The Workers of the World aren’t uniting with you when you’ve only 817 Twitter followers!

[jondwhite]

Is this a fair comment

'The Workers of the World aren't uniting with you when you've only 817 Twitter followers!'

[alanjjohnstone]

As i said on the other thread, yes it is a fair criticism and the truth sometimes hurt. Facts are facts and in the words of Burns "Facts are chiels that winna ding” [Trans. – facts are fellows that will not be overturned,/And cannot be disputed]We have been negligent over the past years to developing a stronger online/social media presence…perhaps its the consequence of our average age but maybe not. I don't use Twitter and i don't use Facebook and i'm a reluctant mobile phone user so mea culpa…my exposure and involvement in new technology is sadly limited. But as myself and others have said we have to spend more cash on building an internet audience even if it means sub-contracting and outsourcing some of that technical development. From a superficial acquaintence, our Meet-up site is performing as it should but other possibilities in networking either have to be boosted or kick-started.Vin has struggled to gain a forum on the Party's Twitter account, as i seem to recall…hopefully that is solved now. But here we are in the last lap of the election campaign and our Twitter inadequency is now just apparent and being discussed.I'll say it once more…we seriously have to re-think our communications problem once this election is over and learn from experiences like a very minimum Twitter campaign. …One more item to discuss.We can start simply…produce flash animations and basic videos. The AV Committee have a lot on their shoulders and no blame should be attached. But money is available and should be spent. 

[SocialistPunk]

It is a fair comment, unfortunately.I've heard it said by one or two members over the years, (going back to before I was a member in the late nineties early 2000's) that the SPGB is slow to grasp new communication technology.When it comes to online communication like Twitter and Facebook, the saying "speculate to accumulate" couldn't be more apt.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Facts are facts and in the words of Burns "Facts are chiels that winna ding” [Trans. – facts are fellows that will not be overturned,/And cannot be disputed]

It's hard to believe that any socialist who aspires to play a part in a world-changing, critical, creative human revolution, can think that Burns' words are of any scientific or political use to us workers.I'm no poet, and I don't know the artistic context of Burns' statement (which might be ironic or somesuch), but, if taken at face value, it means that we cannot criticise the existing and create the new. Change, when faced with 'facts', is impossible.Any party based upon a philosophy of 'facts' is essentially a conservative party.You should be criticising science, physics, maths and 'facts', alan. But the philosophy that doesn't make these crucial criticisms, is 'materialism'.

[Anonymous]

jondwhite wrote:

Is this a fair comment'The Workers of the World aren't uniting with you when you've only 817 Twitter followers!'

I don't think it is a fair comment. It is the only 'comment'  that tossers like Kevin Maguire have against our case. I have replied: "Unlike other parties the SPGB does not change principles to get votes. The Nazis had many followers. Does that make them 'right'"   

[Anonymous]

I hope this thread doesn't turn into a discussion about the usual.  

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

I hope this thread doesn't turn into a discussion about the usual.

alan expressed an ideological position that I disagree with.You agree with alan, as far as I can tell, Vin.Why can't this ideological belief be challenged, whenever it is expressed?Why should an expression of 'common sense' be allowed to stand, just because it is actually 'common sense' to the majority?At present, 'capitalism' is also 'common sense'.

[alanjjohnstone]

Do you know, LBird, when i actually posted that, i thought to myself to half-expect it would elicit a response from you on that quote ….You didn't disappoint…For my pitiful efforts, LBird,  i am trying to suggest that once the party has got its breath back from a earth-quaking vote of 0.2% (if we are lucky) …a statistical fact i am sure will transpire…after a well earned respite to recover from all the exceptional campaigning and activities, we must come together and re-focus the whole party. We have to decide if it is the content of our case or the presentation of it or a mixture of both that we are failing not only ourselves but our fellow workers.You are very welcome to offer your input in that but as a non-member, unfortunately it doesn't allow you any actual decision making role…i have suggested that you can join…our guidelines for new members is surprisingly broad…I'm sure your replies to the new entrants questionaire will not lead to a rejection…then lo and behold…all our procedures will be open to you…branches and conferences will have to listen to you…you can bring to your influence our party polls…no more harping on from the sidelines but part of our democratic process…a majority deciding what are the facts…(well pretending that they do from their respecive ideological standpoints)The  Form A awaits you 

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

As i said on the other thread, yes it is a fair criticism and the truth sometimes hurt. Facts are facts and in the words of Burns "Facts are chiels that winna ding” [Trans. – facts are fellows that will not be overturned,/And cannot be disputed]

I don't see any contradiction between Burns and LBird. Burns does not say how the 'facts' came into existence.  Perhaps Burns meant to say "Facts (as socially constructed and agreed upon) are fellows that will not be overturned and cannot be disputed.  

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

For my pitiful efforts…

I think my 'efforts' on this site have been a damn sight more 'pitiful' than yours, if the response that they've been met with, is of any measure!

ajj wrote:

…our guidelines for new members is surprisingly broad…I'm sure your replies to the new entrants questionaire will not lead to a rejection….The  Form A awaits you 

I'm inclined to think that most members would prefer Nigel Farage, the well-known exponent of 'common sense facts' about immigration, than would prefer my party-wrecking beliefs, about democracy.I mean, 'Truth' is common sense, ain't it? Who'd accept a vote on 'Truth'? Cor blimey, expecting workers to take an interest in their world…What's the expulsion form? Form X? I'm sure that would follow on swiftly, to any Form A!

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

As i said on the other thread, yes it is a fair criticism and the truth sometimes hurt. Facts are facts and in the words of Burns "Facts are chiels that winna ding” [Trans. – facts are fellows that will not be overturned,/And cannot be disputed]

I don't see any contradiction between Burns and LBird. Burns does not say how the 'facts' came into existence.  Perhaps Burns meant to say "Facts (as socially constructed and agreed upon) are fellows that will not be overturned and cannot be disputed.  

Perhaps he did, Vin.But, that's not what most people think a 'fact' is.For some reason, they think a 'fact' can exist outside of a vote…I'm with the Marxist poet Rabbie Perhaps-Burns, on this one.

[alanjjohnstone]

 

Quote:

"Charges against any member shall be submitted in writing to the Branch and a copy supplied to the member accused who shall be allowed 14 days to enter the defence. The Branch shall consider the matter at a specially summoned Meeting, and a majority of those voting shall have power to expel any member, subject to ratification by the Executive Committee. An expelled member shall have the right of appeal to Delegate Meeting or the Annual Conference….[A] member acting in a manner deemed by the EC to be an infringement of the Principles or Rules, or detrimental to the interests of the Party shall be immediately suspended by the EC from all Party business except the matter in dispute. The EC shall forthwith submit particulars of the charge to all Branches and at the same time communicate the charges in writing to the accused and enclose a copy of this rule. Branches shall hold at least one specially summoned meeting to discuss the charge. The Delegates at the next Delegate Meeting or Annual Conference shall hear the case of the EC and of the accused; after which no further circulation of arguments for or against the charge may take place. The Delegates shall submit their findings to a Party Poll and the result of the Party Poll shall apply as from the date of suspension. No parties to the charge or dispute shall be allowed to sit as Delegates or Chair at Conference, ADM or any EC meeting where the case is being reviewed."

An attempt to expel you, would provide an extraordinary platform for you to full expound on your idea, Lbird…well worth the gamble i think but i don't think many would engage in the hunt for heretics…Robbo isn't a member…Vin has been through the trials and tribulations of disciplinary charges (blurred memory on that one…don't  go over the details all over again, Vin)  so i doubt he would inflict that on others…DJP may disagree with you but i think he would defend your right to say what you say rather than crucify you… I may be wrong but you have no right to resign…a resignation has to be accepted by the EC…and sometimes the Form F is deferred….Form X for Expulsion…oh,  you are kafkaesque…

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

…an extraordinary platform for you to full expound on your idea, Lbird…

The problem is, I don't have any 'idea' that's 'full' – that's the reason I started posting here, so that I could get some help in developing both my ideas and others' ideas, together, so that we could come to some understanding of 'knowledge', and how we create it, and what that implies for a future socialist society.I've been disappointed though… I've had to do the work as an isolated individual (ironic, eh?), and so critically read all sorts of rubbish, a task that might've been circumvented with some help and direction by other comrades, and so considerably shortened for all of us.I don't want an 'extraordinary platform' (I'm not a religious guru, seeking adherents), just a worker trying to make sense of my experience of 'revolutionary politics' and 'Marxism', both of which seem to end up repelling workers who hold democratic ideals, just like I experienced in the SWP.I've come to the conclusion, after a lot of reading, thinking and arguing, that the 'philosophy' of 'materialism' is the root cause. And those 'parties', like the Leninists and Trotskyists, that espouse 'materialism', can't allow democracy. They won't have it in politics, they won't have it in science. Elites with a special consciousness spouting mystifying gibberish to the uncomprehending masses – cadre-physicists-priests with elite-expert-knowledge talking in dialectics-maths-latin to the class-demotic-reading-laity.

ajj wrote:

I may be wrong but you have no right to resign…a resignation has to be accepted by the EC…and sometimes the Form F is deferred….Form X for Expulsion…oh,  you are kafkaesque…

'No right to resign'? 'Has to be accepted'? 'Deferred'?Perhaps Kafka was nearer the 'truth', and I should stay safely outside of the hands of the party-bureaucracy!

[jondwhite]

Vin wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

Is this a fair comment'The Workers of the World aren't uniting with you when you've only 817 Twitter followers!'

I don't think it is a fair comment. It is the only 'comment'  that tossers like Kevin Maguire have against our case. I have replied: "Unlike other parties the SPGB does not change principles to get votes. The Nazis had many followers. Does that make them 'right'"   

'The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.'

[Anonymous]

jondwhite wrote:

'The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.'

Hence the point of World Socialist Movement 

[Author]

Posts