The WSM and the future identity of the SPGB and SPC

[SocialistPunk]

gnome wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

Everyone on this forum is already aware that you like to make a big deal about non Party members offering views about the Party.

Spot on, Cobber.  Those who have so much apparent interest in the Party and concern about its affairs and wellbeing should apply for membership.

Gnome dear chap,You only post stuff like this because you can't put up a good case to counter what I say regarding the pros and cons of a name change. So I'll continue to post on any issue I so please, on this open socialist forum, whether you like it or not.The socialist who introduced me to socialism when I was in my teens, would say,"If you can prove me wrong I'll accept it."          

[BTSomerset]

1986 party poll? That was nearly 30 years ago. What else was happening in 1986? Spain and Portugual enter EC, Kodak leave instant photo business (my camera was rendered useless, probably sickened my parents, only decent present they ever bought me),  MIR space station launched, John McCarthy kidnapped, Chernobyl, and thats only up to May on Wikipedia. I han't even plucked up the courage to glance sideways at a girl in 1986.

[DJP]

BTSomerset wrote:

I han't even plucked up the courage to glance sideways at a girl in 1986.

I still haven't 

[SocialistPunk]

gnome wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

If a full Party debate has not been undertaken, a scenario may arise where the supporters of one side of the debate get extra undemocratic leverage.

That's a little rich coming from someone who's not a member but has prolific forum leverage nonetheless.A full Party debate has been undertaken over recent decades, incessantly, and the outcome, with the exception of an aberrant period which resulted in the loss of two branches and over 40 members, has been consistent.

1986 Party Poll wrote:

Are you in favour of changing the name of the Party to World Socialist Party (Britain)? Lost 72-229

2014 Conference resolution wrote:

In furtherance of the resolution of Conference 2008 this Conference resolves that the full name of the Party be included on the HO fascia. Carried 61-38

 

All I am suggesting in light of the growing WSM is that the SPGB move into line with overseas comrades and adopt the title of World Socialist Party. It openly speaks of a global view of the aims of the Party in this digital age. The 1986 decision to reject a name change happened before there was widespread use of the term WSM (it may not even have been a concept  then) and the internet as we know it today was not in existence, so instant global communication hadn't yet made the world a much smaller place with the possibilities it offers. The SPGB is bogged down with too many identities, so it makes sense to jetison unecessary identities in favour of one. I happen to think a one that reflects the global aim of socialism would be more appropriate at this stage in the development of the WSM, rather than sticking with one that has a hint of national pride, simply for the sake of conservative tradition.I never, ever expected to see the Party, I saw as transcending capitalist ideology, cherishing concepts as tradition. What has happened? I'll say it again, the time is right. The SPGB membership is at an all time low, so a change would be less painfull, though not for the conservative traditionalists. Party finances are good right now, so fear of losing a legacy or two is irelevant. Historical identity can be legaly protected. A big publicity campaign could be organised and there is a lot of potential mileage in the story of the SPGB quest for solidarity with a growing WSM. It could potentialy change the old Edwardian image of the Party to that of a vibrant growing movement. Spin, spin and more spin can be put on the story.There are more reasons to make the change now than there were in 1986. There is also the issue of the Party poll in 1992 ratifying the use of The Socialist Party over the Socialist Party of Great Britain, that technicaly over rules later conference decisions.So I invite Gnome to dispute what I say using reasoned argument, instead of the usual "It's our Party and your not invited, so there." approach.

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

I see no difficulty in producing literature specifically aimed at people in such organisations as OXFAM that would set out such practical proposals. This more engaged approach would be to acknowledge that they are doing what they can to lessen world hunger but the problem is getting worse, and then say, "The action to solve this problem must include action to bring about a society where you will have the freedom to act more effectively and this is how it could actually work. The work of solving the problem and the work of creating the conditions in which it can be solved go together."And of course the same approach could be directed at other organisations, for example, the many environmentalist groups.To summarise then: I am suggesting that we should build on our economic and political analysis and apply its logic to the fantastic development of all the socially useful factors of modern world society in setting out how socialism could operate. Then armed with this set of practical proposals we make every attempt to be more positively engaged with the many non socialists with whom we share common ground of concern and indignation and the need to establish a world of equality, democracy and co-operation." – the late Pieter Lawrence

Once again and i'll keep being persistent, something i'm rather good at and make no apologies for…We have to devise a whole new approach, not merely re-labeling ourselves. The above suggestion may seem to have us appearing as some sort of socialist think-tank but lets be honest as an effective political party we have been impotent. There is no debate, no discussion about this, it is a statement of fact. The only speculation is whether we can reverse our decline before it is too late and the Laws of Nature takes its course.We, however, could begin changing our strategy by re-galvanising the Production For Use Committee and placing more urgency into collating our evidence (something Pathfinders column has been good at) and producing reports which we can then engage others with to initiate political exchanges which will draw people to our party…and with numbers and some influence we can then begin to act as a functioning political party. Simply a suggestion. I'm open to other ideas. Actually, i insist upon hearing them. 

[ALB]

gnome wrote:

2008 Conference resolution wrote:

It is encouraged to use the abbreviated form 'The Socialist Party' in any other context where confusion with other similarly named organisations is unlikely. This resolution supersedes the 1986 and 1988 Conference resolutions respecting the use of the Party's names."

(emphasis added)

Young Master Smeet wrote:

….where confusion is unlikely to occur.

The possibility of confusion occuring is always likely.  See here, for a very recent example:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11077637/Ukips-radio-rant-candidate-Elizabeth-Jones-worse-than-Katie-Hopkins.html

This is a defeatist argument. Next you'll be arguing that we should not call ourselves "The Socialist Party of Great Britain" either because the possibility of confusion with a similarly named organisation will always be likely. In fact, whatever we call ourselves, the "possibility" (not a word that occurs in the resolution) of confusion will "always" exist.When people try to steal your name you've got to make a stand at some point. You seem prepared to hoist the white flag and surrender the name "The Socialist Party" to the ex-Miliitant Trotskyists. Like the late Rev Inane Paisley, I say "No Surrender" and "Never, never, never".They are the confusionists. We should challenge them every time they use our name (I did in a comment on that news item sent to the Daily Telegraph) not roll over and let them have the name. They are not the Socialist Party. We are. They are not even socialists.          

[Anonymous]

BTSomerset wrote:

1986 party poll? That was nearly 30 years ago. What else was happening in 1986? 

 It was around that time or a little later I believe some members were expelled for not going along with democratic decisions; I believe they insisted on using the unabreviated 'The Socialist Party of Great Britain' 

[SocialistPunk]

Hi VinIf I've got this right, back then a number of members were kicked out for going against a Party decision to use The Socialist Party as opposed to The Socialist Party of Great Britain? That in 1991 a Party poll ratified the use of the shortened title.As a Party poll can only be overturned by another Party poll, you would expect that to be the end of the matter. But it wasn't. ALB has spoken of the "whitling away" of the decision, to the point that now The Socialist Party of Great Britain is once again back in widespread use, with it soon to be in place over the Party headquarters in London.How has that happened? Have the membership that voted in 1991 via a Party poll changed their mind so much as to forget as to why a not insignificant number of members were expelled. That expulsion was a big deal back then, from what I've heard. It now looks like it was a waste of time and more importantly of Party members.How can a Party wide democratic decision taken in 1991, via Party poll presumably to settle once and for all the issue, be whittled away? As has been pointed out, technically the decision still holds as only a Party poll can overturn a Party poll. I expect that rule is in place to ensure "whittling away" of Party wide decisions can't take place?

[Anonymous]

SP I can't be sure, I would have to do some research but I am sure there will members on here who know the 'crack'    

[Young Master Smeet]

Short answer, IIRC the party poll itself merely affirmed that the cofnerence result should be enforced, rather than affirming an express policy. Teh second answer is that since the mebers who wanted to go to the wall over the issue have all left, and the majority never don't give a damn about the name.  Who, after all, cares about what the name on the the Head Office Feaces is?

[SocialistPunk]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Short answer, IIRC the party poll itself merely affirmed that the cofnerence result should be enforced, rather than affirming an express policy. Teh second answer is that since the mebers who wanted to go to the wall over the issue have all left, and the majority never don't give a damn about the name.  Who, after all, cares about what the name on the the Head Office Feaces is?

I'm not sure if you read my post correctly YMS but the highlighted section below is saying that the Party poll is in effect a tool of enforcement, so you (see highlighted section above) have simply confirmed my point about the Party poll being to ensure no "whittling" takes place. Only it wasn't "enforced", as a slow return to the use of the full name has occured. Also if a Party poll confirms a conference decision, would that not then become policy? Imagine if a Party poll confirmed a mood for a name change to that which I advocate, World Socialist Party (..), surely it would then become Party policy to use that title?

SocialistPunk wrote:

As has been pointed out, technically the decision still holds as only a Party poll can overturn a Party poll. I expect that rule is in place to ensure "whittling away" of Party wide decisions can't take place?

Question, can a Party poll be overturned by anything other than another Party poll? The answer as far as I can tell, is no.Another question, if the Party mood had changed so dramaticaly as to want a return to the full name use, why not instigate a Party poll to overturn the one in question, and seal the deal 100%?These are Party rules under discussion here, are they not?Secondly it would seem that members do "give a damn about the name" as there is still disagreement to this day over the use of The Socialist Party and The Socialist Party of Great Britain. There is also a diference of opinion over what should be on the Head Office fascia, and some care so much to see it changed. If everything was ok regarding what version of the Party name to use, I would not be asking these questions now. It's not like I'm making this stuff up, it exists. I'm just confused as to how an organisation that places huge importance on procedural structure can allow  the "whittling away" of Party wide decisions?Your post makes no sense.,

[alanjjohnstone]

A thread that has an important far-reaching title as this one about the identity of the SPGB (and the SPC who are still to comment, i believe) and it has become bogged down on the technicalities of the wording and interpretation of a 30 year old decision. Is this symptomatic of our party? Is this the impression we wish to convey to people albeit it some will argue it demonsrates our committment to democratic procedures? Others will say its an inflexibility to adjust to changing and shifting circumstances.Someone somewhere at sometime commented that a look at Conference and ADM agendas over the past number of years indicate a predominance of rule amendments  and internal affairs motions rather than current political affair topics. It is as if everything tht can be said about th world has been said and we no longer need to debate and discuss real political issues or the political situations facing workers around the world and our response to them regardless of whatever name or label we do it under. 

[Anonymous]

 

[Young Master Smeet]

SP,What the party poll said was, in effect, that conference is to be obeyed,  Conference has since changed its instructions.  Nothing untoward there.  If the party poll had said "the form of name  shall be the Fishcakes Party" then we'd need a party poll to change the name (or form of name), as it is it said "please abide by a conference decision".  A little lawyerly, I know. Some people may care, many do not.

[SocialistPunk]

SocialistPunk wrote:

So I invite Gnome to dispute what I say using reasoned argument, instead of the usual "It's our Party and your not invited, so there." approach.

 

gnome wrote:

 

It's embarrassingly obvious that gnome has nothing worth contributing to this thread, other than childish blather. He's been invited to present a reasoned response to my ideas and enquiries and this is what he provides.If a forum member finds a thread too challenging, boredom often sets in, so the best bit of advice I can offer is, just don't read it.Try this instead.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb3kR6XXvWE

[Author]

Posts