Is there a problem with non-members commenting on Party issues on Party sites?
- This topic has 68 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I'll not only tell you what I think, I'll point directly to proof of my viewpoint. The NERB, recently had a Special Branch meeting. In that meeting we discussed, amonst other things, the Party Image/Logo. Non members contributed to the discussion and were very welcome to do so. I was Chair of that meeting and thought it was an interesting meeting, in which the "non-members" contributed some interesting points.I was Chair of the meeting but am also one of the Moderators of the NERB site. My view, which is shared by Branch members, is that we welcome not only non members attendance but their input as well, however uncomfortable they may be!The only thing non-members are not allowed to do, is vote. I cannot see any circumstance, other than personal abuse where I, as Moderator, would censure discussion or comment.That is my viewpoint as a free thinking, democratic, Socialist, who prizes Free speech and free discourse highly.The proof of the pudding, so on and so forth!!!
I guess the answer to this question depends on whether or not SPgb party members believe in participatory democracy?
I'd say there is a massive problem with non-members commenting on party issues, that they don't do it enough and aren't taken as seriously as members. Even including that non-members are unable to vote on matters. Unless the party is a sect sitting pretty watching "the passing show", the party is supposed to be the class struggle party of the working-class not an exclusive members social club. In the meagre democracy of the USA, big political parties register their supporters and hold open primaries to elect candidates. The Socialist Party can do the same and see off the sect label completely. Policy of the party will be ultimately voted upon by members who have demonstrated understanding of the party policy but the party is not going to be making revolution, non-members are. The party is not sectarian and denying non-members any input is the approach of a sect.
I fully agree that non members have much to contribute. A wide range of perspectives and knowledge, if nothing else. I think it is asking to much for non-members to become members before they have "any posting rights" at all on Party sites!As for "voting", that for me, is a step to far. As I only want "Socialists" in the Party, I only want Socialists voting on issues, within the Party!
It would be voting on candidates who are already members for work within the party, not voting on issues.
What else is the answer to charges of sectarianism? Or the charges put by George Walford herehttp://gwiep.net/wp/?p=387As you can imagine, it takes a good deal to leave me speechless. But that did, the first time I heard it. The blind, unthinking conceit of that answer! If you disagree with the Socialist Party that shows you don’t understand them. They have nothing to learn from anybody. There is no possibility of anybody knowing more than they do and no possibility of them being wrong.
jondwhite wrote:What else is the answer to charges of sectarianism? Or the charges put by George Walford herehttp://gwiep.net/wp/?p=387As you can imagine, it takes a good deal to leave me speechless. But that did, the first time I heard it. The blind, unthinking conceit of that answer! If you disagree with the Socialist Party that shows you don’t understand them. They have nothing to learn from anybody. There is no possibility of anybody knowing more than they do and no possibility of them being wrong.Pretty impressive case, from Walford.He even points out that the SPGB quote Engels as an authority!The SPGB are in effect a religious sect. What's worse, not even a modern sect, but one the looks to the 19th century for its fundamental ideas.I think that the 'Science for Communists?' thread displays this sect-like inability to accept a simple answer: proletarian democracy.Of course, the SPGB pays lip service to this ideal of 'democracy', but in any manifestation of social power, they reject democracy, and turn to an elite of experts for their answers, rather than to the democratically-organised proletariat.Much the same as the SWP, Militant, CPGB, WRP, etc., etc.They all have the same god to follow: 'materialism'. Workers can't argue with the 'material', can they? 'Reality' can't be subject to a vote, can it? So, we have the experts tells us what 'reality' is, whether in science or politics, physics or sociology.Until a Socialist/Communist organisation puts 'proletarian democracy' at the heart of all their theories and activities, we'll remain on the sidelines.Engels argued for 'materialism'; Marx argued for 'production'.And since 'production' is social, it can be subject to democratic methods, unlike 'materialism'.It's odd, isn't it, that 130 years after Marx's death, there isn't a single political organisation that puts workers' democracy at its heart. The fruits of Engels' version of 'Marxism', and the dead hand of 'materialism'.
What specific organisational features would a party in favour of proletarian democracy that was not a sect look like? How would it treat non-members?
jondwhite wrote:What specific organisational features would a party in favour of proletarian democracy that was not a sect look like? How would it treat non-members?Well done!Avoid the difficult philosophical issue of Engels 'materialism', and get onto day-to-day, practical issues.That's the conservative method: ignore theory, and move straight to dealing with 'practical issues'.Unfortunately for your conservative method, the philosophical implications of following the religious creed of 'materialism' determine whether one favours democracy or not.If you're a 'materialist', then my answers will appear to be impossible.However, if you are a follower of Marx and his 'material production' (ie., human, social production which requires ideas), then democracy is unavoidable.
All threads inevitably become dominated by the same subject
Vin Maratty wrote:All threads inevitably return to on subjectYeah, I know, that pesky issue of workers' democracy.I should just give it a rest, and let the elite like you, as Walford calls you, tell me what 'reality' is, eh?
How many times have you said that now? You advocate democracy amongst slaves. 'Slaves democracy'. 'Slave control' You are confused.I don't stand for workers democracy, I stand for the abolition of workers.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.