Is there, “Something wrong with the party’s case and/or it’s methods.”?
- This topic has 84 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
steve colborn wrote:I thought gnome said this kind of CHAT was off the map? This thread is, Is there something wrong with the parties case and/or its methods. Where does your post fit in with this Holly?
exactly comrade. but no yellow card for comrade hollyhead, ehsomething really wrong here.
Can anyone help me out here please? On Monday I posted (#22) the following
Quote:A question:If we were a much larger and more attractive party in the past than we appear to be currently what is we were doing then that we are not doing now? Posts #20 and #21 above rehearse many of the concerns that have been discussed in the party since Pontius was a pilot. Many of them are real and I don't believe that any member really thinks that everything is OK with the way things are. Rather the impression I get is one of the membership at large looking to the critics (from both inside and outside the party) to come up with worked out and costed alternatives (including a list of comrades willing to do the work necessary to put it into effect.)A suggestion:Party members should please abandon the practice of passing pious resolutions — what the late former comrade Cyril May used to call "duck shoving". You know the kind of thing — exciting and/or adventurous plans for party activity to be carried out by someone else (almost always the EC).In post #34 northern light found this a “scathing remark”.Now for the life of me I can't see why. Am I alone in this?I've carefully read it over again (and again) but fail to see anything witheringly scornful in this general observation aimed at no-one in particular. In reply Socialist Punk (post #24) asked:
Quote:Not sure if your post is aimed at me or others on this forum?…As for me coming up with worked out costed alternatives, I thought this party was a democratic party with no leaders?Hell, if you want to change that approach, I am sure it would attract a few people from the left.I have ideas. But when I was in the party, I often felt my ideas were not welcome. I tried, I gave a lot of precious time, for what?No Socialist Punk it was not aimed at you, or anyone in particular for that matter. It was a general observation and a suggestion for improving party procedures.And it's precisely because I consider party democracy important that I suggest that branches with ideas for new projects do at least some of the necessary spadework themselves beforehand – what the.y want done, who is to do it, how it is to be achieved and by when, and at what likely cost.In my opinion far too many Conference resolutions and ADM discussion items are frankly half baked.And yes it's frustrating when ones ideas and suggestions faile to get adopted by the party. But there you go that's democracy for you. And I hope that observation is not too scathing.
northern light wrote:#25Yes HollyHead, would you like to clarify that remark. Just who were you refering to, Social Punk, and OldGreyWhistle. There is a lot riding on your answer. As far as I am concerned, these two guys care and are trying to be constructive.Northern please see above.Any chance of a clarification oas to what you found “scathing”?
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:#25Hi hollyhead,Rather than generalising can you be specific with your criticism.Hi TOGWPlease see answers to SP and nl above.I was deliberately non-specific precisely to avoid personalising the “debate”. Clearly this was a failure by me as a number of contributors have taken it personally.Oh! dear.
I know what you feel like! I have received 2 warnings and noone can explain why?
Hi HollyHead,This is your full post.
HollyHead wrote:A question:If we were a much larger and more attractive party in the past than we appear to be currently what is we were doing then that we are not doing now? Posts #20 and #21 above rehearse many of the concerns that have been discussed in the party since Pontius was a pilot. Many of them are real and I don't believe that any member really thinks that everything is OK with the way things are. Rather the impression I get is one of the membership at large looking to the critics (from both inside and outside the party) to come up with worked out and costed alternatives (including a list of comrades willing to do the work necessary to put it into effect.) A suggestion:Party members should please abandon the practice of passing pious resolutions — what the late former comrade Cyril May used to call "duck shoving". You know the kind of thing — exciting and/or adventurous plans for party activity to be carried out by someone else (almost always the EC).At the time I was unsure if your post was a general observation or not. Still unsure.But I did reply, I asked you then and you didn't get back. As did OGW and Northern Light.Your reference to critics inside and out, seems it could be a "put up or shut up" gesture? Along with your "A suggestion". Probably where the misunderstanding has come from.Now OGW did state that when he was in the North East branch, they did a lot of graft without looking to the EC. Likewise when I was in the branch we also did a lot of work ourselves.So both OGW and myself are capable of "walking the walk".Lets not make this an issue.
Ouch!!I returned to this thread to comment to Socialist Punk that physical disabilities should not necessarily deter anyone from contributing to socialist activity. As BrianJ indicated there are various mean and methods to do so, and one valuable vehicle happens to be the internet, joining in exchanges on various discussion lists such as this. I was also going to say that branch involvement is also possible via the internet and if properly conducted no branch member should feel excluded. But what did i find when i came on to the Forum?For the record, i too am a returnee to the party after many years in the political wilderness i found out there. I recognise the limitations of the party, just as i discovered the limits of union militancy, and have less expectations of both, therefore not prone to as much disappointment. Instead i do what i can and encourage the party to do what it can. Many members will vouch for my carping and harping within the party.As for "intellectual waffle", it is a matter of horses for courses. This is a socialist dicussion forum and many participants already understand and accept the basic socialist case and therefore disagreements tend to be on the peripheral or idiosyncratic and that can get over-blown. One recently deceased party member offered to bequeath and finance a "socialist commune" so there has always been a element who wish to establish examples of socialism but that is not the party's task, as decided over decades of debate and conference resolutions. As for how to communicate our message, most of those on the Thin Red Line sector face the exact same problem as we do, so it is not unique to the SPGB. And many groups have gone down the road of "dumbing down" (i use that reluctantly for want of a better word). I specifically posted earlier on the experience of the Irish Workers Solidarity Movement engagement with social activism in this respect. It should have sparked a debate on the issue, but what the hell, the only response on this forum seemed to consider it long-winded waffle to merit any real discussion. As said on another thread, it won't be the SPGB who will bring about socialism, so be thankful about that!! But for those who think themselves socialists right now where else is there to go?
Hi Alan,I agree with the sentiment about it not being the SPGB bringing about socialism. From what I have read of Ozymandias's experience at summer school I feel that I wouldn't want socialism with such prejudiced attitudes.But you seem to be missing my point about my activity and forming a branch. I do contribute (I hope) if only in a small way, to promoting socialism. However I feel unable to contribute to the inevitable hard work involved in making a North East branch a viable concern. I used to be very active in the branch before I left, unfortunately I could not do so today.I fully accept the intellectual side of socialism, some enjoy it. I used to. But having worked hard in a branch doing the usual activity that is probably still done today, I am more concerned with trying to find ways of making the message more relevant and effective for a 21st century audience. I apologize (not referring to you) to members if they feel my criticism is invalid and see only someone who "talks the talk" but is unwilling to "walk the Walk". I wish it were different.By the way for those who think I am unaware, I saw and enjoyed "Capitalism and Other Kids Stuff" when it first came out.Some will no doubt have a go at me for saying this, but TZM is socialism. Where it differs from the SPGB approach, is it speaks to new generations and their fears of environmental destruction and the unsustainability of the present system. It deliberately avoids references to socialism, Marx and class consciousness. I could be wrong, no doubt I will be put in my place by someone. (But if you do, I have no problem with that, do it calmly)I think the two views should be linked in some sort of "one aim ,the same" umbrella. Bridges should be built.I am sorry I missed your post about Irish Workers Solidarity Movement in all the excitement sometimes we don't see the wood for the trees. I'll check it out and get back to you later.Bloody hell I sound more like a hippy than a punk.But I never could stand stereotyping and I always think it important to ask questions and challenge cherished beliefs.
SocialistPunk wrote:Bloody hell I sound more like a hippy than a punk.And what's wrong with hippies, like!?
SocialistPunk wrote:Hi HollyHead,…Now OGW did state that when he was in the North East branch, they did a lot of graft without looking to the EC. Likewise when I was in the branch we also did a lot of work ourselves.So both OGW and myself are capable of "walking the walk".Lets not make this an issue.Hello SPO.K. I'm more than happy with that.<handshake emoticon>
Absolutely nothing wrong with hippies OGW. I should in fact have penned myself as "SocialistHippyPunk". A marvelous contradiction, if stereotypes are to go by. Lol.
Now that the dust seemed to have settled can we make a start on projecting some positive responses to this thread???1. As has been mentioned previously: The political and social environment has changed to such an extent the message and language used in the past is not hitting the right note with members of the working class in the present day.2. Now the message and language is determined by the socioeconomic background of the audience, which is no longer generalised in attitude and outlook but specific in their expectations and aspirations.3. The party needs to experiment with different avenues and means to project the socialist case. And perhaps the party needs to modify the tone and form on how it projects its message.I'm sure there is a lot more but just for the mo these three are quite sufficient to get on with for now.
I think there might be something in what you say Brian.Do you have any specific proposals in mind? Some of the language we use would be very difficult to change because its has (at least for us) a very specific meaning — hallowed over the ages so to speak. "Capture of political power", "labour power" and "Common ownership" for example. If we go down this route in our efforts to win support for our object then I would like to make a case for ditching "Reforms / Reformism". It's a word that has entirely lost it's meaning outside the party and we all must know the blank looks when a party member brings it into the conversation. As for "the message and language used in the past is not hitting the right note" I recall a suggestion made at one Summer School by Comrade Janet Surman. In effect she suggested a school / teach-in /(?correspondence course) on interaction with non-socialists. We might even consider calling in the professional communicators…
I most certainly have several proposals. Some which will come out in this discussion, the others will have to wait until later. I agree the there will be some difficulties in changing how we use the language and without being accused of 'dumbing down'. However, for example instead of sayin "capture of political power" why not say "gaining political power" or "obtaining political power" which unlike "capture" don't have the implication of aggression and militaristic overtones attached to them?At the moment I'm disinclined to agree with ditching either "reforms/reformism". And for two good reasons: 1. The term "reforms" is still used by other political parties to explain changes within capitalism and Joe Public is well aware that most reforms are not for his benefit. 2. The difficulty with ditching "reformism" is that its shorthand for explaining the gradualist theory on political change by the left wing. However, I would emphasise to all who are fond of using this term of identification that like all labels it needs clarification on its political meaning.The use of the term "labour power" depends on the context on when its used. Tho I don't have a problem in everyday conversation I just say 'selling their labour, both mentally and physically'. However, when discussing Marxian economics – which to be frank is not everyday conversation – then I tend to use the term "labour power".Has for "common ownership" why not 'social ownership' or 'social possesion by the whole community'? But again this would depend on the conversation and context.We already have the "professional communicators" (and also linguistics lecturers) within the party. The problem is to get them to organise workshops at ADM.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.