Special post-election conference on the party and its future
- This topic has 123 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:i think our problem is that our objective is not related to the present, as Robbo indicated.
of course it is. The resources of the earth are owned by a few and wealth is produced to make profits for the same few. That is reality. It is the reality that causes most social and personal problems. It should be the starting point of our propaganda. Not some vision of the future. That is called utopianism
Quote:The starting point of our propaganda should be that there is a parisitic class leeching from the rest. We have to deal with this reality through revolution. They own the earth and intend to take it from them.That message i think is little different from any of the other left parties, all happy to lay the blame on various sections of the capitalist class…presently the bankers are wankers are getting it but previously its been industrial robber barons, the tax-dodging multinational corporations like Apple etc. and to be even more historical, the right-wing such as the Strasserites have also been anti-capitalist class even if it was an excuse to be anti-semitic. As i keep saying what seaparates us from the rest is that we do possess a vision of socialism, a very different depiction of it from the usual "workers" "socialist" parties. We don't advocate any half-measures but demand the Full Monty .We have to describe our goal and also explain the method of achieving it.And both should now have an added urgency with the prospect of extinction of humanity from environmental self-destruction. (yes i am prone to catastrophism and apocalyptic scenarios) so in a way, yes i may be be classed alongside Christians with their Prepare to Meet Thy Doom placards ..Woe…woe and thrice woe to recall the Frankie Howard's Up Pompeii. There is a convincing case i admit that pessimism and negativism are not effective means of persuasion and don't make converts…it is hope and it is inspiration that produces energy.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Our votes was what many predicted. It never went up despite more access to the media but did it bring us closer and strengthen the bond of that audience? Have we been able to identify potential supporters and sympathisers of the party that previously were anonymous.Alan your #16 touches on many areas that will come under scrutiny but imo the one quoted above outlines the whole point and aim of the election campaign. The key word is "identify" both at a macro and micro level. At a macro level the true support and means of identification is only possible when there is a candidate standing from the left. This only occurred in three constituencies and our votes there reflect the consistent and committed number of socialist supporters. The problem of identification for the rest of the constituencies where we contested is that without this challenge from the left the number of votes for us are largely 'unconfirmed votes'. At a micro level the problem for the three constituencies – who had this challenge from the left – is how we go about engaging and attracting these committed voters to become 'socialist activists'. This problem can be resolved by: 1. Using the queries from 38 degrees as a mailing list and still use the election code to identify hits after the mailout. 2. Regular street stalls. 3. Contesting all elections held in these constituencies in the future.
I don't know how relevant this is but there was some discussion about comparing how we did with how others putting a broadly similar view but not using the word "socialist" did, but here's the result for a council ward contested by the Money Free Party in Poole:http://prntscr.com/72za3fIt's not all that different, considering the sizes of the wards, from what we got in a ward in Folkestone:http://www.shepway.gov.uk/UserFiles/File/pdf/Elections%202015/Folkestone%20Harbour%20District.pdf
alanjjohnstone wrote:There is a convincing case i admit that pessimism and negativism are not effective means of persuasion and don't make converts…it is hope and it is inspiration that produces energy.Why is it pessimistic to reveal capitalism? People often say that about Marx. All this talk of the misery of the workers! You miserable sod!Think positive! No thanks. The need is urgent. People are interested in causes and cures. You cant advocate a cure for a cause that is unspeakable because it is too bleak and pessimistic,So we will have to disagree on that one.We should contantly draw attention to the horrors caused by capitalism because that will motivate change, not a desire for a nice society where we can all live in friendship: People have always wanted that, shurleyI am talking about the starting point of our propaganda. I am not saying we should not attempt to visualise the future but nothing will be achieved unless workers decide they have had enough of capitalism first. We need to expose the cause.
Do we want to be the nutters who wish to abolish money or the nutters that want revolution against the capitalists because we need the latter before we can have the former.
Vin wrote:robbo203 wrote:Problem is, Vin, socialists are in the business of communicating ideas and to communicate effectively you have to start from where people are. You have to, in a way , put yourself in their shoes, and try to help them to come to a socialist understanding through dialogue – through what was originally called "dialectics" in the Socratic sense.I must respectfully disagree with that. It sounds patronising and a little like the parties of the left. We need to be open and honest and hide nothing.Brand is a good example, he was not afraid to use the term 'revolution'. He got 10 million twitter followers. Why should we be afraid of the term. perhaps people are pissed off with politics because of all the 'dressing up'. perhaps people want a party to get to the point: exploitation, Parasites etcWhen our speakers are asked 'What do you stand for?'We tend to say 'we want a nice society without war, classes, money etc. With all the horrors going on around us it makes us sound like christianity. People rightly don't listen any further. After all it sounds nuts. The starting point of our propaganda should be that there is a parisitic class leeching from the rest. We have to deal with this reality through revolution. They own the earth and intend to take it from them.
Its not "patronising", Vin, to start from a position of where people are at the moment and to tailor the message to that; its just commonsense. Thats what I liked about some of the responses from the SPGB candidates to enquirers. They broke with the kind of formulaic approach one sometimes encounters and came across as more personable, more engaged with what the enquirer was actually asking… I don't disagree with your suggestion about using the term "revolution" although I generally tend to qualify it by talking of a "peaceful democratic social revolution". Words are important but words can mislead if they are not qualified by other words. Utter the the word "revolution" in a free standing sense and most people are liable to think you are referring to something like the Bolshevik Revolution and get turned off. Who would seriously want the sort of Stalinist tyranny that was born out of that?I think you are being too black-or-white in your rejection of the seemingly "utopian" exercise of putting flesh on the bones of the socialist goal. I think it is important to state openly that socialism will indeed mean a classless wageless moneyless commonwealth. Otherwise, you will come across as just another Leftist spouting "socialism" and "revolution". Actually , if anything, as an opening gambit , talking of socialism as a moneyless free access society is more likely to make people sit up and take notice if nothing else because it is so different. If nothing else that gives you the opportunity to qualify what you mean such as that it is not money per se that we seek to abolish but rather the social relationships that necessitate its use. Play up to the initial scepticism as a way of disarming it by saying something like "Yes it sounds utopian but the more you think about the more sense it makes.,.." Talking of which I have, as it happens, just been reading through the SPGB's pamphlet "Marxism revisited" and came across this passage from a talk by SC (who I presume is Steve Coleman)So I am going to deal briefly with the utopian strand, the radical democratic strand, and the early socialist movement. First of all, Utopia. Utopia has a very bad name, not least of all because Marx and Engels in asserting the clear scientificity of their position made a point of emphasising and dismissing and, frankly, sneering at the significance of utopian vision, the mere utopian thinkers who had fanciful thoughts about the future. Having said that, Marx and Engels, in Socialism, Utopian and Scientific, gave the respect that was right to those utopian socialists who had influenced them I agree. We shouldn't be sneering at utopian depictions of a socialist future. They are a source of inspiration, a stimulus to thinking more deeply about the kind of world we live in and a means of sharply differentiating the true revolutionaries from the left wing conservatives who cling to the realism of wanting to reform capitalism while gutting the term "revolution" of any credible meaning
Just a thought: Perhaps there are more socialists and sympathisers out there and they don't bother to vote because they perceive their vote will not change anything.Not sure what we could do about that.How many members have access to this site? Do we know? Why are they reluctant to get involved?I hope more members and sympathisers get involved in this discussionPerhaps it should be 'structured': Discuss one issue at a time?example1. Elections2. Party name3. Key message4 Use of social media, facebook, twitter etc5. Videos6. new methodsetc
Vin wrote:I am talking about the starting point of our propaganda. I am not saying we should not attempt to visualise the future but nothing will be achieved unless workers decide they have had enough of capitalism first.Another example of what I am talking about. You cannot really separate "having enough of capitalism" from the more positive notion of visualising an alternative to capitalism. The two things go together – ALWAYS! If you don't have an alternative in mind to put in the place of capitalism then you cannot really be said to have have "had enough of capitalism". All you have had "enough off" is some or all of the symptoms of capitalism without necessarily understanding how these connect with the capitalist basis of modern society…
alanjjohnstone wrote:Religion and membership has been raised on our discussion forum and i think Robbo will be interested in Paddy Shannon's replyhttps://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/WSM_Forum/conversations/topics/52463;_ylc=X3oDMTM1YTI0Y2Q0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE2MDYxMARncnBzcElkAzE3MDgzNjMwNzcEbXNnSWQDNTI0NzAEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDdnRwYwRzdGltZQMxNDMxMTY3MTA1BHRwY0lkAzUyNDYzThanks Alan. I particularly like this part of Paddy's text: "More prosaically, we tend to think that people who are capable of believing in imaginary beings can’t be relied on to make solid and rational decisions but I think this is an atheist bias and our weakest argument. Some scientists, doctors and engineers are religious but we don’t normally question their ability to think rationally. Humans are exceptionally good at compartmentalising. Conversely, nobody has ever suggested that atheism is a gold standard of sanity. – You can see from this that WSM members don’t all think alike on this subject. As it happens, I agree with your arguments more than Julian’s. Extremists should not be allowed to join for very good and obvious reasons, but otherwise, let in all the Quakers, Pagans, Buddhists and Druids that want to join, as far as I’m concerned, although I doubt there would be many. If they’ve got more motivation than us atheists, so much the better. Speaking personally, if I had to choose between a socialist world with religious people in it and a capitalist world full of atheists, I wouldn’t hesitate. Provided they didn’t turn up on my doorstep with a Bible and a pious lecture at the ready." This is something I've been banging on about for ages. It really does not matter that people hold religious views provided we can be sure that their particular brand of religion does not interfere with them being socialists. As I understand it Marx in helping to up the rules of The International Workingmens Association (the First International) cautioned against inserting a rule disallowing religious believers into the Association. The SPGB should take a leaf out of Marx's book. A blanket ban on religious belief is pointless, does not achieve anything more than what the other very tight membership requirements achieve and creates yet another ridiculous obstacle in the way of the growth of the Party. The point of the SPGB is to help bring about a socialist world not to rid the world of religious belief (there are plenty of atheists who are virulently anti socialist so would the Party ban atheists?) and it is sad that the largest body of organised socialists in the world – albeit pathetically small – should handicap themselves in this way. As I have always argued, a softened stance on religion by way of a compromise which at least allows in some religious believers but excludes what Paddy calls religious "extremists" or certain organised religions, would be a huge step forward and I would seriously hope that this is something that this Special conference would consider…..
Robbo,A bit of a misunderstanding.As I said earlier somewhere, when a speaker is asked what we stand for, the reply "We stand for a moneyless stateless world where everything is free …" is not a good starting point. People turn away and stop listening.I would never suggest the party stop referring to socialism and free access. I am talking about a propoganda method, a way to get people to listen to us, keeping them engaged, rooting our case in the here and now. What does your party stand for? "Revolution to disposses the 1% and reorganise the production of goods and services around human need instead of their profit……"Money, like the state, cannot be abolished before removing the need for it. A stateless society of free access is utopian without class struggle.
ALB, Have we ever been in touch with this person and this organisation?I gather that they may well be more influenced by TZM than ourselves but should we not be making comradely approaches towards them.It is a pity that much of the propaganda is duplicated effort.
Vin, i agree that this discussion has to be structured.First of all, we have talked about a special post election conference – there isn't one yet. That was one of my early points that i sought to raise. I fear that it will be tagged on to ADM and the committees will report to it. It will then be crowded out with other topics on the ADM agenda. I did make a compromise suggestion that this year's ADM is extended by a day and the session devoted entirely to the election. I await what the upcoming EC has to say. Or do they need some prodding from the branches?
alanjjohnstone wrote:ALB, Have we ever been in touch with this person and this organisation?I gather that they may well be more influenced by TZM than ourselves but should we not be making comradely approaches towards them.It is a pity that much of the propaganda is duplicated effort.We are in contact with the MFP through the TZM facebook group. Their founder Nick Tapping (aka Auntie Abolisher) was a well known poster on the WSM Forum. They are critics of TZM and admit they have been mainly influenced by us.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.