Is there, “Something wrong with the party’s case and/or it’s methods.”?

[SocialistPunk]

SocialistPunk wrote:

A pleasant send off for Robbo, well done!

Here is something Gnome said about Robbo earlier in this thread, the emphasis is mine.

[quote-gnome]

It's just a bit of tongue-in-cheek banter, northern light.  I've known Robin (robbo203) for over 30 years; nice bloke really but takes himself far too seriously    He's been, and still is, one of the SPGB's most ardent critics, both when he was a member and since, but at the same time one of its staunchest defenders, warding off constant attacks, particularly from those on the 'left'. He possesses the rather irritating tendency of giving the impression that he alone is the purveyor of all perceived wisdom who has to have the very last word on a particular topic, yet despite having been in Spain for some eight years we still look forward to the emergence of a genuine socialist party.

Anyway, must go now as I'm off to Canterbury with some fellow-comrades to carry out some 'abstract propagandism'.

I suspect he is a critic of the SPGB because he cares about  the party and can see, unlike some, where the party is going wrong.

The party is the same as when I left.

I just wish some of the other, hopefully more balanced, socialists will see the need to make an appearance. Maybe then the party may be able to break away from its outdated image.

I still find it hard to grasp that the SPGB membership is so low in this digital age of global communication.

robbo203 wrote:

  A real scientist would would weigh up the evidence and consider what went wrong with the experiment but not the SPGB.

I remember putting this to the North East branch not long before I left. Blank stares are all I got in return. I would refer to such a blank reaction as institutionalized thinking. An inability to step outside the framework of accepted rules and behaviour and so being unable to see what the problem looks like from a fresh perspective. Inevitably the reaction to those who can step outside the structure and air their findings is negative, there will ensue a closing of ranks until the annoyance is neutralized. The initial dust will settle and business as usual continues.

A scientific approach would be constant searching, testing and updating to find a formula that works, not repeating the same approach over and over again in the hope it will work.

Again I appeal to other voices to make themselves heard. The decline can be reversed.

Feel free to criticize, snipe, discuss, nit pick etc. It may eventually lead to progress. Hopefully!

[/quote]

I thought this topic worthy of its own thread.

So here I am sitting relaxed with a generous glass of Talisker 10yr in my hand with one of my two not so faithfull cats perched on my lap making it difficult to type.

Now before we go any further I am going to set out my stall, just in case any one thinks I am here to deliberately stir up trouble. Hopefully it won't take long, cat permitting.

My name is Stephen Davison and I was a member of the North East branch about ten years back. I don't recall exactly when I joined or left. Maybe 1996 – 2002.

I had been exposed to socialism via The Socialist Standard since I was about 13 or 14 years old. Growing up in the eighties as a young punk I was attracted to the ideas of socialism, with its anti establishment, real democracy, no leaders, no money, stance. To me it seemed obvious that this was the way society could rid itself of poverty, starvation and war. Big issues for a young (and older) punk.

So I hope you all believe me when I say my criticism stems from nothing but concern for the party and what it stands for.

I must admit my first real exposure to the party was one of utter shock and disillusionment. I walked into the upstairs room of a pub in Heworth and immediately wanted to leave. I thought "Is this it?" But I stuck with it for as long as I could bear.

I will address some of the questions and comments my above post generated, over on the Religion thread, tomorrow if that is ok ('cos I'm gonna enjoy the rest of my whisky now).

Before I go I will state that I think there is nothing wrong with the party case, I have never thought that.

[DJP]

As I said in another thread

DJP wrote:

I don't think there is anything wrong with any activities we are doing at the minute, only that we need to do more of it. I think an area where the party has not been so strong has been in embracing the Web 2.0 era, social media and online video etc.But myself and comrades have put many hours of sweat and tears into learning to how to do these things, hence the (not so) new website. And as we read there is a group working on making short films.So in short I think our problems lie not in a shortage of ideas but in a shortage of people to put in the hard work necessary to see them put real.

[Tom Rogers]

In my opinion (and I am not a Party member), the SPGB's case is all-but unanswerable, but no-one seems to be listening.  Why?  Maybe the message isn't sexy enough (c.f. Zeitgeist Movement).  Maybe people have difficulty understanding it (advanced education can act as a block; short attention spans; people read less nowadays and rely more on unmediated media such as TV, etc. and so on).  Then there are the political critics.  As I understand it, their arguments against the SPGB (and thus against socialism) can be summarised as follows:-From the radical Left: "The SPGB has theorised itself into inactivity and sterility.  What we need is revolutionary activity rooted in the working class and centred around transitional demands.  You SPGB'ers sneer and call us reformists, but we're not.  Our party will lead the working class to socialism by providing a bridge to class consciousness proper.  Relentless, day-to-day political campaigning activity is needed otherwise the working class has no hope of attaining consciousness and a revolution will never happen."From the Right: "Wherever socialism has been tried, it has failed [….blah, blah, blah…].  Anyway, even if the SPGB is right in its own ideas about socialism, why do we not have socialism already?  Is the continued existence of capitalism, in spite of 108 years of the SPGB, ample demonstration that socialism as conceived by the SPGB will never happen because the working class either do not need it or do not want it?  After all, if they did, then why have we not got it?"I think the criticism from the Right is fairly easy to dismiss so I won't bother discussing it further here.  The strongest criticism – in my view – comes from the radical Left.  Should we take any of it to heart?  Is there anything we can learn from our opponents' methods?  Are they right on some points?  Do they have a point at all?  I have to add that whenever I have enountered 'left-wing' criticism of the SPGB, it has nearly-always been based on some fundamental misapprehension, misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the SPGB's case, the latter often intentional.

[Anonymous]

SocialistPunk wrote:

 So here I am sitting relaxed with a generous glass of Talisker 10yr in my hand with one of my two not so faithfull cats perched on my lap making it difficult to type.

 Just love a single malt! 

SocialistPunk wrote:

I walked into the upstars room of a pub in Heworth and imediately wanted to leave. I thought "Is this it?" 

 I know the feeling!

[Ed]

Tom Rogers wrote:

Then there are the political critics.  As I understand it, their arguments against the SPGB (and thus against socialism) can be summarised as follows:-From the radical Left: "The SPGB has theorised itself into inactivity and sterility.  What we need is revolutionary activity rooted in the working class and centred around transitional demands.  You SPGB'ers sneer and call us reformists, but we're not.  Our party will lead the working class to socialism by providing a bridge to class consciousness proper.  Relentless, day-to-day political campaigning activity is needed otherwise the working class has no hope of attaining consciousness and a revolution will never happen."I think the criticism from the Right is fairly easy to dismiss so I won't bother discussing it further here.  The strongest criticism – in my view – comes from the radical Left.  Should we take any of it to heart?  Is there anything we can learn from our opponents' methods?  Are they right on some points?  Do they have a point at all?  

I always ask them to show me the evidence that all their action actually helps to spread class consciousness. They can't. Because raising class consciousness is not a priority. They want followers not a conscious working class who will be able to hold them to account.The other argument which has a little more weight is that class consciousness comes about through learned class struggle, i.e.. through the struggle for reforms. At which point I usually bring up the Lenin/Kautsky quote about trade union consciousnessBut whatever the left are not really doing any better than us despite all of their action.

[Anonymous]

Tom Rogers wrote:

What the radical left say:What we need is revolutionary activity rooted in the working class and centred around transitional demands.  You SPGB'ers sneer and call us reformists, but we're not.  Our party will lead the working class to socialism by providing a bridge to class consciousness proper.  Relentless, day-to-day political campaigning activity is needed otherwise the working class has no hope of attaining consciousness and a revolution will never happen."

I haven't come across any group on the 'radical left' that knows what class consciousness or socialism is.

[Anonymous]

SocialistPunk wrote:

I suspect he is a critic of the SPGB because he cares about  the party and can see, unlike some, where the party is going wrong.The party is the same as when I left.I just wish some of the other, hopefully more balanced, socialists will see the need to make an appearance. Maybe then the party may be able to break away from its outdated image.I still find it hard to grasp that the SPGB membership is so low in this digital age of global communication.I remember putting this to the North East branch not long before I left. Blank stares are all I got in return. I would refer to such a blank reaction as institutionalized thinking. An inability to step outside the framework of accepted rules and behaviour and so being unable to see what the problem looks like from a fresh perspective. Inevitably the reaction to those who can step outside the structure and air their findings is negative, there will ensue a closing of ranks until the annoyance is neutralized. The initial dust will settle and business as usual continues.A scientific approach would be constant searching, testing and updating to find a formula that works, not repeating the same approach over and over again in the hope it will work.Again I appeal to other voices to make themselves heard. The decline can be reversed.Feel free to criticize, snipe, discuss, nit pick etc. It may eventually lead to progress. Hopefully!

And

SocialistPunk wrote:

I must admit my first real exposure to the party was one of utter shock and disillusionment. I walked into the upstairs room of a pub in Heworth and immediately wanted to leave. I thought "Is this it?" But I stuck with it for as long as I could bear.

Quite a few allusions here and from other folk but not one person yet has made any concrete analysis of what they think is wrong with the party and having done so suggested any remedies.   We all genuinely want to hear why the SPGB is "in decline" if indeed it is.

[SocialistPunk]

I am now able to address some of the issues raised about this subject that started on the Religion Word thread (connection allowing).

Ed wrote:

I think we would all admit that we could be doing better but I don't think that the problem is the policy on religion and any argument for changing it should be based on theory not whether we would attract 10 more members

I don't think my point about how poor the party is doing relied solely on the issue of letting socialists with religious beliefs of one kind or another, into the party. It is far from being a core problem. I think it is self defeating to turn away socialists because of belief in whatever, especially now the party numbers are so few.But that is the party choice.All political parties are doing badly, most people are seeing through the lies and bullshit they peddle. People don't know who to trust. But the SPGB is not offering the same crap, and if it can't make headway now, in this current climate then something is seriously amiss. The message is not the problem, but the messenger. As for Ed's idea that the party is not doing too badly. 332 members, really?Ed has a valid point about there not being enough active members. He also points a finger at me (see below) for not rejoining the party and getting active. I joined this forum to find out what state the party is in. If I joined again I think I would find myself tied up with just this kind of discussion, wasting what little energy I have on trying to persuade members we need to make changes to our approach.

Ed wrote:

So who's fault is it? It's members like me who don't put in the work on committees, and perhaps, just perhaps socialists like you and Robbo who leave the party and then complain that not enough is being done. If you want more to be done and you want to see progress and want change the only way to do that is from the inside with your voice, your vote and your own action. Not from the side lines. The fact is that not enough comrades put themselves forward for these important positions so not enough gets done. If we want the party to grow then that's where we need to start not with changing our principles.

I left the party for reasons I will explain in my answer to ALB.When all is said and done I think many members and ex members know there is something wrong with the party approach, but are probably at a loss as to what to do about it.

[SocialistPunk]

gnome wrote:

Quite a few allusions here and from other folk but not one person yet has made any concrete analysis of what they think is wrong with the party and having done so suggested any remedies.   We all genuinely want to hear why the SPGB is "in decline" if indeed it is.

Don't fret Gnome old chap, I'll get round to it shortly.I just need to answer a couple more points from the thread whence this issue first reared it's unpleasant head.

[SocialistPunk]

ALB wrote:

What was it you put to the North East branch? Was it a criticism of our policy or simply of our methods of putting it across?

Now if ALB is referring to the DoP, then I have had and have no problem there. I do have a problem with the way it is put across.As for the remark I made about the branch.

robbo203 wrote:

  A real scientist would would weigh up the evidence and consider what went wrong with the experiment but not the SPGB.

It was essentially along the above lines, about the lack of willingness to try different approaches.I don't recall details, if I could I would provide them. But I'll try to put across as much as I can.Now, I am not having a go at individuals, there were good dedicated socialists when I joined. We did some good work, contesting elections, national, European and local. I do remember being frustrated by personality clashes, that predated my joining. I definitely think they interfered in branch unity and productivity. Another member and myself often faced unproductive criticism from less than supportive members. Occasional attendees would pop up and throw a spanner in the works, without offering alternatives, then disappear for months. After the election activity died down I got increasingly fed up of these problems. Things came to a head and I told the branch what I thought.

ALB wrote:

There may only be 300 members in the Party, but decisions as to what we say and do are made democratically and can only be changed democratically.  In trying to change our policy on admitting people with religious views Robbo was on to a non-starter (not made any more likely to succeed by the rather abrasive and aggressive approach he adopted). The membership have repeatedly and overwhelmingly rejected this. It's just not going to happen.The one about socialism being a moral or ethical issue as well as a class issue is more evenly balanced. Some members have been arguing this since the 1950s and, for a few months in 2010, it was even the Party's adopted position. So that could well change. But only democratically.

The religious issue, as I have previously said is not a major issue for me, if the party wish to turn away socialists so be it. As for the strange idea about voting on whether the party thinks socialism is moral or not. That looks like it came straight out of a Monty Python sketch. What a waste of time.It is what I see as an obsession with irrelevant intellectual details. Plenty of theoretical "scientific socialism" but little effective material action.DJP is right when he said the party was slow to embrace the internet. I know he has said that is being addressed. Hats off to him and the others who are getting on board with relevant activity. Better late than never, as the saying goes.

ALB wrote:

If your criticism is only of how we operate this an open question and there is a wide range of opinion in the Party over this.

There may be a wide range of opinion, but it is not obvious by the end result. My criticism is not only about party approach but also of image. As I said earlier about the branch in fighting, this forum is full of it. I believe in unity, those of us who believe and want socialism are too few to be attacking, baiting and chasing away each other off.The state has nothing to fear from a small group of in-fighting, backstabbing, revolutionaries. If it wasn't so serious it would be hilarious. Make a hell of a sit com though?

[Anonymous]

 As I said on another thread: If you had put this to the North East Branch when I was a member, I would have agreed with you! I was always looking for new ways to make the party grow! I am still listening now

[ALB]

Since there are 4 Socialists here from the Seaham area and since at the last public meeting held by the North East Branch in Newcastle a couple of years ago there were 5 other branch mermbers present, what are the chances of organising another meeting in the area, to discuss local activity and try to get the NE branch going again?The meeting needn't be held in a pub in Hemworth but could be held on a weekend afternoon in some other type of venue. The last one was held in Newcastle Central Library.

[SocialistPunk]

Hi ALB,I had an idea the call to arms would show itself sooner or later.Again I will say I joined this forum to find out if the party had made any progress with its approach, image etc. I was looking for some sign of progress, as I am still in two minds about rejoining (if I wasn't I wouldn't be here now).The problem I have, is as far as I can tell the party is still stuck.Now I gave my some of my best years to the party in the period I was an active member of the North East branch.Let me explain in more detail.I have a rather unpleasant genetic disease called Cystic Fibrosis. I am surprised I have made it this far (41 years). Most of my limited available energy goes into keeping myself as healthy as I can, for as long as I can. What energy I have left, I engage in trying to enjoy the time I have won back from my DNA.The question then becomes, do I wish to engage anymore time than I am now, in trying to convince party members they need to alter the approach? This would inevitably require me having to put my money where my mouth is, so to speak and having to engage in activity that would put a drain and strain on my energies and so my CF.I could be an inactive number. Not a problem if I just became party member "333". But if I became a branch member I would feel a need to get involved.A bit of a conundrum, as you may or may not appreciate. 

[Brian]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Hi ALB,I had an idea the call to arms would show itself sooner or later.I could be an inactive number. Not a problem if I just became party member "333". But if I became a branch member I would feel a need to get involved.A bit of a conundrum, as you may or may not appreciate. 

It only becomes a conundrum when "socialist activity" is ill defined.  For instance:  I would consider being involved with this forum and the very important discussion it generates an essential form of socialist activity!   Indeed to associate socialist activity purely at a Branch level misses the point that individual participation can take many forms.

[SocialistPunk]

Hi Brian,I never meant to imply that only branch activity is relevant. I could still (and sometimes do) participate on an individual level.My conundrum would only arise if I were to participate in trying to revive the branch. It would no doubt take a lot of effort to make it a going concern and I would feel the need to get heavily involved, but be unable to for health reasons.It would be a conundrum for me, but you seem unable to appreciate. I didn't expect otherwise.It is why I made the reference to giving some of my best years to party activity. Those days are gone, given freely but never to return.I am almost of a mind to think that I wasted those years, given that the party is in worst shape now than when I left, with many on this forum thinking everything is ok.You are right in saying this forum is important, for the very reasons you give.

[Author]

Posts