SPGB COMMUNICATION STRATEGY
- This topic has 46 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 9 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
As a candidate, I would be surprised if you weren't in favour of contesting elections.As Clause 8 states, the Socialist Party of Great Britain … enters the field of political action determined to wage war against all other political parties, whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist, and calls upon the members of the working class of this country to muster under its banner …not the Socialist Party of Great Britain enters the field of political action determined to make ourselves known to workers not trying to persuade them but to erect its banner and hope they are attracted by the clarity of our idea.
alanjjohnstone wrote:If the parameters of this thread is merely to critique another member's individual thoughts on his experiences from hustings in the election then i bow out for i believe there are far greater questions to be posed and answers attempted as i have several times suggested.I wished to discuss it as I am in general agreement with Howard and I have raised similar issues myself in the past which were largely ignored.I was hoping to actually take up some of his very good suggestion (or rather suggestions implied)
The vast majority of workers are wide awake, accept that the capitalists are parasetic, that war is not a product of human nature, that unemployed workers are not scroungeres but a necessary part of capitalism : I think not. They are asleep, – not in the literal sence – they do not understand class.Sleep is ………a state of mind characterized by altered consciousness, WikiWe need to to focus our propaganda on capitalism and problems that workers are facing now. We should be actively involve in waking workers up to the causes of their miseries.
jondwhite wrote:not the Socialist Party of Great Britain enters the field of political action determined to make ourselves known to workers not trying to persuade them but to erect its banner and hope they are attracted by the clarity of our idea.Our banner is static, it is for the working class to come to the banner ad muster, not for us to take the banner to th class.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Our banner is static, it is for the working class to come to the banner ad muster, not for us to take the banner to th class.Well that needs to change. Static banner, static movement.
Vin wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:Our banner is static, it is for the working class to come to the banner ad muster, not for us to take the banner to th class.Well that needs to change. Static banner, static movement.
Exactly. And what was it somebody once said about the party turning into a cult? Our branch will take the banner anywhere and do… on an increasingly regular basis. Part of the explanation, IMHO, why we've managed to almost triple the membership in K&S since our formation just over three years ago.
Vin wrote:SPGB COMMUNICATION STRATEGYAccepted wisdom [again?] is that you communicate mostly to the undecided. You need not talk to those already on your side [they have already heard the message], and it is a waste of time [well, mostly] to talk to your intractable enemies, so you are best advised to concentrate your fire on those who are possible but not yet in your fold. The great masses…and also coincidentally those already on the left but not true socialists. Here I suppose I break with tradition: rather than emphasising the extent to which we denounce these misguided fools in their mistaken political activism, we should send them out a more welcoming message – the concerns that attracted you to a left wing party are valid and we are likely to share them. I believe we are more likely to gain new recruits from those already on the left than elsewhere: hopefully the other parties have in some sense warmed them up for us. If our message is so much better than theirs [well, it is, isn’t it?], then it shouldn’t be too difficult to get them over. And if that is the case, then it isn’t very clever acting all hostile to them…sensible?I think this is a key point in Howard's paper – the need for more precisely targeted propaganda. Say what you like about the Lefties – including the Greens – but they are the people most likely to become socialists in our sense of the word. That means reaching out to them in particular without ignoring the wider electorate. It also means developing a more welcoming and conducive attitude towards them. Its difficult, I know, and I don't have any quick answers. Also, I have been a guilty as the next person in ignoring this suggestion, giving into temptation and laying into the Left in heavy handed fashion. To err is to be human. Nevertheless one should not forget the long term objective which is not about scoring points but gaining supporting for genuine socialism. I have not been active on the Revleft forum lately but I have noticed a shift in thinking towards a more explicit understanding, and embrace of, what genuine socialism is about. One slight problem I have with Howard's line of reasoning has to do with his implied recommendation that we abandon the language of, and perhaps any reference to, certain dead Germans. All very well but the language of Marxism has a strong resonance among the Left – we speak this language when we talk to the Left – and yet it is the Left who we are urged to target. I'm not quite sure how to get round this one either but its worth thinking about
Vin wrote:So, talking to the rest of the electorate…those who might see the world in terms of tory and labour or LibDem, etc. Those who worry about taxes and the price of petrol and employment security…Going straight at them and talking about scrapping money is a big jump for most of them, and it consigns us as extra-terrestrials as far as many are concerned, no matter how great the idea is. As things stand we have got to make the case that there is an alternative because most of them do not believe it: they think this is all there is. At least when the USSR was in existence, there was a tangible alternative -admittedly not much of one but one that was present within everyone’s consciousness. At the moment received wisdom is that this system is the only possibility. Our giving them both barrels as an opening gambit is counter-productive: it simply deters them from listening. Moreover the language in which much of our case is made is, to many, far too opaque. At a recent election meeting, I found myself paraphrasing some of the answers to questions given by those speaking on our behalf: the questioners being visibly confused….. My point is about key messages at election time and similar: I think a money-less society and leaderless world was a bit of a big step for most of our intended audience [much as it felt right in a self-congratulatory way]. I think my suggestions of seeding as above is far more palatable to many. It will not bear immediate fruit, but I suspect there is not much that will. At least it gets people thinking – which is foremost what we want [surely?].Yes I think this is an important point that Howard is making. Socialism comes across as a remote and disembodied abstraction something that, if is ever going to come about at all, will probably only come about in the very long term. But in the long term, as Keynes said, we are dead. Therefore people are not inclined for the most part to take socialism seriously. The case for socialism may be highly rational but if socialism is not on the cards for the foreseeable future what is the point? People will simply rationalise to themselves that we live in a sub-optimal world and we might as well just go about making the best of what we have in the meanwhile. In other words there is a huge credibility gap that socialism suffers from. This idea of Howard's of starting from where people are today and using a step by step approach to win them over is a sound one. My gloss on this would be that it means identifying and encouraging those developments with capitalism that run counter to the logic of the market – the various ways in which workers strive to cope under capitalism by adopting forms of organisation that transcend the market and which unmistakably point point to the possibility of another alternative to capitalism while not necessarily representing that alternative themselves. This was, as some might recall, the central argument of the old Guildford Branch circular produced back in late 80s (Gawd how time flies!) – The Road to Socialism – which caused a bit of stir. I think what the circular was actually saying was largely misunderstood within the Party and the discussion got bogged down in fruitless and defensive debate about the merits or otherwise of workers co-ops and the like. The bigger picture was sadly missed in the heat of the argument – namely that "socialistic" or non-market developments – like the growth of intentional communities, for example – while they do not necessarily lead to socialism or generate a socialist outlook, provide a fertile ground in which socialist ideas can be seeded. The point is that these things address the short term concerns of workers which mere abstract propagandism by its very nature cannot and so therefore tends to present socialism as a mere abstract long term goal. Highly rational though the case for socialism may be it demonstrably lacks the potency to motivate. Thus, goes the argument, it is only by linking up with these "socialistic developments in a more positive way that the movement for socialism will be able to gain traction, will be able to overcome that massively daunting hiatus between the short and long term perspectives. Or, if you like, by bringing closer together the utopian and scientific traditions of socialism I think it is worth revisiting this argument and seeing what in practical terms that might mean as far as an organisation like the SPGB is concerned. I do not imagine that ever means changing its function as a political party and a source of socialist propaganda. But it might very well mean a significant change in emphasis and tone and possibly also what individual members of the Party might do as distinct from the Party as a collective entity….
Vin wrote:The vast majority of workers are wide awake, accept that the capitalists are parasetic, that war is not a product of human nature, that unemployed workers are not scroungeres but a necessary part of capitalism : I think not. They are asleep, – not in the literal sence – they do not understand class.Sleep is ………a state of mind characterized by altered consciousness, WikiWe need to to focus our propaganda on capitalism and problems that workers are facing now. We should be actively involve in waking workers up to the causes of their miseries.Here is someone who agrees with me : "It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it" https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=105&v=rsL6mKxtOlQ
The lamentable approach of some members towards our fellow-workers is quite often sufficient in itself to drive away potential joiners. Being "clear and honest about where we stand" is of paramount importance but the adoption of a few elementary 'social graces' never did anyone any harm.
gnome wrote:Exactly. And what was it somebody once said about the party turning into a cult?Exactly, this is about un-cult-like behaviour. Cults wheedle, weasel, cajole and love bomb their victims, use every trick and trap to ensare them and get them into the cult: being clear anmd honest about where we stand and even driving away the occasional potential joiner is part and parcel of avoiding cultiness.
Unfortunately, some workers behave lamentably, whether they are socialists or not: but we're discussing communication here. The point is you can voice disagreement, with calm dignity, and refuse to sugar the pill. The point of our communications strategy, I'd suggest, was defined by Pope:
Pope wrote:True Wit is Nature to Advantage drest, What oft was Thought, but ne'er so well Exprest, Something, whose Truth convinc'd at Sight we find, That gives us back the Image of our Mind: As Shades more sweetly recommend the Light, So modest Plainness sets off sprightly Wit:Young Master Smeet wrote:Unfortunately, some workers behave lamentably, whether they are socialists or not: but we're discussing communication here.But appropriate behaviour is part and parcel of communicating successfully. Which is one reason why my branch is concerned with addressing the party's communication strategies and why it will be asking the EC to convene a workshop at ADM on the issue.An aspect of this surfaced in criticism made of a member's performance in a recent TV interview. One of the objections advanced on Spopen was this:
Quote:The aim of such a TV appearance is not to increase the number of votes that Party candidates receive, nor to make the Party look like reasonable people, but to spread Socialist ideas.[emphasis added]To which another member responded thus:
Quote:Question: Are you, or anyone, open to listening to unreasonable people? Psychologically humans tend to tune out, avoid, discount and/or disregard individuals who appear to be unreasonable. This is, perhaps, ingrained evolutionary behaviour.I maintain that for people to even consider listening to a point of view, they need to feel the speaker is a reasonable individual. Therefore a speaker interrupted to be a reasonable person has an opportunity to communicate to others. An individual interrupted to be unreasonable will, in all likelihood, be disregarded."We stand for a monyless world without countries" Will sound unreasonable to many and ears may shut down."We seek to take the resources of the earth into common ownership and under democratic control so that goods and services can be produced for human need instead of for the profit of the 1%" Is reasonable and may get people to listen.People are already talking about the 99% and the 1%.
But Vin, that doesn't sound much more reasonable, and the former statement has the added element of clarity (whilst its propositions are reasonable rextrapolations of the latter). Now, I wouldn't say that either of them was better or worse than the other, and I am a big believer in giving speakers and writers a good degree of lattituude in how they express the case: we need to fit in with our personal styles and how we personally relate to the party case. That's why I object to the complaints about Howard's telly appearance, despite the fact that I would, personally, have answered those questions very differently (the only one, though, where I do take big issue is the idea that the left are raising questions and ideas along the right line, rather than culpably spreading confusion).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.