alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Aware that many party members are amiss in visiting the Socialist Banner, the party’s African themed blog, they probably have not read the following two posts on the subject of Egypt’s elections http://socialistbanner.blogspot.com/2012/06/going-beyond-unions.htmlhttp://socialistbanner.blogspot.com/2012/06/lesser-evil-is-still-evil.html
An interesting related article i happened upon todayhttp://www.alternet.org/belief/156007/do_people_get_less_religious_when_societies_grow_more_egalitarian/?page=entire “…There’s a heavy body of research showing that the more stress and uncertainty people face, the more likely they are to engage in what psychologists call “magical thinking”: superstition, prayer, belief in the supernatural. In 2008, Jennifer Whitson and Adam Galinsky published a paper in Science demonstrating that when you remove the amount of control people have over their situation, they tend to engage more in “illusory pattern perception,” which is the psychological process that creates belief in the supernatural. Other research has shown the real-world effects of this psychological tendency, showing, for instance, that people living in war zones tend to engage in more magical thinking, such as carrying lucky charms or believing in the power of prayer, than those who don’t…… Religion has a lot more tradition and power behind it than everyday superstitions, but psychologically, the process can be similar. People look to supernatural means to exert control over situations they can’t influence through real-world means…….The less control they feel over their own destiny, the more tempting it is to conjure up a God who can save you in a society that doesn’t bother…belief in God gives them a sense of control they lack in their real-world lives……Atheists who aren’t content to simply not believe themselves, but who also want to increase the secularization of a society and the numbers of atheists, need to get behind a politically progressive agenda…Religion’s grip on power is tightly entwined with the economic misfortunes of the people. If we want to build a more secular society, the first step is building a more equitable one….”
An interview with International Organization for Participatory Society http://mobile.zcommunications.org/chomsky-on-iops-by-noam-chomsky “The way to overcome doubts is to show what can be achieved.”There has been criticism that the WSM’s propaganda can be slightly on the negative side. We frequently raise the issue of limitations of what can be done yet still nevertheless advocate them to advance beyond the limits towards socialism. When faced with such movements as Occupy or anti-austerity movements should we simply concentrate solely upon their positive aspects of their successes and ignore the rest? We possess the “common goal” and we possess the “long term vision” yet fail to emphasise the “practical implications” to use Chomsky’s words. “”the call has simply reached very few people. And they tend to be a select group” . In our case to even more few and more select. We cannot simply blame it upon lack of tools – we have the internet, we have the printed medium available, the organisation and the facilities to employ them. Our message is being heard and it is being rejected. I have sided with the view that it is the perception of it, the style it is conveyed, which we fail . We do not make the long-term vision a short-term one. It is still considered by most as the ultimate object, not the immediate one. Perhaps we should single out the positve successes of struggles and emphasise this could lead to socialism. The democracy of Occupy, the control over production by the work-force, linking it more directly to socialism – you have now taken the first step 1, to keep going forward you have to take another step..and another…otherwise you are standing still…..and steps that are required need to be this or that or whatever. Yes, the risk is appearing to be vanguardist, accusations of directing the movement. But i disagree. When we advocate protests have to progress to political action and suggest that it has to be through parliament and peacefully if possible we are doing what the Communist Manifesto describes – not leading the movement but pushing it forward with arguments and analysis. ” Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement….Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things. In all these movements, they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.”
I make no excuse for opening my big mouth and posting long messages so many times on this thread. I happen to think it is an important issue that we have to discuss and discover where we agree and where we differ with ourselves and with those outside the party.I came across this post by a professional activist – yes, there are actually career activists out there – read his bio/resume at the end of the article. 14 Rules for Revolthttp://www.alternet.org/activism/155739/14_rules_for_revolt_–_or_what_i_learned_from_the_front_lines_of_the_1960s/?page=entire I don’t think i have read such a contradictory list. Italics is my emphasis Rule 10 “YOUR MISSION IS TO DESTABILIZE SOCIETY. Only in times of crisis will those with power relinquish some of it to forestall losing all of it. You need to create these crises. Since transformational reform cannot be achieved by working inside government, a mass movement must first destabilize the political and economic status quo. The demands made by that movement must be based on common sense, so average Americans can support them, but they must also be unattainable within the status quo. That’s what makes for a crisis.” Rules 7 and 8 “BE NICE TO DEMOCRATS. Democrats are not your allies or even your friends. But you need them. Like Republicans, they depend on big money for campaign contributions, so even if they take complete control of government, they will never enact transformational change on their own. But a popular movement can develop enough power to force elected Democrats to support reform. In the future, you will need elected Democrats to pass your reforms just as the civil rights movement needed them to pass the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts. DON’T GET SO UPSET ABOUT VOTING FOR DEMOCRATS. Hold your nose and do it. It’s necessary. Republican governments do far more damage than Democratic governments, both to people in poverty and to the rest of us. They spread false consciousness and make it more difficult for us to organize. Stop fussing about Democratic flaws. They are who they are. Real change will only be driven by citizen activism, not elections. So, when an opportunity comes along to put a Democrat into office instead of a Republican, take it, and then go back to movement building.” Hmmm. lets pause there and re-cap, we should make destabilizing demands that are impossible to implement so to create a crisis, then vote Democrat to pass those reforms which are supposed to be unattainable because a Republican administration will be more damaging if they were in power ie Republican extremism would destabilize and foster crises. Duh! Rules 3 and 4 DON’T BASH BIG GOVERNMENT. It’s a Republican trap. In the years after the sixties, conservatives made exaggerated complaints about government waste and inefficiency. These distortions undermined public confidence in Washinton, which then allowed the Republicans to dismantle government regulations on finance put in place after the Great Depression. That deregulation brought on the Great Recession of 2008. Remember, it is unchecked bureaucracy that is wasteful and inefficient, not government in and of itself. GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE OUR TOOL, NOT THEIRS. Without stronger financial regulation than was previously in place, our standard of living will decline further. Americans now face the iron law of unregulated capitalism: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Government is the only means by which working Americans can protect themselves on a capitalist playing field heavily tilted toward the wealthy, the only means by which the 1% can be forced to pay their fair share, the only way to break the power of the oil companies and create a clean energy future. So according to the above rules 3 and 4 we are to convince workers that the state is useful tool for workers for our protection and encourage them to vote Democrat and according to rules 5 and 6 below, because capitalism requires regulation since that is the fundamental problem, not capitalism, itself we are to let politicians formulate their policies and our role is simply one of over-seeing, not participation, simply a veto power over proposals.However Rule 4 is actually growing closer to our own position, that to enforce the will of the working class we require political power and the capture of control of the state by a socialist party. But if we go back to Rule 1 “Resist the temptation to institutionalize yourselves by becoming an organization or prematurely launching a political party.” and leave it to unspecified “Other progressive organizations are available to play this role.” – presumably the Democrats if we stick to rules 7 and 8. Once more it extols the subordination of the movement to a passive role of protest fodder. Rules 5 and 6 UNREGULATED CAPITALISM IS THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM. A compelling vision of a progressive society will emerge in the course of the struggles still ahead. Meanwhile, you are stuck with market capitalism and you should focus on bringing its worst aspects under control. Occupy Wall Street helped put financial regulation at the center of political debate. Keep it there. If financial regulation remains a central demand of the 99%, you can keep your focus on extreme income differences and effectively isolate the 1%. BE THE OWNER, NOT THE REPAIRMAN. Apologists for the 1% will put you on the defensive by insisting that you tell them exactly how to regulate Wall Street or secure the healthcare system. Don’t respond. You own the national house. If they built it for you without beds for everyone or a kitchen big enough to feed all the people, they’ve got to come up with a plan to fix it. Your job is to approve the plan and supervise the construction, not draw up the blueprints. Not everybody may agree within the WSM but i think in every neighbourhood and every community, every factory and every work-place, at local regional national and international levels that blueprints will be drawn up and the question for all of us is how we do approve and supervise the plans and construction. That question is unaswered but i am sure as the article author does emphasis “Real change will only be driven by citizen activism, not elections.” in Rule 8 Yet his Rule 9 declares that ” Most progressive goals can only be achieved with the power of government (taxing the rich, neutralizing the oil companies, etc.), but these goals will not be achieved until rebellious activists force government to accept them.” I think we can safely say that the only threat to governments which is treated seriously by them is not a million or more marching in protest (we have seen how those are ignored) but ultimately the result of the ballot-box vote at elections In his final Rule 14, he recommends similar strategy as he was previously involved in , i am guessing, “the congressional lobbying done by the Indochina Peace Campaign” And no doubt influenced by the field of his present occupation, no, not occupier, occupation – professional political consultancy for hire, Zimmerman & Markman, Inc. Am i being too dismissive of a well-intentioned activist. Or identifying elements within the Occupy Movement who seek to steer the Occupy Movements direction and whose ideas are contrary to our own but, more importantly , would be detrimental to the future of the Occupy Movement as a revolutionary organisation and as such deserves to be be criticised . My observations about this article may be viewed as jaundiced by some. Or my interpretation of the Occupy Movements content and potential maybe in error. If so, correct me if i am wrong. But lets keep talking about it.
We are on the side of the unions and we do not decide for them when and what to strike over, unlike the Left which tries to do so. But we do offer advice and make it clear that our support is conditional on that they operate on clear and sound lines. For instance, we did not support closed shops. Are you suggesting that because we support unions that we should not point out to trade unionists such flaws and provide remedies to certain failings? In the past, even though the Mob brought some much- and well-needed leverage to trade union power, should we, as a socialist party, not suggest to the Teamsters that Mafia involvement was not desirable and not necessary for success but being at variance with unions doesn’t mean we should advise union members to resign, but simply to clean house. Is that type of prescriptive advice forbidden ? It maybe from 1911 but i think much of this article stand the trial of time.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1911/no-87-november-1911/socialist-and-trade-unionism We recognise that many workers organisations are not perfect and are often in an on-going stage of change and development. They are in a constant state of flux and evolution. Are we not to offer our input? Isn’t that reinforcing an aloofness to day-to-day class struggle? From the earliest days of Occupy we praised them for their non-violence and commitment to endeavouring to create mass democratic decision making. But hand-waving had its problems when contesting and irreconcilable views were to be decided. We argued for a more structured and formal means of democracy and that the decision of a majority, (and we leave it up to them to agree what a majority should entail) , was a necessary requirement for authorising and approving actions. As events panned out over the months and now year what has been frequently raised as an issue on organisation? Yes – the mean of decision making and how it legitimised or does not legitimise certain statements and certain protests by various Occupiers. There were participants, as Adam said, who were pushing there own platform. In America, most obviously Move On, a Democratic Party caucus. Unlike Adam i do think the Left were a threat. In Edinburgh, i recognised the name of one of the local Occupy movement’s spokespersons, long time and prominent SWP/Stop The War activist. The Left were infilitrating the Occupy Movement when and where it could. But i think Adam’s overall impression was probably correct that many fringe ideas suddenly appeared and were risking taking root, many “solutions” with long histories, Henry George, Major Douglas to more updated models such as Parecon and Robin Hood Tax advocates. Are we to sit back and never ever counter such mistaken ideas? Never challenge those who advocate adopting simple reforms to the more outlandish theories. David Icke even started to try and gain influence, no doubt equating the devils on Wall St with his alien lizard people. Should we do as you counsel and just give them a free rein? What i suggested was to ensure that socialism…free access socialism ….was an option to choose or reject, and to do that means placing it on the agenda. That means explaining what it is and what it is not. Just as importantly, we have to offer a means on how it can be achieved – not as something apart and separate from the Occupy Movement but with them as an important component in the trasformative process of Revolution BUT just as only one component amongst many others, including a mass socialist politcal party and new industrial unions and as you yourself mentioned tenants and community groups. To have such a revolutionary umbrella organisation requires a form of democracy more elaborate than jazz hand waving. To object to a more structured style of reaching concensus is not enpowering all the people. I have argued with anarchists that the vote enfranchise those who cannot get out into the streets, the old, the sick, and all the others through all sorts of personal reasons are unable to participate physically 24/7 but need to be included in decision-making which makes the vote imperative. Again how we vote is up for debate…i can see advantages in reality tv style text voting, or thru online e-democracy, but regardless of other mechanisms , the ballot box exists, public meetings and show of hands exists. However, when people vote on questions of instructions, then they have to know that the mandate will be followed. And the right to disassociate and disavow those who go counter to the wishes of the majority must also exist. Should we remain silent upon such questions and issues? In regards to violence there is an element that appeared again mostly in America that chose to employ such as tactic instead of passive resistance when confronted by police. Are we not to discourage this ultimately suicidal stategy?Putting it into a broader international context, the mass protests by Syrian opposition was to be applauded but when some took the the step of militarising the resistance with armed struggle then it put men and women with AK47s, at best a RPG, up against tanks artillery and helicopter gun-ships. A severe one-sided battle ….UNLESS…the opposion seeks out international intervention and arms supply and training and air support from other countries…in other words, surrender the direction of the revolution to the political and economic interests of rival countries and their elites and produce even more bloody consequences. You raised the Spanish Civil War earlier, we saw the results there of relying on Russian military aid and the power it suddenly gave the previously almost non-existent Spanish Communist Party who proceeded to execute anarchists and POUMists. We can be certain that the Islamists will not countenance secular leftists once sufficiently equipped by Saudi Arabia. Surely if we are to become part of a broader and more general ” workers organisation” means for us, and them, of course, to recognise that we, too, are also workers, (albeit already somewhat organised), and cannot have our voice excluded. Are we to never ever take a critical position on politics or economics and always offer unconditional support ? Are we, as a socialist party of over a 100 years of handed down experience as arrogant as that may sound, to ignore lessons that were learned the hard way from previous decades of false ideas which are now being “re-discovered” once more and presented as “revolutionary” goals? I’m not advocating abstention to the Occupy Movement nor that we should be evoking the hostility clause against them . Quite the opposite. I am promoting more involvment, more participation, not to seek control and not to manipulate but to do what we exist for. Describe socialism. Debate the democratic means to create socialism. If that means in the process stepping on the toes of some well-intentioned ” lets keep capitalism but make it nicer” new-ager, and alienating them, thats unfortunately unavoidable. Hopefully we will engage more constructively with those who are genuinely in search of a sustainable new system of society and understand that it has to be acieved by inclusive and not exclusive methods. Sorry, but in the end, we do oppose some workers views and should not condone them by being overly aquiescent through a misguided conception that support and solidarity means always agreeing and putting aside differences. It will oblige the SPGB to be more efficious in its use of propaganda, its manner and its approach. We seek a comradely interaction of ideas. Perhaps, as an abrasive individual, i might not be the ideal candidate to represent the party. And without naming names there are others that likewise may offer the rong impression. Yet there are plenty of members who are non-threatening and more cordial in their attitudes who could be ambassadors for the party in its dealings with certain groups like the Occupy Movement. Our literature could be written in more appropriate language. We already have mobved on from the confrontational style of debate to a more comradely forum type of discussion meeting. We have a decent premises that could host such events and yes, even give facilities, to others to sometimes use such as a venue or printing. There are precedents for such from our past when we publicised a peace conference manifesto during the First War War, so yes, on occasions we can subsume our own particular political viewpoint to the welfare of the the working class generally. All within reason, naturally, and without putting our own existence or position at jeapardy. Apologies for a lengthy reply.
Again, the Occupy or Chomsky thread? New Statesman review of Occupy http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/culture/2012/05/review-occupy-noam-chomsky
I think the party has expressed its sympathies and support for the Occupy Movement on more than a few occasions but of course we are not in full agreement. [Occupy Movement ] “provided public places where political debate about this and other issues could take place – and did. Both worthwhile. There were two other pluses. It was a world-wide movement that understood that any solution had to be global. And it tried to organise itself democratically and without leaders…They need to continue.” from an editorial The issue some raised was that we should have a more uncritical approach to it and not offer prescriptive advice and also we should go beyond simply expressing sympathy to active material support. This led to the resignation, i believe of StuartW. We did donate our literature for free at St Pauls and other Occupy sites and at the up-coming Birmingham School will be offering a platform to Occupy Norwich. We have commended the Occupy Movement, not condemned it. Our common programme, our common interest, our common understanding, in the SPGB, is common ownership. For the majority in the Occupy Movement they still required convincing of this objective and that separated us. Some party members declare that the revolutionary consciousness displayed in Occupy Movement was more developed than our own, if i understood their posts correctly. I, however disagree. Occupy had not formulated an agreed aim, nor advocated a united means or method and it became more and more transparent as time passed that differences within the movement were manifesting itself and causing divisions in their earlier unity. To find faults and flaws and frailities in Occupy Movement may be viewed as demoralising and discouraging some of their participants and result in them distancing themselves from ourselves. It shouldn’t mean we should retaliate and retreat from making overtures towards them. Within the WSM we know disagreement can be conducted comradely…..well.. most of the time…a few cases excepted. We should focus on one particular part of our case, free access, describing it and detailing the mechanism of how it can be achieved. In this, someone in the Occupy Movement is to be treated like every other worker. Everybody is special and no-body is special. That’s common sense.
And without throwing cold water over it, we should also remember what else we said about the Spanish Civil War. I paraphrased this observation for a Socialist Courier blog post on the Spanish Civil War. “One thing that was demonstrated was the impossibility of achieving real unity by merging together in a Popular Front parties and individuals who differed so fundamentally in aim, outlook, and method. It was obvious in 1936 that it would be an enormous task to secure unity between long-standing opponents like the anarcho-syndicalists, Stalinists, Trotskyists, liberal-republicans, social democrats and Basque separatists. There was frequent inability to secure effective and loyal co-operation, which shows that, even the stress of war will not make men who think differently work to a common programme.” http://socialist-courier.blogspot.com/2012/06/scotland-and-spanish-civil-war.html
I replied to the Scotsman article in comment 1″Should the SPGB feel flattered by Brian Wilson’s cliched canards about it and the dismissive tone? They do say any publicity is good publicity, after all. Being a Labour politician and functionary he can always feel self-satisfied and smug because he did “try” and do “something” without facing up to the reality of his own “impossiblism” of actually making any real fundamental difference to peoples everyday lives. Is he really suggesting that “reforming the House of Lords, abolishing the class-based Honours system, dispensing with titles, taking land reform seriously, demanding an egalitarian system of educational access” will demolish the class pyramid? Perhaps he has never travelled to countries that have done exactly as he advocates and never ever encountered their still-existing elite capitalist class! It takes more than tinkering with the system to replace it. I am also reminded how Tom Johnston in later life, when he was comfortably enscounced in the Establishment, scurried around bookshops trying to buy up all the copies of his Noble Families, facing the embarrassed contradiction of finding himself being an apologist for them. Brain Wilson is already an apologist for a party that openly represents the interests of the ruling class.”For those who don’t know Tom Johnston was a Red Clydesider also mentioned in the article who wrote a excellent book on the Scottish aristocrats and land-owners but regretted his earlier radicalism when he became minister of state under Labour and actually did go around second-hand bookshops trying to buy up all the copies of the book, hence its relative scarcity
ALB explains “In fact, from one point of view, a crisis is caused by capitalists choosing not to buy (not invest profits because they judge they won’t make any profits or not enough).” i came across this but lost the link “The current crisis of capitalism is that there is “surplus liquidity”. In other words, the rich have so much wealth they have exhausted places to store it. If it is not invested its value depreciates. And they won’t invest unless it produces a return. This is why we see record amounts being spent on gold or on art (ironically mostly on art that depicts the pain and isolation of capitalist society). While workers are having their jobs and wages cut and governments are enforcing austerity, companies have never held so much cash. As one author reports: “Globally, companies are sitting on more than $5 trillion.” This is a classic case of “over-production”. “
“If we can produce something of the standard of Capitalism is Kids Stuff in a condensed form, that might raise some interest.” I’ll second that…something that is introductory and reveals how out of the ordinary the SPGB is fore a political party. Something short that it can be posted, embedded or emailed easily
Not 60 questions every issue !! Just 5 intriguing unusual questions each month’s issue. But leaving out the SPGB historical ones. Or maybe even leaving them in. Which SPGB general secretary hung around with James Connolly and rumouredly fell out with him? …whatever…Paul knows the score on what to ask oh ho i love volunteering people to do stuff…!!!
A crossword and i have suggested this before.http://archive.tribunemagazine.co.uk/article/26th-december-1941/22/socialist-crossword Since there are concerns from Paddy about members only reading the Standard online, wouldn’t a crossword help to ensure they would buy it to do the crossword and then buy the following months issue to get the answers! And educational, too”5 across clue could be “You get your money back if you don’t get this (9) “- answer socialism, – and the clue for 10 down – “Exact same as 5 across (9) – answer communism ” Full marks if you get the answer to this, Charlie?(4) ….. Another, Charlie, who published a lot (4)…..A right lazy sod this son-in-law turned out to be (4,
….Should council workers we be reading this communist on Shrove Tuesday (5,9)…. A prize of a free 6 – month subscription to one reader who send in correct answers that is picked out ……just doubling up, our existing free offer but we could be generous and make it one year…no jokes about that being the 2nd place prize, please (but with of course the usual small print exclusion cluse …”members and their family are excluded from the prizes”, i know some real mean skinflints in the party !!) Trial it for the December issue, “Christmas Crossword” and give the winner a free subscription for 2013. The anarchist Black Flag had a very popular quiz that resulted in a pamphlet of its own being produced. Our own Xmas/New Year online quiz devised by Paul Bennet is always popular. Twist his arm to do a monthly one. 60 questions for 12 issues. Actually the link led me to Chomsky and sport and how it is relevant to what was being discussed on another thread. How do we engage with people. As Chomsky points out those “common folk” with little interest in politics demonstrate astounding knowledge about sport. “There are also experts about football, but these people don’t defer to them. The people who call in talk with complete confidence. They don’t care if they disagree with the coach or whoever the local expert is. They have their own opinion and they conduct intelligent discussions. I think it’s an interesting phenomenon…The gas station attendant who wants to use his mind isn’t going to waste his time on international affairs, because that’s useless; he can’t do anything about it anyhow, and he might learn unpleasant things and even get into trouble. So he might as well do it where it’s fun, and not threatening — professional football or basketball or something like that. But the skills are being used and the understanding is there and the intelligence is there.” When i went to demonstrations on the Saturdays, i overhear someone commending the numbers attending and then witness 10-fold the crowd going to the local football game with more colour, more enthusiasm, more joy and more committment than any of the demonstrators had been showing for whatever issue was being protested. This year i think the biggest march in Scotland has been to the SFA HQ to complain about sanctions against Rangers (RIP). I am not suggesting we leaflet stadiums, the right-wing in the long-run i don’t think met with too much success doing that, and the left even less so. But simply saying, as Chomsky is, that we should not give up hope of our political explanations being understood by the working class because it is too complicated, too theoretical and abstract. Just visit the local bookie and see how the punters can relate to you how a horse performs on different courses and in heavy or soft going to realise how patronising it is to claim that the working class are not intelligent enough to understand socialism – All the SPGB has to do is to show the relevancy and show that change is indeed possible and revolution a realistic prospect. Was it for that reason that the myth of the general strike was created by syndicalists, i have a vague recall that is what Sorel’s Reflections on Violence was all about. Who can honestly say politics is any longer fun to participate in. The days of May-day rallies, the miners galas, elections with posters in the windows and bunting in the streets, open air meetings with police joining in the laughter at the heckling instead of now dragging the offenders off for “behaviour likely to lead to a breach of the peace” have all gone. Dreary politicos with unintelligible talk of “Martovism” and “liquidationists” flog their humourless journals. As some singer said sometime ago …”where have all the protest songs gone?”…Even we discussed revolutionary songs a few weeks ago and only came up with options of 19th C dirges ….and the miners strikers returned to their football supporters chants from the terracing and the stands to sing on the picket lines. Sorry to have deflected the post from Martov. It may be just a story but the Daily Worker as it was at the time had the highest circulation when they had an excellent racing tipster. Here in Scotland both Robin Cook and Alex Salmond had columns in the sports pages doing racing tips but i don’t think it ever influenced how people voted for them. Treat this contribution as a Sunday morning radio call-in on talk radio…grumpy and hung-over
“But we should also be aiming our attentions to where the people are. And that is largely outside the ‘left’ and the various ‘activist’ groups.” This is obviously true. We all have family members, friends, neighbours, work colleagues, whom we are in almost daily direct contact with yet we fail even to convince those nearest and dearest and closest to us of the case for socialism and joining the party. I’m not waving a magic wand and suggesting a miracle cure to the problem. But what i think is that people are largely ouside the left and activist groups it is because they choose to be, since they are not convinced of the possibility of realistic success of any opposition to the status quo except in term of the switch of personalities and a few limited policy changes. Something encouraged by the manner that the media reports politics.People’s priorities in their use of time is family life /personal relationships, work, leisure and recreation. Changing the world is rather low in the list except when it is a part of their lifestyle or their hobby, such as the Black Bloc where the fashion statement becomes more important than the political statement.Geez, how many times i have met some dread-locked dope smoker into being one with Nature, eager to be at every protest and live an alternative way of life, tuning into the Universe’s energy, who end up having the most close mind i have encountered when it came to discussing politics yet some Proddy bigot or as i used to call them, orange-reds, who i have worked alongside with and been on picket-lines with who do seek reasons and answers to social problems and perceived inequities of the world and who are able to distinquish between James Connolly the IWW socialist trade unionist and the1916 Irish nationalist James Connolly. But no matter who we target our propaganda, we have to do it effectively and expediently. We just don’t do that. We have no rapid response teams with press statements, leaflets, pamphlets. When we find an audience we are taken by surprise…such as the election video, which was not even done by ourselves but so easily could have been, but it proved to be a winner on the internet. Kids Stuff too. I remember one time suggesting a series of flash animations…simple photos, with captions, with background music…a cheap easily done alternative. If we cannot do things technically, we should out-source and pay to have it done, especially when members have their own lives to lead and cannot sacrifice all their time to the party as unpaid volunteers. We’re human too with our personal needs. I also just think what we do has more impact when it is done in the name of the party by the party rather than individual members acting on their own initiative. I rarely witness the EC minutes report discussion on politics or see them issuing formal statements on current events and developments. Do we always have to wait for a declaration of war before they do that? Nor would the General Secretary be overstepping his remit, either, by writing letters to the media or other organisations in his official capacity, which i would think would make the post more interesting for applicants rather than what at times seems to be an unpopular office and a punishment. It is deciding new policy positions that has had limits imposed upon the EC and Gen. Sec. by the membership – they have not had restrictions place on them concerning expressions already party-held policy. Branches are also free to engage more independently as representatives of the party without prompting or approval from 52 Clapham and their branch secretaries can be instructed to contact local press and local groups relaying branch resolutions or whatever in the name of the party. This is how i think we should reach out and in the process make party meetings actual real concrete activity that stimulates members rather than bore them with tedious house-keeping business (sure i know thats important, too, and cannot be cast aside). Nor would i be averse to some controversy and arguments within the party. The Conference proceedings made very dull reading. We are all grown-up and been around long enough to have thick skins, so animousity and acrimony should never be a result of differing opinion and espousing them. A comradely pint afterwards always defuses a situation, so we should also not ignore the “social-party” aspect of being a socialist party. (have i said that before?…i think i have) Its why day and weekend schools are so important apart from the educational value. We have to publicise our existence and what we stand for and then explain why that is important in relation to what is going on in the world. An easy enough task some would say, but, oh brother, do we make heavy weather of it !!!!
