Further to the meeting of why people leave the party
- This topic has 26 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
But I’m getting away from the point of my original post, that I thought might be of help to the SPGB. Where I think the party fails is that there is no serious examination of problems that will be encountered under socialism, particularly in the short term, such as getting resources to poor countries, and how to create alternatives in areas where dangerous work will no longer be done. Which, for what it is worth, is one of the reasons why I left the party
I would agree with Howard that this is not really a good reason for leaving for the Party but I also agree with you that we do indeed need to be thinking more, if only in broad terms, about how a socialist society might hit the ground running when it comes tackling something like the huge problem of material deprivation that exists in the world today.
I believe some components of this problem – particularly food production – can be very easily and rapidly resolved. In fact, the world already produces more than enough food to feed the global population. Just over a third of it is wasted. The pattern of farming also needs to be modified. There are problems with the large-scale industrial model of agriculture based on monocultures as practised in the West. Yes, it is productive in terms of output per worker but it is not as productive in terms of output per hectare and there are numerous environmental issues associated with this form of farming.
The problem is that the increasing concentration of farmland in fewer hands is locking farmers into this industrial model of farming based on mechanisation and chemicalised production and I would hope that, come a socialist society, would see a reversal of this trend – the break up of large farms, more multicropping and organic farming and more people living in the countryside instead of what is the case today where in many parts of the developed world, you face a serious problem of the “emptying of the countryside”.
In the poor countries, you mention the opposite problem is occurring – the average landholding size is shrinking, making it more difficult for small farmers to eke out a living.
Agriculture is a good example of a case study where we could indeed develop a more detailed and practical approach to a set of problems and, in the process, convince more workers to join the cause. The point is we need to stimulate and encourage each other into thinking – using our imagination and our existing stock of knowledge – how socialism could indeed be a very practical and sensible alternative to the system we currently live under.
We cannot just leave things at the level of vague abstractions or generalisations. A formulaic stock response is unlikely to convince many workers….
As an aside could I ask why people leaving the party was a subject for discussion in the first place? I would have thought, when compared to other political parties or voluntary organisations in general, the churn of members was quite low. Has this recently changed?
“As an aside could I ask why people leaving the party was a subject for discussion in the first place? I would have thought, when compared to other political parties or voluntary organisations in general, the churn of members was quite low. Has this recently changed?”
That wasn’t the original topic of the meeting, but as the meeting progressed it strayed into that territory because of the anecdotal nature of the discussion.
It was an interesting and chatty discussion – and I’m not being dismissive in describing it as chatty – but I wouldn’t read too much into why the discussion took that turn.
As an aside could I ask why people leaving the party was a subject for discussion in the first place? I would have thought, when compared to other political parties or voluntary organisations in general, the churn of members was quite low. Has this recently changed
My impression is that the Party is fairly steadily losing members at the moment and getting smaller. It is concerning frankly. How this rate of loss compares with other organisations such as those on the left, I don’t know. All the more reason to take seriously the concerns of those who left the Party. How about you DJP? Have you considered rejoining?
I do believe we can turn this situation around and build up a head of steam. Maybe reconnecting with past members could be part of a strategy for renewed growth. But we need to do other things as well.
Personally, I cannot see the point in not belonging to an organisation if your basic values and outlook align with it. It is important to connect. Heaven knows, the SPGB is far from perfect but – let’s face it – it is easily the best option for people of our political persuasion, people who want what we want. What have you got to lose by rejoining?
“Maybe reconnecting with past members could be part of a strategy for renewed growth.”
Be careful with that, it could cause annoyance more than anything. And no need to keep asking people to join. It looks like you’re begging. If they want to rejoin they’ll use their own initiative.
Judging from the crowd at Summer School there’s been a failure to connect with people in the millennium generation and younger. I think this is due to a failure to adequately use the media types of the internet age. The collapse of physical meetings is a concern too.
DJP
You’re right about being careful about going about contacting ex-members – one has to be careful and so a case-by-case approach would be advisable. But I get the impression that most comrades just lapse – drift away – perhaps, ironically, because of the lack of contact.
You’re also right about the lack of younger members. Geez, when I think back to the days of the old Guildford branch (of which I was a member) in its hey day it was buzzing with younger people. Very few were over 40, I guess. On one memorable branch meeting, we had 5 Forms A accepted (could have been 7 but the couple couldn’t make it that and joined at the subsequent meeting). Those were the days….
Maybe the Party should get into Tiktok or something..
“Maybe the Party should get into Tiktok or something..”
Yes the party should be doing that kind of thing. But not without some kind of connected strategy behind it.
“Maybe the Party should get into Tiktok or something..”
Yes the party should be doing that kind of thing. But not without some kind of connected strategy behind it.
—————————————————————————-
I have been all over except the moon and nothing has happened. I have invested time, published thousands of articles, books, pamphlets, commentaries, recording, and workers do not care anything about socialism/communism, their minds is in something else which is to worship capitalism and populists leaders
“Strangest reason for leaving the Party I’ve heard. If that’s the only problem, why not rejoin?” This makes me think that you have not read my original post, where you may find it’s not the only problem.
There was a discussion about why people left that I listened to, and since my reasons for leaving bore no resemblance to those itemised I thought I would put them down as a courtesy, but it rather became bogged down in specifics such as nuclear power, when my point was that if socialism is the desired outcome, then discussion about socialism ought to be there, with perhaps stuff on what issues there would be, particularly in the transition. Serious consideration of the benefits, and the challenges, may well interest non-members. And we’re not talking set in stone blueprints, that would be stupid, just discussion and consideration of the future.
But (unsurprisingly to me), the replies generally seem to think this a bad idea. Fair enough.
Also, I wonder if many members think about what socialism would be like. As I pointed out earlier, when I once mentioned in a meeting that commodities would no longer exist, I was told I was a hair shirt socialist, which seemed to be a consensus of the meeting. Whereas when people ask me what socialism is, I usually say it’s the abolition of commodity production, and then go into details as to what that means. So, again, I’m out of kilter with the party (or, I should say, the two dozen who go on the Friday Zoom meeting).
So that’s why I’ve posted, for what it’s worth. I’m sure a lot of you will disagree with this too; of course you will.
But you really should not allow people like me to have access to the members’ area. I am in favour of the party, in a benign way, but other ex-members may not be as well-intentioned.
The things produced in socialism would be goods for use, not commodities.
A commodity, by definition, is a good produced for exchange.
What do you mean by the abolition of commodity production? The end of production for exchange surely? If so you completely correct.
But you really should not allow people like me to have access to the members’ area. I am in favour of the party, in a benign way, but other ex-members may not be as well-intentioned.
This a technical question we can’t find a way around. For the software “Members” can mean members of the forum which of course is open to non-members as well as members. In fact we’d like to see more non-members here.
Invidentally. there have been quite a few not well-intentioned ex-members here.
Non-members can access the forum through this link:
https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/
They can also access it via the Members Area but wouldn’t normally.
But (unsurprisingly to me), the replies generally seem to think this a bad idea. Fair enough.
If you are referring to the meeting (I didn’t attend it) I would be very surprised if anyone there would have suggested it would be a bad idea to discuss the kind of problems a socialist would face in the short term – that is, if I have understood you correctly. I recall that when the production-for-use committee report came out back in the 1990s or whenever it was, the reception was generally positive.
You mention your interest in William Morris. There has always been a strong current of support for the WM approach within the SPGB. There is also a “Fully Automated Luxury Communism” (the title of Aaron Bastani´s book) tendency in the party as well, Some of the most interesting debates within the Party have pitted WM comrades against FALC comrades.
I’m somewhere in between. There are pros and cons on both sides but I tend to place heavy emphasis on the shift in values that needs to occur before we achieve a socialist society. Consumerism is something I am particularly opposed to because it is essentially all bound up with status acquisition under capitalism – a way of reinforcing capitalism – and has little to do with having a reasonably materially comfortable life as such (which we will need to achieve for everyone in socialism as a priority). Consumerism is consumption for the sake of consumption. It is alienated consumption that also has very negative consequences as far as the environment is concerned
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.