Deconstructing The Socialist Party
- This topic has 51 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I don't think that deciding matters live, subject to inerventions online is a good way to consider matters.In fact it could lead to hasty decision making and be subject to flaws which a more leisurely deliberative approach could elimiinate.It is good practice now to have an opportunity to contribute to a constituted body which one is an elected delegated member of it, if distance is an obstacle, but providing sniping opportunites from the sidelines is not conducive to friendly discourse.I must emphatically disagree that there is 'any' Leninist feel to the party. There is alaways room for improvement, but this must come from the members and be utilised by organising appropriately through the constituted structures.A month is plenty of time for a branch to raise an objection to, or raise a query about, an EC decision via the lists or by email or letter directly through the Gen.Sec. It would be raised at the next EC meeting.
Hi Matt, glad you have taken the time to contribute to this discussion.I'm not sure what you think I'm advocating here. For starters there is no reason why an EC meeting that is being broadcast over the internet, for party members to view, should not be as lengthy or considered as any other meeting. Also I am not suggesting that we have a set up whereby people can contribute online to the meeting, and thus potentially disrupt proceedings. All I advocate, in this respect, is an opportunity for the membership to be fully informed in as much of the decision processes as possible. Do you imagine that the future socialist society we advocate would function behind closed doors, relatively speaking, with the wider community being left ill informed? Like it or not digital communication is here to stay and is becoming more and more integrated into every aspect of peoples lives. The SPGB and companions need to get up to speed quickly or risk being left behind. I see future progress being tied up with making the WSM more democratically inclusive. This is but one way it can be done.In the document, Deconstructing the Socialist Party, Paddy Shannon talks of the wider membership being in the dark on many issues: "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."I am merely trying to find ways to change that. Part of that is to openly discuss the subject in a public space. Unless of course the issues addressed in the document have already been dealt with.As for the idea that the party lacks any Leninist aspect, here are some words from the same document. A quote I previously used: "The Executive CommitteeWe 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."There is also the matter of certain stirrings within the party, regarding requirements for membership going beyond a full socialist understanding and taking subjective criteria into account. I can't seem to track down the relative thread on this forum about the recent SWP troubles. But I seem to recall people being critical of the SWP in incorporating ethical and moral conditions on members. If I am not mistaken,the SPGB consider the SWP to be a Leninist party? Then there has been a few occasions on this forum where party members balked at the idea of subjective notions of morality and ethics. Yet some in the party wish to bring subjective notions of "acceptable behaviour" into account when it comes to joining. Taking the opinion voiced in the document mentioned, about the power of the EC being Leninist like, and the move afoot to incorporate subjective criteria for entry into the party, I suggest there are Leninist like elements within the SPGB. I stress the words "Leninist like elements ", as I know the party is commited to the principles of full and open democracy.
"In the document, Deconstructing the Socialist Party, Paddy Shannon talks of the wider membership being in the dark on many issues: "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."I am merely trying to find ways to change that. "
I don't want to contribute to this or any thread. Any more than a sentence is a waste of my time.There is nothing to change.This is not a Leninist organisation.It does not resemble one.Even at the time of the document being written it was not true. It was old hat. With the rejection of certain individuals and branches, this had already been changed.It is evolving all the time. Even in part in the past as an angry response to the document cited.Members are not kept in the dark.Every effort is made to facillitate them.Individual members may elect to distance themselves.This is their right.The complaint now is more likely to be that of' 'message overload'.You can stress elements all you want but I reject this totally and absolutely.Matt wrote:"In the document, Deconstructing the Socialist Party, Paddy Shannon talks of the wider membership being in the dark on many issues: "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."I am merely trying to find ways to change that. "
I don't want to contribute to this or any thread.Any more than a sentence is a waste of my time.There is nothing to change.This is not a Leninist organisation.It does not resemble one.Even at the time of the document being written it was not true. It was old hat.With the rejection of certain individuals and branches,this had already been changed.It is evolving all the time.Even in part in the past as an angry response to the document cited.Members are not kept in the dark.Every effort is made to facillitate them.Individual members may elect to distance themselves.This is their right.The complaint now is more likely to be that of' 'message overload'.You can stress elements all you want but I reject this totally and absolutely.Sorry you feel that way Matt, but you seem to have wasted a few more sentences than intended on me. Angry ones at that.I never said members are kept in the dark by any deliberate means. But by the very nature of the amount of business the EC have to deal with, I expect some things are kept brief in the minutes. All I am advocating is a simple system of broadcasting and recording the full meeting so that non EC members can have full access. What is so wrong with that? I am not suggesting the way business is done in the party is radically altered, the party has nothing to hide so there would be nothing wrong with broadcasting party meetings. You say there is nothing to change, yet accept the reality of evolution, the very essence of change. I simply advocate speedier evolution to keep up with the future, and dare I imagine it, to help shape the future of democracy. I'll say it again as you seem to have missed it. I imagine a future socialist society where everybody will be able to access the decision making process. Whether that will be to simply observe or to participate, I don't know the exact outcome, but technology will continue to benefit democracy, of that I have no doubt.How embarrassing would it be if the SPGB and WSM were pipped at the post by another political organisation, when it comes to technology and democratic inclusivity. I do not think the party is, or resembles, a Leninist organisation. Here's what I said.
SocialistPunk wrote:…I suggest there are Leninist like elements within the SPGB. I stress the words "Leninist like elements ", as I know the party is commited to the principles of full and open democracy.Note the words "like" and "elements", as opposed to a statement such as "Leninist organisation" and I don't know about you or anyone else but I think I made it clear that I believe the party to be committed to full democracy. It is why I feel able to discuss this subject openly and freely. However it seems others think it a taboo subject. How dare I suggest the party could be made even more democratically inclusive. I'll ask a question again. Does anyone think a future socialist society would not take advantage of the potential democratic benefits of digital communication? I see that society embracing every method to improve the democratic process. Unless of course anyone thinks there is no room for improvement? Something seems to have touched a nerve. I think I know what it is and I'm afraid you are mistaken. My original intention for this post was to discuss what I am now trying to discuss, hence my opening statement, unfortunately certain recent events seemed to resonate with some of the points made in the document. It now seems that some think I am using it as a battering ram to bash the SPGB. I don't expect to be believed, as even socialists sometimes form opinions that are based on subjective evaluations.Anyone is of course free to reject anything I say totally and utterly, but I have been known to have a point from time to time.
Matt wrote:Members are not kept in the dark.Every effort is made to facillitate them.Individual members may elect to distance themselves.This is their right.I seem to recall a few months ago in the EC minutes, a female member of long standing, from the North East, sent in her form F. She cited isolation and the fact she had heard nothing from the party in many years as her reason for wishing to leave. If I can find it I'll post the link on this thread. So much for members choosing to distance themselves.
Don't bother. If she hadn't got voting papers,Conference motions etc.then she hadn't made sure we had her address or some other reason. We spend a fortune on postage for all these items.
There are nothing of this sort of like elements or individuals or they would have their nuts cracked. Sometimes because of this we have members hectoring or as they would see it ,encouraging more activity from presently less active members. It is because of this un-Leninist like nature we don't move as fast, or in as disciplined a way as some of us might like. A price we have to pay.We overcome by this utlilising resources such as the internet. The maximisation of these will be led by the members using Branch, ADM, Conference discussion papers and hectoring from time to time.The paper you posted was one such method written by a comrade who does a lot of thinking, 'outside the box' as the vernacular has it. He makes a massive contribution and writes for the Standard in one of the first of my favourite articles…but when he seems to not suit your case you charge…."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."…In this party, adequate explanations if required, will be requested by the branches. The explanations required however are just as likely if not more so, to be why anyone voted other than Comrade Shannon, such is the anger at recent events.The decisions by the EC are far from clique like.
I like the suggestion of streaming E.C. meetings. Perhaps just audio though as some comrades like to use pseudonyms and keep their identities hidden from big brother and the man and what not. But I think anyone would be able to sit in on an E.C. meeting via skype if requested. That should be possible right now. In K&S branch we've agreed to have our second online meeting in the next month. I don't particularly like them as they're slow and cumbersome, but perhaps that's just the application being faulty. It's something to keep practicing as it's sound in theory. As for full online democracy like for a party poll or something the pirate party in Germany tried that but from what I heard encountered several problems both technical and personal and eventually stopped. At least that's my recollection. Using any third party software though could lead to hacks and outside interference. So in theory great, actually getting it to work properly there seem to be some drawbacks.edit: here's the article on the pirate partyhttp://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-pirate-party-sinks-amid-chaos-and-bickering-a-884533.html
Matt wrote:Don't bother. If she hadn't got voting papers,Conference motions etc.then she hadn't made sure we had her address or some other reason. We spend a fortune on postage for all these items.Very dismissive Matt. Not nice at all.
Hi Ed, thanks for your contribution to this discussion. Nice to see some support for introducing more tech into the party. I can see the logic with keeping such meetings audio only.Good to see the Kent & Sussex branch giving these ideas a go. Keep it up, as such tech is often very slow, unreliable etc in the early days, but with time and patience it often works out. It is gonna be part of the future in any case, so the party may as well give such tech a go. If it works, great. If it doesn't work, well at least it was tried.I agree that online voting is too risky right now. It would be open to establishment sabotage. It will be something for a future socialist society to take full advantage of. But it doesn't stop the SPGB from taking advantage of the tech that will lay the foundations for full e-democracy, such as the stuff we are discussing here. Full working democracy such as we advocate will rely on people being included and informed wherever possible, as much as possible.
I don't see anything wrong with streaming meetings online like Zeitgeist do, but I'd start with the public meetings we do in London, Glasgow and Manchester. I think there's a demand for this. Already people have been asking for the one in London on Sunday on the English Civil War to be recorded. That's the sort of meeting we could/should stream. No doubt we will sooner or later when people come forward to do it (and know what they're doing).
ALB wrote:Already people have been asking for the one in London on Sunday on the English Civil War to be recorded.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/event/class-struggle-english-revolution-clapham-300pm
As others see us:-"There was no sense of cohesion, solidarity or even basic comradeship in the SPGB. Members can literally say and do as much or as little as they like. Most pay no dues and are completely inactive. Those who engage are fractious and seem personally antagonisticI still subscribe to the Socialist Standard but, after reading, it goes into the council recycling. It’s pretty transient and irrelevant. "http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/984/letters
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.