The Forum and the EC

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

After all, we have companion parties and branches using it to relay information about their business.

Just a correction, the companion parties do not post here. It is HO that does that once it receives those companion party minutes. It is a shame that we do not have more international participation on this discussion list. 

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

No I can't find them from over a decade ago.

my emphasis "The poster you quoted at the start is one such member, who has far reaching proposals for changing Party procedures"Umm… very telling that those "far-reaching proposals for changing Party procedures" were from a decade ago, so, i suppose it is little wonder that they have gotten lost in the mists of time. As i think someone once said of the Party (was it Gnome?), we act and change at a speed of a glacier…Maybe another decade will transpire before these far-reaching proposals come into effect …but, meanwhile, the world moves on and we fall further behind it.

It doesn't have to be like that. I should have said has 'had', my point was apart from putting your nose out of  joint by correctly describing this fora as a glorified chatroom he wasn't against modernising our intercoms networking to reflect the age and times we live in nor am I .It is an open goal there for many members..

Quote:

"Your conclusion is loaded"Umm…bit of a pot calling kettle, isn't that? Once more your own post has its own loaded assumptions.

If the cap fits."acrimonious accusations can be hurled at individual members …"…"No one should feel compelled to work with a bully …"

Quote:

You seem to be continually conflating other issues with this thread

The other issues and matters arising from them, are a part of the  reason for the instigation of this thread, however laudable your own intentions may be and cognizance should be taken of recent events lest uncomradely behaviour be rewarded by manipulation of them. I am fully aware that this could be seen as another case of myself with a bee in my bonnet. (So put your pots and kettles away.)

Quote:

which is about Party officer accountability and the means and methods to achieve that.

A different issue.They are already presently accountable via branches, EC etc .

Quote:

You are correct about this section of our forum – that it is not designed to function fully to conduct Party business,

It is only  a discussion forum.and thus a chat  forum.

Quote:

and i did concede that it was not .

I must have missed that.

Quote:

But i still suggest it can be put to better use rather than to be relegated to the status of "gossip chatroom."

That is not a relegation that is an accurate present description.After all, we have companion parties and branches using it to relay information about their business.

Quote:

I think if a branch posts its minutes here then any member should be permitted to comment and expect to receive a reply, if one is required.

Well maybe.It depends on the branch. It is up to them if they reply. I think 'expectations' need to be 'self managed'  by comrades.

Quote:

Likewise, i expect the EC and its members to respond to questions put to them, regardless of whether it is at a formal EC meeting, face-to-face,

It is the Gen secs. job to alert them to formal requests for info.They generally do so respond.

Quote:

or through a Party-authorised discussion forums that is described as for conducting SPGB business.

Your expectations are premature.You will have to gain support for this and take it through procedures.They do so respond from time to time as individuals. They do not have  a spokesperson so any response is an individual one. There are too few members are willing to drink from this poisoned well and the rest of the stuff arises partly from that fact.

Quote:

As well you and others know, i always push for full and proper consultation of the party as a whole calling repeatedly for a special conference to examine the Party's positions and practice to combat what i perceive is a growing malaise within our organisation.I don't have the patience to wait another decade or two for meaningful far-reaching change and i doubt the Party has that luxury of time, either. 

No one is asking you to do so. You are just having an argument in an empty room.

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

the  reason for the instigation of this thread,

Let us be perfectly clear. I instigated this thread because of  two incidents. The EC making a decision upon a video that was being reported regularly on this forum for any member to comment upon and they insist that there was no consultation with the EC. There was also an opaque reference to "other concerns", something not elaborated upon and left me, at least, mystified. (i can recall another occasion that the EC minutes deliberately mis-reported to the membership, as it was,understandably for a good reason – HO security – but if you were not in the loop, a member would be left ignorant of the real reason, as i was and still am, even though the situation has now escalated to possible future legal case against a contractor.) I queried the decision on the video and the expulsion of the member from the A/V committee on Spintcom and received a critical reply from another member who presented his own idiosyncratic interpretation of the EC minutes and the video. It led me to wonder just why EC members and Party Officers in our committees decline to engage on this forum. Was it full transparency and accountability?Well, perhaps Mohammed should have gone to the mountain with his video, rather than expect members of the EC to come to Mohammed but some members do visit here and place posts and some who shun participation on the forum and consequently are not fully aware of Party activity. Both reflected a failing, in my opinion….Then on another threadA member posted "Looking at face value at the minutes of the WSP (india), I think the EC of the SPGB owe them and the members of the SPGB a full explanation."Another member added, "I'm a little curious about the matter as detailed at face value in these minutes too."Neither comrade was bullying nor uncivil in their posts. This elicited this response"May I suggest that you satisfy your curiosity by raising your concerns directly with the EC – rather than call for its members to jump through your proffered hoop… EC has not received a request for explanation from the EC of the WSP(I). "It may not have received a request from the WSP(I) but it certainly did from two members of this party. An individual EC member is quite capable of summarising the discussion and revealing the reason for a decision made by the EC.  As i said in my original post, we can fill up the agenda of the EC with queries, losing valuable time and this thread was to explore why certain members are so defensive to using this forum to circumvent this.Your own defence is that we should use branches to rectify any shortcomings but many are not in a branch (even if a branch accepts an individual's complaint and acts upon it) and, of course, some branches themselves can find themselves ignored by either the EC or committee. My original post argues that we possess the tech know-all to change our traditional method of practicing Party democracy yet we shy away even though we happily discuss amending branch standing orders to accommodate new styles of holding branch meetings, which you, yourself have contributed to…so not all is lost…I am minded of that saying you won't find a cure until you recognise you have a problem…at times, i think some of us are still in denial and we can't move forward to remedies until we understand the health of our Party fully. And i've said to you and others  i will continue stating unwelcome and unpleasant truths. I don't consider it as disruption…just a wee bit repetitious and if it is an empty room i'm in…sometimes it does feel it's an empty audience i seem to be addressing

[jondwhite]

Are the 'far reaching proposals' the ones detailed here?https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/spopen/conversations/messages/3704

[Anonymous]

jondwhite wrote:

Are the 'far reaching proposals' the ones detailed here?https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/spopen/conversations/messages/3704

Does anyone know if these 'far reaching proposals' ever saw the light of day?  I mean, did the paper 'Decontructing the SPGB' ever get discussed by the party as a whole or was it destined to languish forever in a "gossip chatroom"?

[alanjjohnstone]

Much appreciated that you managed to track this down, JonD. Even if it isn't what Matt was referring to (but i think it is) the post is still a good read and does make "far-reaching" proposalsIt does make interesting points and forms the basis upon which we could begin to discuss anew our Party's democracy and process. Paddy has always excelled at identifying problems using plenty of  descriptive metaphors and analogies. Of course, the change in technology and its style has even been faster than what was expected and strengthens some of Paddy's conclusions. There is a lot in it to digest and much i endorse…But to make it relavant to this current discussion i highlight this comment from Paddy."In a sense, the whole Party becomes the EC"Well, Gnome, as for being discussed further, i think we can judge by the modest number of replies it received.Some progress did get made in adapting to new technology but the speed and scale of that change still left us lagging behind. 

[lindanesocialist]

Regarding Video production and on-line democracy a member once wrote in 2009:"Since this is in some sense an innovative project I'd like to suggest an innovative approach to organising it. Shoot me if you want over this, but I propose a (groan) separate discussion list for this, as an experiment in online democracy. My idea is this: if you want in, you have to subscribe, but in subscribing you should be prepared to take an active part, either in research, writing, technical support, production or presentation. Those who don't want to do anything won't be able or entitled to interfere. If and when projects are near to completion, they could of course be subject to review by the membership at large via the Party website, or by the EC at least, so that nobody can say they weren't consulted. At that stage, however, opinion will be limited to 'accept' or 'reject'." The doc can be found here and is signed Paddyhttps://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/spopen/conversations/messages/7168Seems he has had a change of heart about 'chat rooms' and video production

[jondwhite]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

After all, we have companion parties and branches using it to relay information about their business.

Just a correction, the companion parties do not post here. It is HO that does that once it receives those companion party minutes. It is a shame that we do not have more international participation on this discussion list. 

WSPUS do conduct business online via a group.

[Bijou Drains]

It strikes me that the issue is complex and multi-facetted. We cannot ignore the fact that the internet and its flexibility offer us the chance to speed up and truly democratise the party decision making forum. he rule book, in my opinion, does not currently reflect the world as it is now, but rather a world of twenty years ago. For instance rule 17 which states “The Executive Committee shall publish and control the Party literature. Election Statements and Election Manifestos must be approved by the Executive Committee before printing excepting handbills and leaflets. They shall establish a literature agency, from which all Branches shall be supplied,” is a rule which was fine when the majority of non face to face propaganda was done in print.  We now have the situation where it seems some of the EC are suggesting that twitter, which by its very nature is instantaneous, should be administered through rule 17, similarly videos, audio material, etc., etc. The rule actually states literature, which begs the question what is literature. Are my current musings, published on the party forum covered by Rule 17. What now constitutes publishing? Does Facebook, blogging,, etc. constitute publishing, or would it be does it fall into the same category as public speaking, we have tests for party speakers who might reach an audience of 100 (God loves an optimist!) where as electronic communication can reach 1,000s even 1,000,000.Similarly rule 7. “The Branch shall be the unit of organisation.” This rule reflected the only feasible way of organising democratically in 1904; this is no longer the case. We now have options, could it be that the branch is way we group for propaganda and local debate, the way we organise interplay with the democratic organs of the party could very easily be different. The way we organise internal democracy could also be very different. It would be very easy to broadcast EC meetings with members able to observe all decision making processes. These could be recorded and made available an archive. Minutes would probably be needed to provide succinct summary of the decision making processes, however their veracity would be far more testable if this was the case. Similarly conference and or ADM could be available to view as it happens, which might improve the quality of debate, and the party members involved it he decision making could be better informed about the issues at stake. We also have to be aware, however that not all members are computer literate or would choose to participate in this way, we must, in my view, consider their needs and preferences as well.The argument that the EC, those on committees and those geographically/socially close enough to Clapham High Street could be considered an informed decision making elite, whilst other members who do not have this level of access are uninformed and as a result disenfranchised, is a powerful one. The issue of the WSP (I) and other decisions made by the EC recently add to my concerns that this may be the case. There have been several instances in my time in the party where certain issues are known and disclosed to a certain few members of the party, usually for non-malign reasons, however the possibility of this being used in a malign way should never be dismissed and any opportunity for widening member activity and participation should, in my opinion, be embraced, tested out and where feasible be implemented.

[Author]

Posts