Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Unfortunately I definitely cannot make Conference. Family commitments mean that if I went to conference my better half would have my nads for castanets
the issue of twitter and other internet based social media is a complex one. The party, rightly in my opinion has special provision for those comrades who take on responsibilities such as acting as a candidate or acting as a party speaker.However one of the difficulties generally with things such as twitter is that they intuitively feel like a general conversation that you would have down the boozer, and god knows I've said enough stupid things when I'm full of ale, however they are not. A party speaker might say something that is questionable in front of a relatively small number of people and it will only be remembered and reported by those present. I can say something down the pub that disappears in the ether, however what goes on the net can be read by millions if not billions. We have all come across reports of "celebrities" of MPs who've made stupid comments they regret on twitter or some other social media, when they were pissed up or not thinking, just ask Adam Johnson (sorry to my Mackem comrades). We do need to be careful that this does not happen to our official postings.Consequently we need to have some degree of democratic party control over these outlets, however we also need to ensure that whatever controls we have over the outlets are also democratically controlled and accountable and do not set themselves up as judge, jury and final arbiters of what goes on line.I also think that the starting point in all of this has to be trust, that we ensure that democratic accountability is in place and that the relevant controls are also in place and then we allow those who wish to do good work for the party to get on with it. With all of these things there will be mistakes and we can learn from them, however we do need to trust our fellow socialists to get on with the propagation of socialist ideas
gnome wrote:Vin wrote:February online meetingVery pleased with turnout 0f 8 members. Thought it was going to be difficult to get qourum to sort Form C out but members ralliedVery encouraging news, Vin. Good to hear too that Stephen has rejoined and that Tim will join you (EC willing) on the A/V Committee…
Yes Gnome, Vin told me as part of the role you get to go to the Oscars, is that right?
I think the problem is that your message stated "posting Labour party press handouts in your Twitter feed, is in breach of our hostility clause and they should be deleted.", which implies that your decision on the matter is final and that you have the authority to decide how the hostility clause should be interpreted. Perhaps if you had written "posting Labour party press handouts in your Twitter feed, may be in breach of our hostility clause and perhaps you should consider deleting them." This might have been more appropriate, as I assume you do not have the exclusive right to decide what constitutes a breach of the hostility clause and what does not.
So what is ok in the real world is not ok in the virtual world (redistributing uncritically the work of non-members and members of other political parties such as Kautsky) and what goes on in the virtual world has to be regulated (by the IC) in ways that we do not in the real world. Funny old world, the virtual world, isn't it. You could be forgiven for thinking that someone somewhere is nit picking because they have a particular axe to grind. Although I'm sure the actions of the IC in pointing out Vin's supposed breach of the hostility clause were motivated by nothing of this kind.
The interesting thing is how rapid the breakdown of the old Fine Gail/Fianna Fail, Tweedledee.Tweedledum system has been. The fact that they both might have to agree that the traditional choice between them is no different to choosing Coke or Pepsi, might leave them both with a huge credibility gap. I can't see any great number of "independents" lining up with FG. I think a more natural home for many of them would be alongside the "slightly constiutional" FF
My opinion is that the whole issue of social media, the use of the forum, etc, etc. are actually a bit of a mess and that one sticking plaster amendment to rules is not going to sort these issues out, but will only store up more trouble in the future. The use of electronic media and messaging is now of such important and value to the party, whilst also potentially being the source of massive discontent within the party that we need a root and branch examination of the whole issue, with the emphasis on ensuring party democracy. We also need to consider the members of the party who are not comfortable with social media, electronic forums etc. Tinkering with the rule book is, in my opinion, only going to make matters worse. As to the issue of quoting material on the twitter feed, I would argue that it is for the whole party to decide what is in breach of the hostility clause, not individual members of the IC. Is the party in breach of its hostility clause by selling (unedited) the works of Martov and Kautsky. I may be wrong but I don't think either of those two were ever in the party.
Perhaps the amount of time spent on "policing" this site is the reason the Internet Committee didn't have time to write even a very brief report on their activities to the democratic decision making body that is the SPGB Annual Conference?
gnome wrote:ALB wrote:Of course, I realise that and it wasn't a serious suggestion but was one that would have been understood immediately by anyone aware of the history of the SWP. To spell it out, they were originally formed as the "International Socialism Group" and their slogan, on their publications, etc wasQuote:Neither Washington nor Moscow but International Socialism.But I suppose not all members are Trotskyist-train-spotters or need to be. But at least it confirms what we were taught in Speakers Class that irony never works as people take you literally.
Irony works well when people are on the same wavelength and understand where you're 'coming from' but unfortunately most will know little or nothing about the SWP/IS…. or us.
Does this mean the party is suffering from an irony deficiency (walks away, hanging head in shame)
The European Parliament is a Parliament in name only, it has little actual power which is in hands of the commissioners.
I see this as really just an extension of the "EC of Upton Park" dispute back in 1910. The question as to what Socialists in Parliament would do if asked to vote on a reform, was answered in The Standard with " each issue would have to be looked at on its merits and the course to be pursued decided democratically". In a referendum the electorate replace he parliamentarians, so to me the answer would be exactly the same. With regards to this issue (The EU) I think the merits of either side are negligible and I don't think really that the working class have an interest on either side. I would argue therefore that in the same way as Socialist Delegates to Parliament might support neither side, so should the Party as a whole and that the appropriate thing to do is to abstain and pour scorn on those who take either side, especially those who claim to be Socialist. It follows from the above that there may arise situations where a reform referendum was held where the Party may advise voting for or against particular reforms, in the same was as outlined in the Upton Park Question. I could also envisage a situation where we could have an effective free vote, for instance if a local authority held a ballot on the colour they were going to paint the bins, I can't see the problem with individual Socialists voting for their own preference.
L Bird, I would never vote for you to go away, firstly I think it goes against the principle of an open platform which the Party has defended, often physically, since 1904. I think that principle is far more important than your ego driven rants on here. Secondly, such a move would in my opinion give you too much credibility. Once again your "let's have a poll about me!" move reveals your need to be in the limelight. Your attitude seems to be "it's all about me!!!" Can I suggest you grow up a little?
quote from another thread "I can live with those who, like Comrade Adam Buick, believe we have a duty to protect endangered life, such as wild animals, and are opposed to gratuitous cruelty,."With your talk of going fishing, is the mask starting to slip?
The main debate, in my opinion, is between National (relatively small capital) and multinational (relatively large capital). For those capitalists trading largely with the UK, the EU generates extra cost through regulation, etc. so they tend to be in favour of withdrawal. For Multinationals the EU provides a huge standardised market and they tend to be in favour of staying in. Historically big capital wins out against small capital, so expect huge propaganda in favour of staying in. In terms of the working class, the vote wont bring socialism closer, either way, so as a class we have no specific interest in the vote. I can envisage that some workers may feel they have an interest in staying in, for instance if your job is working for the EU, or if you are in a post funded through the ESF, similarly there may be those who think they may directly benefit from a withdrawal, Border Agency staff may envisage getting more overtime if we withdraw, but as a class we have no interest.
