Brian
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Interesting article: http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/socialism-is-state-of-mind-neither.html which provides some additional material for this conversation.
alanjjohnstone wrote:I wonder if our Manchester comrades knew they were under the sights of the Statehttp://i3.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/incoming/article10193625.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/JS73729313.jpghttp://i1.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/incoming/article10193630.ece/BINARY/JS73723335.jpgThis has been standard practice for many years whenever big demo's occur. Before the police trained up their own snipers army snipers were invariably deployed. I suspect that when demo's are rerouted its because it has better vantage points.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Quote:The conclusion then must be the way the SPGB responds to the changing socio-political climate.Fraid that doesn't follow. It could be that the ; it could have been that sun spots caused us to become members: we don't know. Assuming just one more tweek in our propaganda, one more change in our structure, a different tone of voice, etc. will lead to the breakthrough is egoising. People will become members, or they won't, all we can do is express our opinion.
Nobody is assuming that the proposals for change will lead "to the breakthrough" but that we make a start on addressing the real threat of a further decline in membership and activity. And its no "could have been" about it for "the conditions outside the party that generated members have gone/changed" for the point the proposals are trying to make is there has not been a corresponding change within the party on what we say and what we do, or how we do things.
I totally agree with what Alan is saying in #32 but would add that although small changes have been made with the decision making process aka the introduction of the Outreach Department our present structure of organisation does not lend well to modern forms of communication or the flow of information. Its not just the name of the party which should be up for discussion but also the very structure of the party.Presently, we are totally focused on accountability and responsibility throughout the party, from individual members having their say on organisational matters to the EC being accountable and responsible to the Branches and Conference decisions. The problem from my end is how do we retain that essential accountability and responsibility but also increase flexibility in the decision making process so that communication improves and the flow of information engages with those members who are adamant with hanging on to the 'hard copy' of the past?A sure sign that there are problems ahead with our structure, is not just with those 118 who actually take part in the decision making process by filling in their ballot papers, but also the fact that our active members are not filling party positions. A depleted EC and no General Secretary is spelling it out that the membership are increasingly finding it difficult to commit themselves to a structure which fails to correspond to their aspirations for the future.Obviously, once the web site comes on stream there will be improvements in internet usage and informatics. However, these changes on their own will be insufficient in bringing about radical changes in the structure of the party.We are quick enough on doing a system analysis on the disfunctionality of capitalism but very reluctant on doing the same analysis to ourselves.
alanjjohnstone wrote:But hope on the horizonA third of SNP voters may return to Labour http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/19/third-snp-voters-more-likely-back-labour-jeremy-corbyn-pollWhich is bad news for us in respect of their maturity and lack of class consciousness. Unfortunately, we do not have the human resources to take advantage of this swing in political allegiance.
SocialistPunk wrote:ALB wrote:A suggestion:Quote:the next Standard cover should be pictures of Watson and Corbyn with the strapline: Landslide! New Syriza leaders electedDon't all shoot at once.
If a Corbyn – Syriza comparison front cover is unavoidable next month. May I suggest something along the lines of "Can Corbyn defeat austerity, where Syriza failed?" The images could be of cues at food banks, images of homeless people and other emotive issues, (from the UK and Greece) with a similar sized, ie not overblown, photo of Corbyn.For starters it suggests his motives are honourable and so it's not aggressive. And it asks a pertinent question. Once inside the non personal critical analysis can commence.Surely the hard liners can understand the need for an intelligent approach?
And also lets not lose sight of the reason why Corbyn gained so much support. For he represents, in their eyes, an 'official opposition' to the present consensus politics of Westminister. Obviously in the years ahead they are going to disappointed, so we want to make it quite clear that the real debate in any reference to 'official opposition' is not between left and right but between capitalism and socialism
imposs1904 wrote:I really hope the Party doesn't go down the road of contesting the mayoral election. I don't think there's anything to be gained from it.1. The opportunity to publicise our name and contact details, let alone the case for socialism will surely be a gain? 2. The result will go a long way in confirming the support in London for socialism.3. The only other alternative is we compete from the sidelines.
ALB wrote:I would have thought that, even without any free postal distribution, it would be worth paying a mere £500 to get coverage throughout the whole of Glasgow on radio, TV, the local press, internet, hustings, etc. even if you did nothing else. But of course you should be able do something else, eg some street stalls, some leafletting (maybe commercial, though personally I wouldn't think it worth the cost — we did it in West London for the London Assembly elections in 2012 in a selected area of Wandsworth, Tooting as it happens.. I'm not sure it was effective).Possibly, the reason why it was not effective is because it was not followed through with a street stall on a regular basis.
LBird are you saying that because Marx and Engles either fumbled or were confused on the subject we have to decide for ourselves how to establish truth? If so, we have to agree on a starting point and a methodology. Once this is decided on then we have the problems of: 1. Pursuing this objective under the current conditions or keeping it on the shelf until the establishment of socialism? 2. Deciding whether or not this objective is fundamentally necessary to the revolutionary process in its initial stages?
Thanks for the information Alan. Swansea are faced with much the same problems as Glasgow in that we are all getting a bit long in the tooth and although we are aware the cost will be high for a full distribution it will imo be value for money. The aim in Swansea is to contest all elections.However, the Branch may well decide that a partial distribution will suffice. But then again it could well go for a full distribution. I will have an uphill battle trying to persuade them to have a stall every Saturday. To me a partial distribution and no stall is just going to be a token gesture.
Socialist Party Head Office wrote:The Scottish Parliament is made up of 129 members. 73 are elected using the first-past-the-post system in individual geographical constituencies.A further 56 are elected from eight electoral regions with 7 from each region. These additional MSPs are chosen from party lists.
Voters therefore have two votes. This also means that the Party can contest either a particular constituency and/or present a list in one of the electoral regions.
The deposit is £500 to stand in a constituency and £500 to present a list in an electoral region. So if we contested the Glasgow Region the deposit would be £500.
To stand only one signature is required (which in a constituency can be that of the candidate; for an election region it will be that of the Party's Nominating Officer).
Afraid there is no free postal distribution of an election communication.
If Glasgow agrees to contest the cost of printing and distribution of the manifesto will obviously come out of party funds.
Good stuff. I like the idea of a circle and introduction by attendees. Use that in Swansea when the time comes.
robbo203 wrote:DJP wrote:Unless you've got a specific question I think there's far too much bredth here for a discussion topic..Well, how about narrowing it down to the point made by Alison Assiter concerning "Reasons why Marx’s materialism should not be seen as philosophical materialism’ (Alison Assiter "Philosophical Materialism or the Materialist Conception of History", Radical Philosophy, 23 (Winter 1979) – and to the wider argument that shackling historical materialism to a materialist metaphysic is not particularly healthy for the socialist movement itself?
Hmm, correct me if I'm wrong but that seemed to be the line of enquiry by LBird?
Young Master Smeet wrote:No, he's saying that the rules are outmoded, capitalism has gone beyond its founding ideas. Thus even taking capitalism ack to its own ideological formation would probably destroy it.Now, forgive me if I'm wrong here, but the point of Marx's historical materialism is that the process of one social form outgrowing its own logic and becoming something else is applicable to several stages of society. The revolutionary method may differ between revolutions, but the basic motor doesn't.If capitalism has (long since) stopped operating in terms of it's own self-image, that is an interesting and useful thing to consider.And I'm saying there were never any rules to start with other than the exchange of commodities and that's a logic its not outgrown. Its self-image is a caricature whereas the reality is about legalised robbery in the act of exchange. The self-image is a myth promoted by the likes of Mason who would have us believe that the sectional interests of capitalism are surmountable through more cooperation and less competition.The pigs are still not airborne!You right about the basic motor not differing but wrong to assume that capitalism has outgrown its own logic. The logic is still about the exchange of commodities. Once a majority determine that the capitalist logic does not apply to their interests then that logic becomes redundant.
