twitter account @worldsocialism.com
- This topic has 163 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
By the wayYMS we are talking about this resolution. Should it apply to all accounts? Why just NERBS I have never seen an account having to declare that it is not 'official' Facebook??This is the party disowning the account.MOTION 14: The EC authorises the Internet Committee to contact the owner of the account and request that they specify that the account is not officially endorsed by the party (Craggs/Scholey) 5-0-0
DJP wrote:An *individual* applied to take up the moribund twitter account @worldsocialism.which was rejectedWHY? This untrue. I have never been refused, that would require an explanation for refusal. We have repeatedly requested your minutes and emails relating to thisIn fact I have emails of your procrastinations, indicating that it would be passed on to me eventually.Why would you refuse the offer anyway? Give the reason(s)
alanjjohnstone wrote:My follow up question was having refused the offer of assistance, did those rejecting the offer try to seek other persons to take on the role and turn the original Twitter account into a useful tool for our organisation.The intention is to find person or ideally persons from the companion parties to operate the account. This has been explained to the applicant in an email.
alanjjohnstone wrote:And did the IC explain their course of action to the EC?Yes the EC is in the loop..
Will the IC answer my questions.?What you have said so far is not true,You did not reject my application if so why did you not inform me, the EC or the NERB?and give reason(s)
DJP wrote:The intention is to find person or ideally persons from the companion parties to operate the account.Tis now but it wasn't then. You explained in an email at least a year after the event. If it was your original intention, then who has the account now? A companion party?
Surely as a committee of the party the IC needs to be accountable. Can a member of the IC please account for their decision not to allow Comrade Marratty to operate the worldsocialism twitter account? It is a fairly straightforward question and it NEEDS to be answered. I find it worrying that, despite requests, the IC has not circulated any minutes that I am aware of which clarify their decision making process.If the IC cannot (or will not) answer this fairly straightforward question, then it has become unaccountable to the party and therefore is going beyond its remit and terms of reference and as such the members of that committee should either put this right or resign.As to what appears to me to be the bizarre idea that it should be a "person or ideally persons from the companion parties", forgive my ignorance but surely the SPGB is one of the companion parties and as such comrade Marratty as a member of the SPGB is perfectly placed to carry out this role.The inference I am making from this, and taking into account that members of the IC resigned from the AV committee when comrade Marratty was appointed, is that they hold personal opinions of comrade Marratty which are influencing their administration of their party role. Is it a case that the IC is creating a two tier membership, members who meet the IC's approval and members who do not?
I have to 'fess upI'm warming the seats of two inactive world socialism blogs awaiting the resurgence of the WSM to take them overhttps://worldsocialism.wordpress.com/https://worldsocialists.wordpress.com/They were trials for a new blog that didn't see the light of day but one day may be useful and it stops other rival groups from grabbing the name.
alanjjohnstone wrote:I have to 'fess upI'm warming the seats of two inactive world socialism blogs awaiting the resurgence of the WSM to take them overhttps://worldsocialism.wordpress.com/https://worldsocialists.wordpress.com/They were trials for a new blog that didn't see the light of day but one day may be useful and it stops other rival groups from grabbing the name.and did you have to have permission from the IC to start these blogs?
Tim the pertinent words in that post is "inactive" and "trials". They never went live.They were experiments for a new blog, and to be specific, to replace SOYMB so to give the official blog a new look and a new remit….not a SPGB blog but a WSM with contributors from companion parties. It was in the end deemed not practicable or necessary but rather than delete, they are parked for future use. I'm an eternal optimist about the future growth of the socialist movement, not at all gloom and doom as i make out. I think in this debate we need to recognise the the IC may not be a monolithic whole, its members conspiring together. They are individual members with their own particular take on things. What i find extraordinary is a committee chose to find a member inappropriate for a job, not on technical ability but it seems on "political" grounds of unreliabilty that reflects badly on the member. It seems the IC were reluctant to explain why to him and seek out a compromise, such as enrolling a co-blogger to look over the shoulder. The SOYMB blog has two members who perform that role, acting as monitors for any slip-ups and there has been occasions where blog-posts required amending, or explanations required to be given for certain views expressed in them. Not often, it has to be said, but it is inevitable that such incidents occur. If the EC was kept in the loop for the reason for a member's offer of promoting the case for socialism on social media being refused, it would be helpful to know the dates of the relevant EC minutes where they were informed.
Apologies if I was a little facetious, I understand that they were trials, etc. However
alanjjohnstone wrote:What i find extraordinary is a committee chose to find a member inappropriate for a job, not on technical ability but it seems on "political" grounds of unreliability that reflects badly on the member. It seems the IC were reluctant to explain why to him and seek out a compromise,This is the bit I am deeply concerned about. If, as seems to be the case, the IC think that Vin is "unreliable", then they have, as part of their role in a democratic Socialist movement to explain why that is. To me if you are not reliable enough to be trusted with a twitter account, then you are not reliable enough to be trusted with a party membership, and I trust Vin's Socialist credibility.The other, and to some extent the more worrying thing about this, is that it appears (and I can only say appears as I am an outsider looking in) that members of the SPGB (i.e.. the IC) think that it is ok that that there are members of the party who are safe to be members but not trusted to put forward the Socialist case in addition to this (the most worrying bit to me) is that they appear to think that as members of a committee of the Party are in a position to make that judgment alone, without recourse to the democratic processes within the party, without providing reasoning to make that decision and without providing records and minutes of that decision being made. Is this some new kind of Democratic Centralism, where the elite decide and the membership toe the line?I have known Vin as a Socialist for something near to 35 years, I have never had any doubt about his understanding of the Party case and of his commitment to the Socialist cause, I find it very concerning that others in the party should question this, or allow personal feelings and prejudices to become part of how we do business. This is the kind of crap you expect from the SWP, the Militant or the ICC
Tim, i don't think we should concoct any sinister motives from the IC.As i tried to explain, i don't consider them to be a secret cabal in cahoots with one another to victimise Vin (or anybody else for that matter). Misunderstandings and perhaps genuine unease arose when Vin volunteered (he'll be the first to admit, there exists a history and a past where he himself was not above reproach.)I think there may well have been a lapse by the IC in taking it upon themselves to turn down Vin. How much they discussed it and to what degree it was a collective decision, needs to be clarified, i think. As i said, if the IC had reached out to others, alternative measures could have been put into place to avoid any worries they may have held. Perhaps if more members had been in the loop they could have offered ideas to satisfy all those involved concerns. The fact you and i are freely discussing and questioning this issue, washing our dirty linen in public, shows just how far we really are from the SWP/SPEW democratic centralism dictatorship, you fear. Doesn't help to exaggerate the situation into something it isn't. I have aways thought one of the weaknesses of our organisation is that ALL the members seek to micro-manage it, and delegating responsibility is something they are reluctant to do. I'm happy to let members and committees have a very long leash, but we do have to strengthen accountability which has been pointed out by others such as by YMS, who recognises there is a problem that could possible potentially grow more serious. We really also should have in place a trusted grievance procedure that members can resort to for resolving conflicts. Too often disputes spiral out of control when that need not be the case. Just look at the exchanges here with moderation as an example of charge and counter-charge and counter-counter-charge.
alanjjohnstone wrote:What i find extraordinary is a committee chose to find a member inappropriate for a job, not on technical ability but it seems on "political" grounds of unreliabilty that reflects badly on the member.Who has told you this? This is the first I have heard of it. Am I in a special section of the party without being informed but you have??
alanjjohnstone wrote:As i tried to explain, i don't consider them to be a secret cabal in cahoots with one another to victimise Vin (or anybody else for that matter). Misunderstandings and perhaps genuine unease arose when Vin volunteered (he'll be the first to admit, there exists a history and a past where he himself was not above reproach.)Alan I cannot believe you are regurgitating a load f bullshit invented by the Internet Committee. The only thing I am guilty of is criticising them for being undemocratic and autocratic. If that puts me in the wrong then we are no better than the SWP and SPEW The internet committee have suspended me for petty reasons on many occassions. WHY should that put me in the wrongThey should Lay out the charge and charge me or shut upI AM above reproach. I passed the speakers and candidates tests 30 years ago. I have forgotten more than members of the IC know.By the way Tim, what I am saying in this post is why I was suspended in the past. Challenging the IC. Alan's view of the IC doesnt hold up. Where and when did they come to the decision that I am unreliable, where are the minutes? How was the decision arrived at?More importantly who told Alan the reasons for my rejection.? My opinion of them is why I can't have the account
EC Resolution 14 is out of order. The account WorldSocialism (@World_Socialism) | Twitter WorldSocialism (@World_Socialism) | TwitterThe latest Tweets from WorldSocialism (@World_Socialism). The natural and industrial resources of the earth are the common heritage of all. Official accou… View on twitter.comPreview by Yahoo Is 'Official', it was set up by NERB's social media officer upon the instructions of a democratically constituted branch and is a matter of record comradely vin maratty NERB Secretary
alanjjohnstone wrote:The fact you and i are freely discussing and questioning this issue, washing our dirty linen in public, shows just how far we really are from the SWP/SPEW democratic centralism dictatorship, you fear. Doesn't help to exaggerate the situation into something it isn't.And that is down to meYou know well we could not have had this discussion when I first joined. My suspensions were basically for discussing 'internal matters on a public forum' (Jesus!) Now we are moving toward open criticism of each otherSome members see that as a negative development. Me? I am proud of the achievement. We were behind the 'left' in that respect.All we need now is for the IC tobe accountable for its actions.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.