[HollyHead]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

In regard to Occupy Movement ….. i'm glad you now understand that "boring from within" was not what i was calling for but engaging in the exchange of ideas as class members to others of our class.

 AlanGood!I still disagree — but this is the wrong thread in which to persue the matter.

[HollyHead]

Like ALB I would urge the greatest caution here. In my opinion we are so far below any security/opposition Radar that infiltration can be discounted. After all we seem to be doing enough self disruption don't we?

[HollyHead]

I think there might be something in what you say Brian.Do you have any specific proposals in mind? Some of the language we use would be very difficult to change because its has (at least for us) a very specific meaning — hallowed over the ages so to speak. "Capture of political power", "labour power" and "Common ownership" for example. If we go down this route in our efforts to win support for our object then I would like to make a case for ditching "Reforms / Reformism". It's a word that has entirely lost it's meaning outside the party and we all must know the blank looks when a party member brings it into the conversation. As for "the message and language used in the past is not hitting the right note" I recall a suggestion made at one Summer School by Comrade Janet Surman. In effect she suggested a school / teach-in /(?correspondence course) on interaction with non-socialists. We might even consider calling in the professional communicators…

[HollyHead]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Hi HollyHead,…Now OGW did state that when he was in the North East branch, they did a lot of graft without  looking to the EC. Likewise when I was in the branch we also did a lot of work ourselves.So both OGW and myself are capable of "walking the walk".Lets not make this an issue.

 Hello SPO.K. I'm more than happy with that.<handshake emoticon>

[HollyHead]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

"There's a worse fate than that TOGW. You could find people ignoring your posts all together."Indeed so! My transgressions were apparently to give readers the respect they are due with a full reply albeit lengthy and then also on another occasion to respond to what i considered erroneous interpretations of my post by yourself which you obviously decided did not deserve an answer. (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/occupy-movement?page=29)

Alan!My apologies for letting you go without a reply (and I'm not certain whether this is the right thread in which to do it).First I'm not the only one to comment on the length of this discussion. Here is SussexSocialist in the 'Occupy' thread #285

Quote:

this incredibly long winded discussion

 Second (and  far more importantly) is your seeming suggestion that we undertake some boring from within. I accept your assurance that this is not your view but I think I might be excused if I took it to be so (emphasis added by me in each case): For example your post # 290http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/occupy-movement?page=28

Quote:

We have to have a physical presence within those working class struggles which seek alternative answers to their problems. … It can also mean opening up and sharing resources, such as our office space for meetings, our printing facilities and our web-site for exchange of views.

And again in your post #287:

Quote:

Socialists must be present and vocal within Occupy to combat such reformism masquerading as revolutionary before it takes root.

Your post # 286:

Quote:

Our own particular failure was not having our own clear and determined presence within the Occupy Movement…

 See what I mean? 

[HollyHead]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

Am I allowed to ask this or am I about to be threated with violence? 

 There's a worse fate than that TOGW.You could find people ignoring your posts all together.

[HollyHead]

TOGWWe can all read.To an "outsider" your re-posting of remarks you find offensive only contributes to the poor image you complain of.

[HollyHead]

 Can anyone help me out here please? On Monday I posted (#22) the following

Quote:

A question:If we were a much larger and more attractive party in the past than we appear to be currently what is we were doing then that we are not doing now? Posts #20 and  #21 above rehearse many of the concerns that have been discussed in the party since Pontius was a pilot. Many of them are real and I don't believe that any member really thinks that everything is OK with the way things are. Rather the impression I get is one of  the membership at large looking to the critics (from both inside and outside the party) to come up with worked out and costed alternatives (including a list of comrades willing to do the work necessary to put it into effect.)A suggestion:Party members should please abandon the practice of passing pious resolutions — what the late former comrade Cyril May used to call "duck shoving". You know the kind of thing — exciting and/or adventurous plans for party activity to be carried out by someone else (almost always the EC).

In post #34 northern light found this a “scathing remark”.Now for the life of me I can't see why. Am I alone in this?I've carefully read it over again (and again) but fail to see anything witheringly scornful in this general observation aimed at no-one in particular. In reply Socialist Punk (post #24) asked:

Quote:

Not sure if your post is aimed at me or others on this forum?…As for me coming up with worked out costed alternatives, I thought this party was a democratic party with no leaders?Hell, if you want to change that approach, I am sure it would attract a few people from the left.I have ideas. But when I was in the party, I often felt my ideas were not welcome. I tried, I gave a lot of precious time, for what?

No Socialist Punk it was not aimed at you, or anyone in particular for that matter. It was a general observation and a suggestion for improving party procedures.And it's precisely because I consider party democracy important that I suggest that branches with ideas for new projects do at least some of the necessary spadework themselves beforehand – what the.y want done, who is to do it, how it is to be achieved and by when, and at what likely cost.In my opinion far too many Conference resolutions and ADM discussion items are frankly half baked.And yes it's frustrating when ones ideas and suggestions faile to get adopted by the party. But there you go that's democracy for you. And I hope that observation is not too scathing.

northern light wrote:

#25Yes HollyHead, would you like to clarify that remark. Just who were you refering to, Social Punk, and OldGreyWhistle. There is a lot riding on your answer. As far as I am concerned, these two guys care and are trying to be constructive.

 Northern please see above.Any chance of a clarification oas to what you found “scathing”? 

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

#25Hi hollyhead,Rather than generalising can you be specific with your criticism.

Hi TOGWPlease see answers to SP and nl above.I was deliberately non-specific precisely to avoid personalising the “debate”. Clearly this was a failure by me as a number of contributors have taken it personally.Oh! dear. 

[HollyHead]

northern light wrote:

I was sitting, filling in my membership application form the other day, when HollyHead made his scathing remark. .. Don't bother to reply, I won't be here to see.

 That's a pity because I will now not have the chance of finding out which of my remarks you found "scathing".  ;-(

[HollyHead]

jondwhite wrote:

Maybe no-holds barred debate as entertainment is the most useful form of debate? Fox News pundit Bill O'Reilly debated satirical news presenter of Comedy Central's the Daily Show – Jon Stewart last night. Here is the videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5ESZOFwm9A

 I'm afraid our experience in challenging others to debate — both as individuals and as organizations — is more often negative than positive. They almost invariably decline or — worse still — pull out at the last moment.There are exceptions of course and some of them appear in the Audio / Visual section above. I believe more are in the process of being added so keep your eyes peeled.

[HollyHead]

Apologies for the double posting.I've tried to delete one but received the message "Access Denied."

[HollyHead]

A question:If we were a much larger and more attractive party in the past than we appear to be currently what is we were doing then that we are not doing now? Posts #20 and  #21 above rehearse many of the concerns that have been discussed in the party since Pontius was a pilot. Many of them are real and I don't believe that any member really thinks that everything is OK with the way things are. Rather the impression I get is one of  the membership at large looking to the critics (from both inside and outside the party) to come up with worked out and costed alternatives (including a list of comrades willing to do the work necessary to put it into effect.) A suggestion:Party members should please abandon the practice of passing pious resolutions — what the late former comrade Cyril May used to call "duck shoving". You know the kind of thing — exciting and/or adventurous plans for party activity to be carried out by someone else (almost always the EC).

[HollyHead]

It's a pity that in places (e.g. between 10" and 15" in) he uses gobbledegook phrases not much different to those he derided earlier — "synergistic computer calculation" for example. Otherwise 7 out of 10?

[HollyHead]

Quote:

When does the party say capitalist production became outdated?

  June 1904?

[HollyHead]

Fabian wrote:

steve colborn wrote:

Not good or evil, concepts I dismiss with intellectual contempt.

Ethical nihilism is a performative contradiction.

 Is this what is meant by “a sophisticated rhetorician inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity”? 

[Author]

Posts