The WSM and the future identity of the SPGB and SPC
- This topic has 193 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I wish to thank those SPGB party members who think I and other non party members might have something of value to contribute to this debate. I hope with all my heart that your view is the majority position in the SPGB.
The opinions of individuals expressed on this forum are precisely that. Most members of the SPGB do not frequent this forum. This is a mistake I have made myself
Hi Adam,I was wondering about the HO fascia. I've already said that it looks good and was wondering if there is going to be any additional contact details added anywhere, such as a telephone number or perhaps more relevant in this internet age, a web address?
SocialistPunk wrote:Gnome wrote:To the best of my knowledge the SPGB has never taken advice from non-members and hopefully never will.What a ridiculous statement for a socialist to make. This statement sees non party members, that must by definition include ex-members, non party socialists, sympathisers and supporters, as empty vessels with little to offer. By this admission the SPGB must exist in a self perpetuating socialist vacuum, separate from the influence of the outside, material world.[….]I ask Gnome, when he was outside the party for some years, did he cease to be a socialist? Were his thoughts and ideas worthless?
What is ridiculous is your over-reaction. There was no suggestion that "non-party members" have "little to offer".For your information when I was outside the party I did not cease to be a socialist but I certainly did not concern myself with the internal affairs of an organisation of which I was not a member or seek to influence its decisions in any way. I re-joined in order to do that and that, to my mind, is the democratic way…
One does not need to be a member of the Party, to comment upon threads on this site. Non members, ie SP are not trying to "influence" anyone (what a ridiculous assertion) but merely contributing to a debate!Lastly, The Party is not some insular bunch of elitists like Militant, or the SWP, and I for one, welcome input from "fellow workers", yup thats what thyey are, "fellow workers". Your inference that "doing it" any other way, than the way "you" choose, is ridiculous!!!By the way, SP is an ex member and contributed greatly to Party activity in the North East. His condern over the route of travel of the Party, is a comradely and sincere one. Let no one be under any illusion about "that".
Inference always comes after an implication: I imply, then you infer. Only I didn't imply (suggest something was true without actually saying it) but made a statement with which one may or may not concur.
SocialistPunk wrote:Hi rodshaw…because you wish to present socialism as international not national.Minor point maybe, but actually, no, I don't want to promote inter-national socialism. I want to promote world socialism.Rod
Slightly disappointed by the detour the discussion has taken. For sure, any decision making will be made by members but input and experence of non-members and other organisations will go towards swaying peoples' opinions.When i mentioned internet democracy, i had hoped BrianJ with his extensive first hand knowledge of TZM would offer supportive practical suggestions that we in the WSM could build upon. Perhaps he is reluctant to cover old ground especially when little can be shown for his earlier enthusiasm. I recall TZM brought in processes to enhance communications and reach agreements that we may well appreciate ourselves and follow if we want closer co-operation and co-ordination with the component parts of the WSM in live real time terms. As i suggested we should try things out on trial bsis to see if they work, what snags arise and how those can be resolved.EC meetings have now been conducted via SKYPE so what is the conclusion and what is the next steps to be. I would like non-EC members to have the capability of first observing the proceedings and then with the chair's permission to occasionally enter the discussions when appropriate.If an idea has merit then repetition of it, until it is adopted, is of value …otherwise we would have all given up being socialists a long time ago.
alanjjohnstone wrote:When i mentioned internet democracy, i had hoped BrianJ with his extensive first hand knowledge of TZM would offer supportive practical suggestions that we in the WSM could build upon. Perhaps he is reluctant to cover old ground especially when little can be shown for his earlier enthusiasm. I recall TZM brought in processes to enhance communications and reach agreements that we may well appreciate ourselves and follow if we want closer co-operation and co-ordination with the component parts of the WSM in live real time terms. As i suggested we should try things out on trial bsis to see if they work, what snags arise and how those can be resolved.EC meetings have now been conducted via SKYPE so what is the conclusion and what is the next steps to be. I would like non-EC members to have the capability of first observing the proceedings and then with the chair's permission to occasionally enter the discussions when appropriate.If an idea has merit then repetition of it, until it is adopted, is of value …otherwise we would have all given up being socialists a long time ago.Only too glad to cover old ground regarding experimenting with the enhanced communications available on the internet. Using SKYPE is fine for those EC members who don't wish to travel to HO. But for most party members its of no relevance at all due to its limitations on users being a maximum of 24 and the EC having a monopoly on its use. And the same goes for the companion parties.On the other hand if we were to use TEAMSPEAK – like TZM do – not just for EC meetings, but also for Conference and ADM all members of the WSM who have access to a computer and the bandwidth would be in a position to make exactly the same contributions as if they were actually in attendance. For TEAMSPEAK can accommodate up to 250+ users and the functionality also ensures the chair controls the meeting far more effectively than if it was a live meeting where you can have delegates speaking over other delegates.What I would like to see happening is several members getting together and using TEAMSPEAK on a regular basis so they are in a position to explain its advantages to the rest of the party. But lets not forget that SKYPE is also available for use by EC Committees.
alanjjohnstone wrote:It was from previous accusations of the jingoistic flavour that i checked and discovered the link between Great Britain and Lesser Britain, (France Brittany) which many of us use to justify the title but lets be honest, i doubt the 1904 founders were using Great Britain as geography but the politcal constitutional connotations for its use.Hi AlanWas wondering what "political constitutional connotations" are you referring to?
SP, i have a vague memory of one of the name options rejected in 1904 for the party being the Socialist Party of Great Britain and Ireland which i think was to satisfy the geographic description and perhaps counter Irish nationalists. Again someone will the books can confirm those choices.Brian, many thanks for explaining the possibility of Teamspeak (i am sure there will be other choices as well) As i keep saying we should approach things stage by stage building upon each step forward, and your idea of some sort of working party being formed to learn themselves and then share that knowledge is a good one, rather than somehow expect us all to overnight to become our own experts. Perhaps publishing a HOW TO MANUAL or even a video lesson specifically aimed in relation to our political purposes, rather than simply a neutral users guide.
steve colborn wrote:Semantics, nothing but semantics!!!Not really – for example, 'International Socialist Party' is, happily, not one of the alternative names being suggested by anyone, conjuring up as it does (at least to me) a picture of socialism and nations existing side by side. But that's ok, because we wouldn't dream of using it.
Hi RodshawA little late in replying to your post concerning my use of the term international socialism. It was simply an oversight on my part. I did mean global, world socialism. It was the reason I set this thread up, as the view of the SPGB and SPC is that socialism must be global. Yet party members seem highly attached to an identity that suggests an internationalist flavour.Just in case I am accused of distorting the truth,I know the two parties are world socialist parties.What strikes me as odd regarding this discussion is that a question regarding the emergence of the WSM identity has now been asked three times and still no reply has been forthcoming. I had thought that someone in the SPGB on this forum would be able to shed some light on this. Seems not.
I think the questions about the WSM identity have been addressed. SPGB and SPC don't fit in to the custom of new companion parties being called World Socialist Party but SPGB and SPC are being kept because of tradition and simply because members keep reaffirming they want to keep these names. SPGB and SPC are some of the earliest groups to exist so this is a factor too. The SPGB and SPC were names already commonly used before World Socialist became popular. Ditching the original names wouldn't make a great difference without discarding other historical baggage too.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.