Members and a Socialist Party – Organisational critique
- This topic has 29 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
This article has some lessons for Left Unity and ourselves, but obviously it hasn't all the answers , nor even all the questions but it is a useful read on faults of some organisations and how to improve them
http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/12/pain-on-the-one-side-fear-on-the-other/
I have said it before that i think we must also be a socialist party and have room within it for partying. Comradeship is important. Camaraderie is vital. This article makes amongst many others a similar point.
"Because socialists feel especially alienated from capitalism, we need to belong in a socialist organization. As one veteran socialist was fond of saying, “The world is very cold, and the organization must be very warm, welcoming, and inclusive.” …..Socialists believe in the power of cooperation to change the world. We also have courage and determination. That is important, because it takes courage and determination to remain warm and friendly in the face of ongoing disagreements. Our reward will be our growing ability to build respectful, welcoming, and truly democratic organizations that ordinary people will beg to join and in which they will remain. We can be supremely confident in our political foundation. The challenge is to trust the good intentions and dedication of all members. Then we can handle non-strategic disagreements with the confidence that they can and will be resolved among those who share the same goal – bringing the working class to power…."
We are faced as a party with two ex-members who wish to re-join but who are for the moment rejected. Regardless of whether it is justified or not in that specific case, our attitudes, official and informal, must always be queried and questioned, for such issues will not go away but rather increase in the future as our membership grows and interactions becomes more complex and complicated with internal conflicts inevitable.
I hate this sort of navel-gazing, but for those who enjoy it there is this article on organisation from an Irish anarchist group:http://www.wsm.ie/c/solidarity-engagement-revolutionary-organisation-anarchismActually it does have some interesting ideas about organising in this age of social networks which we might be able to use, e.g we have more members of our facebook page, most of whom can presumably be classified as sympathisers to one degree or another, than we have paid-up members. How can they be further involved in spreading socialist ideas without necessarily have to join?
ALB:'Navel-gazing'!!AlanI appreciate your post. Very accurate, I have felt cold, invisible and isolated since trying to rejoin the party and the forum. I have offered my services to the movement. Even offered to do a Party Video without payment but not even a 'no thanks'I am not sure if the othe member you refer to has given up already but I don't think I will continue.
Yes, navel-gazing. Socialist comradeship is something you do, not endlessly analyze. It has to be spontaneous and can't be contrived. So there's no point in drawing up guidelines about how to do it or trying to convince people to do it. You might as well gaze at your navel instead.
I don't think 'navel gazing' is appropriate in this context but I do not wish to go off topic for reasons you know well, and besides there is nothing I need to convince you of.
I'm with ALB on this one, but I think that 'navel-gazing' is a little too charitable for my liking. I'd posit 'fist-fucking your brother' as a more apposite metaphor. Enough with this self-indulgent nonsense, comrades. Those concerned know what they did and they've said they won't do it again. It's time to let this go.
Actually Johnny boy, I did not say, "I would not do it again" because, wait for it……….I never did owt in the fust place marra and to say, "those concerned know what they did and they've said they won't do it again", is taking licence with historic fact.Your use of foul- mouthed language notwithstanding, your use of metaphor leaves somewhat to be desired. The ineluctable,Stevie C.
Reminder1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
Well, i don't think it is self-indulgent navel gazing. I risked the topic being side-tracked by offering a current example of the issue we face. And to their credit, Vin did restrict himself to a passing comment, and Steve only responded to another posters inflammatory remark. Hopefully it is kept on track.Perhaps it is because i am a couple of continents away that i share Vin's feelings of isolation and compensate for individual impotence in party decision making by numerous posts here.Take a look at the LU website and the thing you are struck by from the personal reports of the conference is the subjective descriptions of the friendly attitudes of the participants. Of course, i am not fooled by the optimism and believe such good-will will continue within LU but it does demonstrate the importance of the need for comrade-ship within an organisation. Anyone who attends conference or ADM or Summer School will observe that it is the socialising which makes the long trips for some worth while. It is through the informal conversations outside conference procedure that differences are reconciled or receive fuller explanations and harsh words or sentiments are apologised for. ALB, i think, is sceptical because as he more or less asks, how does an organisation place such sentiments in the rule-book and knows well enough that camaraderie cannot be imposed. There either is or there isn't! Some members of the Party have bitter memories of the feuding that has gone on in the past. I think steps can be taken. An open and transparent disputes procedure to resolve political and personal disputes between members can be developed for starters. More non-adversorial forms of debate and discussion used. We already acknowledge this by now describing debates as forums and prepared to offer a platform to non-party members such as writers and authors. We are experimenting with different methods of explorations of ideas such as the work-shops on propaganda and activity held last year. SC and VM should also note that the EC actually reached out for a party opinion and have not simply usurped responsibility. The web and internet offers a channel for those out of touch either because of geography or family/job commitment that is still not being completely utilised. But we are making advances with baby-steps such as Skype EC meetings but surely that is just the beginning.So it is not idle navel-gazing. It is about challenging current practice and proposing alternatives and we should not rest upon our laurels but carry on. The experience of other organisations and activists such as in the article i linked to offers insights that may or may not be relevant to ourselves but they do help to define the problem for us.
Here we go again, Colborn. Shall I check my private messages in the morning to see what pile of abusive shit you've delivered upon me? Like I don't have enough to deal with? Why don't you bombard HO with another few dozen pointless e-mithers as well? I've been more than tolerant. Party poll on this is what I say. And for anyone who hasn't yet voted for next year's Executive Committee, bear in mind that I demand democracy for myself and others. Ask the party whether we want these motherfuckers amongst us. "Foul-mouthed"? Whose side are you on? Because it certainly isn't mine.
Jonathan Chambers wrote:Here we go again, Colborn. Shall I check my private messages in the morning to see what pile of abusive shit you've delivered upon me? Like I don't have enough to deal with? Why don't you bombard HO with another few dozen pointless e-mithers as well? I've been more than tolerant. Party poll on this is what I say. And for anyone who hasn't yet voted for next year's Executive Committee, bear in mind that I demand democracy for myself and others. Ask the party whether we want these motherfuckers amongst us. "Foul-mouthed"? Whose side are you on? Because it certainly isn't mine.7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.Poster is suspended for 7 days
I think it was a massive mistake from the outset to start talking about ongoing situations, which at least to my knowledge are yet to be resolved. Not least because I suspect that seeking attention is part of the motivation for those particular members resignations in the first place. Much like a child throwing a tantrum due to it's inability to communicate properly.I think we as a party, as socialists, as human fucking beings need to intraspectively examine our own behaviour and our own ethics, to recognize the effects of alienation which capitalism forces upon us. The point of this is to gain a little clarity when heated situations arise. So far from a pointless excersise I would say it is a vital part of building a movement that is capable of overthrowing capital and building a society which we all want to see..Rather than an enforced, fake comaraderie as Alb objects to, what we need is appropriate levels of tolerance.not for others ideas but for the way others chose to express themselves. I am of course referring to Steve's mention of Jonathon's 'foul mouth'. Surely an accusation in it's self as it's an entirely subjective opinion, one which I do not share. Let us not forget that much of this started as a reaction to the use of the word 'shit' and 'bullshit' before dragging in half the party. People use language in different ways, which for me is part of it's beauty. Both parties in a conversation need to take responsibility for achieving an understanding. The outright moral objection to certain words or phrases makes that impossible and generates a feeling that you are dealing with a Mary fucking Whitehouse figure attempting to impose their bourgouis moralism on to you. Conversely we must always try to remember that those we are speaking to may assign different meanings to certain words we use and must conciously acknowledge that this may make them feel uncomfortable. Communication is a two way street and personally I think the only type of 'bad' language is that which fails to convey your (fucking) message.p.s. yeah I took a shot at Steve & Vin in the first paragraph. Happily accept my 7 day ban. T'was worth it.1st Warning:1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
The real disrespect being showed has been to myself, has it not?The use of foul language issue is a complete irrelevance but failing to discuss my point but instead preferring to attack another poster was the real massive mistake and betrayed another agenda for the poster, which does not acknowledge my right to expect a serious engagement of the ideas in my post, even if some may consider it not of much merit. That is an opinion they are entitled to, just as i am entitled to post my observations, which granted i tend to do so a lot. The wisdom of declaring certain subjects in my original post off-limits ,(despite the caveats i used), in itself raises an issue that is part of the situation i feel still has to be addressed by the party. Toleration of expression on this thread has been addressed by the moderator and that should be the end of it. Full Stop. No More. It was, IIRC, not bad language that sparked off previous animousity but the failure to abide by the moderator's decisions. Let us accept whatever he decides and give him his due respect.
alanjjohnstone wrote:The real disrespect being showed has been to myself, has it not?The use of foul language issue is a complete irrelevance but failing to discuss my point but instead preferring to attack another poster was the real massive mistake and betrayed another agenda for the poster, which does not acknowledge my right to expect a serious engagement of the ideas in my post, even if some may consider it not of much merit. That is an opinion they are entitled to, just as i am entitled to post my observations, which granted i tend to do so a lot. The wisdom of declaring certain subjects in my original post off-limits ,(despite the caveats i used), in itself raises an issue that is part of the situation i feel still has to be addressed by the party. Toleration of expression on this thread has been addressed by the moderator and that should be the end of it. Full Stop. No More. It was, IIRC, not bad language that sparked off previous animousity but the failure to abide by the moderator's decisions. Let us accept whatever he decides and give him his due respect.I am addressing your topic and the posts about whether it is 'naval gazing' or notThe topic is on interactions within a socialist party, which is what my post addressesIt was your own poor choice in choosing such an incendiary topic. Seriously what do you expect pouring petrol on a fire?Toleration of expression has not been addressed by the moderator and no disrespect has been shown to the moderator.Perhaps your memory has failed you or perhaps you simply didn't give a fuck. It was Vin and Steve's calls for moderation of me which started it all. It was their victim complex which carried it on. Don't believe their propaganda Allan.
In case not everybody has read the link, here are some extracts:"In every conflict, both sides believe they are right. The mechanical approach says that if I am logical and rational and explain my position well enough, then the other person will accept my perspective, the conflict will be resolved, and everyone will be clearer. This approach can work only when discussion remains relaxed and friendly. However, when people feel strongly about their positions, as they usually do, emotions are aroused and conflict becomes heated. Strong emotions inflate differences and eclipse common interests so that nothing can be resolved, and everything gets muddier." The article goes on: “The longer a conflict persists, the more likely it will be registered in long-term memory and resurrected during the next conflict…Once the social connection has been re-established, the threat diminishes. As combatants cool down, the thinking parts of their brains come back on line. At that point, they are commonly surprised at how manageable their disagreements actually are. But as long as they feel disconnected, the threat response will remain active, no one will be listening, and the conflict will continue.”Then says:"We all have been in conflicts where we denied hurting someone or the other person denied hurting us. We deny behaving in a hurtful manner or minimize the hurt in order to make a complaint go away and to maintain position (save face) at the other person’s expense. This is the equivalent of saying, “I don’t care about your pain. I am right (blameless), and you are wrong.” This tactic always backfires. Nothing enrages people more than being told they were not treated badly, when that was what they experienced, or being told that they only imagined being treated badly, implying that they are ‘too sensitive,’ delusional, or crazy."It advises:1. If even one person has a problem, there is a problem.2. If anyone has a problem, then everyone has a problem.3. Do whatever it takes to solve the problem.Pre-class societies lived by these principles because they understood that pulling together was more important than any social structure. If we want to build a classless society, then we must do what we can to promote these principles."It suggests:"When quarrelling members have the same basic goals, then effective apology is the best way to repair a relationship rupture and restore a good working relationship." An example of an effective apology being:“I apologize for treating you as though you were a threat. I was mistaken not to value what you were saying. You deserve better than that, and I am truly sorry for the pain I caused you.”“I apologize for not recognizing how threatened you were by my disagreements. I was mistaken not to reassure you that my goal was not to diminish you in any way. You deserve better than that, and I am truly sorry for the pain I caused you.” As the article says::"It is extremely difficult… to think beyond who is right and who is wrong to see that the purpose of apology is to repair a relationship, not to establish blame…Most people mistakenly begin an apology by explaining, justifying, and defending, which is perceived by the other as a way to minimize the harm done. Ineffective ‘apologies’ usually launch another round of conflict. It is also a mistake to expect conflicting parties to ever agree on who said and did what, and in what order. Stress hormones disrupt the ability of our brains to create coherent memories, so that we can’t remember stressful events in logical sequence. However, once a relationship is repaired, this no longer matters. What matters is preventing conflict from becoming so prolonged that it feels impossible to set aside the bitterness…"Yes, no doubt saying the obvious will lead to accusation of Agony Aunt Analysis but i am sure many (or perhaps just a few) will recognise parts of the above. I was no innocent party in the discussion list dispute just in case anybody has forgotten. Unless anyone has claims to infallibility , lets just say sorry and move on. The first step is ensuring it is not repeated by hopefully implementing changes in the way we interact as individual members and how the Party operates as an organisation.i disagree with ALB that it is not possible to create a comradely climate. The difference in view doesn't mean i won't buy him a pint the next time we meet…(but really, i'm hoping he will go to the bar )
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.