I nearly forgot a very important one, and so long as they reject religion.

[DJP]

SocialistPunk wrote:

I'm asking about what would the Party response be to having unsavoury characters in its ranks.

I think we should burn them at the stake until they repent, and then drown them for good measure.In all seriousness you know the answer already. If someones actions are deemed detrimental to the interests of the party then charges can be bought and they can be expelled from the party. We have the democratic framework to deal with these things…

[SocialistPunk]

DJP wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

I'm asking about what would the Party response be to having unsavoury characters in its ranks.

I think we should burn them at the stake until they repent, and then drown them for good measure.In all seriousness you know the answer already. If someones actions are deemed detrimental to the interests of the party then charges can be bought and they can be expelled from the party. We have the democratic framework to deal with these things…

A very good point DJP. I would say that rapists and paedophiles easily fall into that category. Imagine the damage such people could do to the Party image.

[Anonymous]

DJP wrote:

In all seriousness you know the answer already. If someones actions are deemed detrimental to the interests of the party then charges can be bought and they can be expelled from the party. We have the democratic framework to deal with these things…

If we had any suspicion about any applicant's 'credentials' then clearly it would be infinitely advisable and far, far simpler not to admit them in the first place.  Those of us who've been around for more than a few years know that it's become virtually impossible to expel anyone from the party…

[Brian]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Brian, rape and paedophilia are not 'sexual preferences', so they don't come under the conference resolution. 

Quite.  But that's not how Joe Public would perceive it which concerns myself.

[ALB]

Brian wrote:

Conference passed a resolution on 'sexual preference'

What resolution are you talking about? I can't find it.

[DJP]

gnome wrote:

If we had any suspicion about any applicant's 'credentials' then clearly it would be infinitely advisable and far, far simpler not to admit them in the first place.  Those of us who've been around for more than a few years know that it's become virtually impossible to expel anyone from the party…

Actually I agree. The EC does have the right to veto membership applications, precisely for reasons such as this. But as we don't check peoples criminal records, and I don't think we should, I'm not sure how we would know…

[Brian]

ALB wrote:

Brian wrote:

Conference passed a resolution on 'sexual preference'

What resolution are you talking about? I can't find it.

It is the one referring to admitting homosexuals into the party.  Passed in the 90's?  

[SocialistPunk]

Brian wrote:

ALB wrote:

Brian wrote:

Conference passed a resolution on 'sexual preference'

What resolution are you talking about? I can't find it.

It is the one referring to admitting homosexuals into the party.  Passed in the 90's?  

BrianWould it be possible to provide a link or paste the details here?

[Brian]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Brian wrote:

ALB wrote:

Brian wrote:

Conference passed a resolution on 'sexual preference'

What resolution are you talking about? I can't find it.

It is the one referring to admitting homosexuals into the party.  Passed in the 90's?  

BrianWould it be possible to provide a link or paste the details here?

I've only got an iPad.  Don't worry Adam will get it.

[DJP]

The closest I can find is this. As far as I can see there are no resolutions reffering to admitting homosexuals into the party, and why should there be? We don't ask for information about this on admission as there is no reason to.."That this Conference regards Clause 4 of our Declaration of Principles as committing socialists to opposition  to all prejudices, based on gender, race or sexual orientation. "

[Author]

Posts