robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:Another thread for Private Fraser, Cassandra, Jeremiah and Moaning Minnie but:this might prevent a few suicides:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/are-physical-meetings-best-form-democratic-control-2015?page=5#comment-26497
The slight growth in new members reported by the Membership Application Committee doesnt really tell us much about the overall situation. If more members are leaving than joining then the Party would still be declining in numbers. Also what about new members coming directly through branches . Is this up or down? I would imagine it is down if only becuase there are fewer branches around compared to a few years back My impression is that the Party has been shrinking and is certainly significantly smaller than when I first joined – probably about 200 members less. If this decline has bottomed out recently then that is welcome news but I dont think that is a reason for complacency at all.If it is the case that new members are increasingly joining via the internet then I put it to you again – why not tailor activities in such a way as to involve isolated members more directly (otherwise you will just lose them). I put forward the idea of a socialist research centre or website which could engage the collective efforts of many dispersed members but no one seems to have taken up the idea. Oh well.Another thing I find very surprising is that hardly any pamphlets seem to be published these days. You should be knocking out at least half a dozen each year, if not more , perhaps dealing with more specific and narrowly focussed topics e.g. the war in Syria. Ive made umpteen links to party pamphlets in various forums I have been engaged in but the lack of variety is very limiting, frankly
Exactly, Alan. Which is why the SPGB cannot afford any longer to to continue as it has been doing. Amongst other things, it needs to fundamentally rethink its stand on a number of its policies and I wont say more than that for fear or risking the ire of some rather touchy members. People will know what I am talking about and I've said it often enough…But to be a bit more positive, there has been one proposal that has been bandied about from time to time, which has never really been taken up but which, I think, could make a bit of a difference , That is to create a kind of internet based socialist research centre which could over time become (hopefully) a widely referenced source of information, conveniently packaged from a socialist point of view. Those members who are presently reluctant to be physically active might well be inclined to contribute in this way.My late brother, Andy, had in fact started on something like this (see his website http://andycox1953.webs.com/database1.htm) Its an idea worth considering and could possibly help to improve the prospects of the Party a little.
dedelste wrote:As an aside, even if socialism really is in his self-interest, it seems to me your chances of convincing him are near zero.That's assuming the case for socialism is solely based on self interest. I don't think it is and I don't see how it can be. Necessarily the case for socialism is also a moral one.If the case for socialism was solely based on socialism why would a capitalist like Marx's friend and collaborator, Frederich Engels, take an interest in socialism at all? Saying that there is more to the question of "self interest" than an increased standard of living (which surely would not be a reason for a capitalist to want socialism since her standard of living is almost certainly going to drop substantially and quite rightly too!) and that it would be in the self interest of capitalist to want socialism for other reasons (e.g. a society without war), could be construed as suggesting that the capitalists and the workers have a commonality of interests in seeking socialism. That's skating on thin ice in my view. We have to recognise that it would not be in the interest of the capitalists to want socialism and insofar as they do as individuals, it is for reasons other than their self interest I think this whole argument that "I want socialism because it is in my self interest" plays directly into the hands of the capitalist ideologists. Actually if all you were concerned about was your self interest as an individual then what's the point in advocating socialism? You might as well get out there, make a few millions bucks and feel nothing about stabbing your fellow workers in the back as you clamber up the greasy pole. The unbridled pursuit of self interest was the fundamental premiss behind Adam Smith metaphor of the invisible hand of the market and it is astonishing, to say the least, that any socialist would want to accept that self same premiss unalloyed and without any question asked.What about class interest? Doesnt that count? If you accept the necessity for pursuing our class interests as a working class then ipso facto that position necessarily and logically entails an altruistic aspect. You are concerned for the welfare and wellbeing of your fellow workers, not just yourself.That is why the case for socialism has to be a moral one as well as one based on self interest
Young Master Smeet wrote:I'd be opposed to dropping the off-topic rule (though not against a more generous handling off it) since it is a useful tool against trolls and monomaniacs pursuing their hobbyhorse across multiple topics. yes, a soupscon of drift should be allowed *where it flows naturally from the topic at hand* and a gentle reminder from time to time to run back to topic is perfectly in order.YMS, the monomaniacs and trolls would do that anyway by simply setting up a new thread and pursuing their hobbyhorse there. Far better I think to scrap the off topic rule completely which seems to account for most of the the friction between moderators and contributors. Retaining the rule but allowing a "soupscon of drift" is only asking for trouble because then it becomes a matter of perception as to how far you stray off topic before the rule should kick in. What is within the limit for one person may be well outside for another. I say let the contributors take over the role of gently reminding other contributors that they are straying well off course but without any compulsion being involved. If the latter persist in doing that, then you have the option to do what the monomaniacs and trolls can do now – start another thread
moderator1 wrote:Comrades if you disagree with the off-topic rule despite the changes to protocol get it changed by drafting a resolution to Conference. With the new protocols now in place it is only under extreme circumstances that the off-topic rule be implemented.Yes , I think that would be a good idea – to scrap the off-topic rule completely. It serves no purpose other than to stifle the free flow of the conversation and it is highly divisive. I can't be absoutely sure but probably the vast majority of moderator interventions are prompted by this rule. I say let the people moderate themselves as far as the drift of the conversation is concerned. The task of the moderator should be limited to curtailing clear cases of personal abuse and removing spam. I dont know of any other forum that takes such an over zealous view of the role of moderator as this one
I agree with Alan's suggestion regarding a "guest column". Great idea. It would reduce the kind of "samey" feel to the SS though I dont think it needs to be confined to obscure details of Marxian economics. There are all sorts of subjects I can think of – from the threat of global climate change to the nature/nature controversy to issues around the subject of hunter gatherer societies. Eminent scientists or theorists in their particular field could be asked to write something of interest to readers and it would certainly enhance the appeal of the SS if a regular guest column could be establishedAnother suggestion is something like a debate forum to reflect the interesting diversity of opinion within the SPGB itself and to help break away from this idea that it is some kind of monolithic organisation.From Adam's comment , do I take it now that it is the policy of SS team to accept articles from non members providing the article in question does not fall outside the parameters of the "party case"? Who knows – I might submit an article or two myself
Vin wrote:stuartw2112 wrote:I will no longer be contributing to this forum due to the moronic moderation. I don't suppose anyone will care in my case, but assuming you care about your party's ongoing reputation for competence in debate, I'd get someone with some intelligence and discrimination to do the moderating.All the bestStuartI agree stuart and would go further. I do not recognise this forum as being worthy of being part of the world socialist movement.
I think thats a bit harsh Vin but I do largely go along with your criticism of the moderation procedure on this site and consider the suspension of Stuart to be quite apalling and utterly short-sighted.Ive increasingly come to the view that the problem really centres on the abritrary ruling on what constitutes off topic posts. I propose a radical break and that this whole rule be scrapped completely. If the drift of the discussion moves well away from the original title of the thread so be it. What's wrong with that? There is usually some kind of underlying dynamic steering the direction of the thread, anyway and it is far better to let the conversation flow naturally than railroad it along narrow rigid lines. Where is the harm in doing this. Let the contributors themselves / not the moderators – remind each other if the conversation is seemingly getting a bit too off topic in their judgement – they can always start up new threads if they are that unhappy. This will immediately and dramatically reduce the scope for conflict between moderators and contributors and reduce the workload of the former.There is too much control freakery in the Party as it is and this is perhaps part of the reason why it is languishing. Dressing it up in the name of democracy is all very well but you do need to balance that with other concerns – like freedom of expression, for instance
Meel wrote:I agree with robbo that adhering to a religion is of no consequence as far as your political beliefs are concerned.Each person could be examined on his or her beliefs, to see if these were anti-working class or in any way would be a hindrance to a revolutionary change in society.I have no idea, though, if dropping the demand that all members should be atheists/agnostics would result in a surge of membership for the Socialist Party. In any case, I think it's an completely unnecessary requirement.Yes I think thats correct, Meel. Religion is no more inherently anti socialist than is atheism – only contingently so depending on the religion in question of which there are an enormous variety. Engels himself cited the religious communities of North America as proof of the feasibility of communism and radical movements in the past such as the Diggers and the Levellers were partly inspired by religious convictions. In any case, the vast majority of atheists are pro capitalist, even vehemently so, but the Party does not see fit to ban atheists from its ranks. It is thus inconsistent. The logic of its position is that you are guilty until proven innocent – that there is something inevitable about religious beliefs that means that someone joining the party with such beliefs is bound in some sense to betray or work against her socialist convictions even though the membership test itself is more than stringent enough to ensure that only genuine socialists who want and understand socialism can join. Why would a religous socialist join the Party if not out of a desire to see socialism established? The ban simply doesnt make sense. Its like saying a religious scientist cannot be scientific in their outlook. Of course they can. It is quite possible for scientist to keep their religious beliefs and their science separate. Apart from that, science is not the be all and end all of everything, notwithstanding the fetishisation of "scientific socialism" among some members. There are limits to what science can offer; values must be brought into the picture as well. The argument that the struggle to achieve socialism does not also entail an ethical dimension is plainly ridiculous and plays right into the hands of the capitalist ideology of "self interest". I know some folk here on this forum think my banging on about this silly policy is a tad tiresome but actually I think it gets to the heart of the matter of whats wrong with the dear old SP and why it is not making any progress whatsoever after 110 years of trying. Ironically enough, it is in some ways the very embodiment of the religious irrationalism it criticises in others. A rational pragmatic approach to political activity would surely not seek to handicap the organisation with an self imposed and totally pointless impediment to its own growth. .It makes no sense and it makes me wonder if there is some ulterior motive at work than the starightforward stuggle to establish socialism. Maybe some see the organisation as a comfortable refuge from a hostile outside world which needs to be walled up and hedged around with barriers to keep the character of the organisation intact. I dunno. I suspect scrapping the ban on religion in the Party will not of itself result in an immediate surge in membership, though probably a modest increase in numbers in the short term can be expected. But the ban itself is far from being the only thing thats wrong with the way the Party is currently going about doing things as I have already suggested. The whole mindset that sees the necessity to maintain such a ban is precisely what is holding the Part y back in those other ways as well, in my opinion
jondwhite wrote:A minor point but I believe non-members did write for the Socialist Standard during World War II.Interesting. Why was this discontinued? Surely what matters is what is written, not the person who wrote it. So long as it does not contradict the fundamentals of the Party I cant see any problem with non members contributing. That and much more scope for debate in the Standard on matters that may not be of fundamental importance but are certainly of theoretical interestBoth these ideas might very well significantly enhance the appeal of the journal and make its contents a little less predictable…
ALB wrote:robbo203 wrote:Only a small minority in the Party appears to do anything at all.You make some valid points which you would have more chance of them being acted on if you were a member (there is a tiny minority of members who hold the view that you give as your reason for not joining — we are not that "monolithic").And you could have a go at herding cats or, rather, at getting cats to herd themselves. But the above needs challenging. I don't know what your definition is of "small minority" and "do anything" but, using participation in internal votes as a measure, which has been suggested elsewhere. about one-third of the membership are "active". Hardly a "tiny" minority. Quite high, actually, for voluntary organisations, higher in fact than in my trade union.
Adam, much as I might like to rejoin the Party, and I have contemplated this from time to time, I cannot as a matter of principle. Membership of the Party at present is quite clearly predicated on the acceptance of the view that religion is incompatible with socialism. I fundamentally disagree with this position and consequently this rules me out as a possible applicant for membership even though i am not religious myself. I agree the Party is not that monolithic in reality but my point is that it gives the appearance of being so and this is not helpful. Actually – paradoxically – there is a sense in which unity makes not for strength but weakness and that the open display of greater diversity that exists within the Party would actually enhance its appeal rather than diminish it. It strikes as rather odd that the Party does not make use of its primary propaganda vehicle , the Socialist Standard, to bring to public attention the diversity of opinion that does actually exist within the organisation. For instance, in all the years I have known the Party there have been some fascinating theoretical debates on all manner of topics. Why hide these away in the cupboard.? Why not bring these treasures out , polish them up and put them on display? I think I know why and this relates to the point I made earlier about "policy creep". The fact that the Party cannot seem to resist the temptation to come out with an "official" viewpoint on every occasion. It needs to be seen to be taking up a distinct official position and for history to vindicate it for having been proven correct and thusb to cultivate the myth that it is a homgenous body of opinion. Dont get me wrong. Sometimes the Party does need to take an official stand behind which the membership as a whole can "unite" – for instance in the case of some imminent capitalist war. But on other occasions, there is no ´necessity for the Party qua Party to make an official pronouncement so to speak – that is to say, to put forward a particular view on a particular subject in the name of the Party itself. I bring this back to the question of the Socialist Standard which is supposed to be the official mouthpiece of the SPGB . Now I have read stuff in the Socialist Standard which i strongly disagree with and i have no doubt some members to disagree with . For example, I read a statement the other day from an old back number (Ill haul out the reference later if you like) which categorically declared that the case for socialism is based simply on "material self interest", it is not an ethical case at all. Thats is an absurd claim though I wont go into detail here to explain why it is absurd. The question is ' is this the view of the SPGB as a whole of which the SS is its official mouthpiece. If not , if there are members who disagree with this claim why not allow them alos to state their own arguments in opposition to this. Why not , in other words, open up the Socialist Standard to more diversity, to more debate – have dedicated space for this purpose – and to move away from this kind of rigid position that is entailed in seeing the Socialist standard as the official mouthpiece of the Party. Indeed why not allow non party members as well to contribute to the SS as well? Providing they are writing within a framework that accepts, or does not conflict with, the fundamentals of what the Party is all about i see no harm in this at all. To the contrary. An eminent scientist, who knows something about GMOs could be invited to write something in a guest column, for example. The party´s case would not be watered down, it would be enriched So while in reality the Party is not a monolith in practice its current approach in the communication of its ideas is to create the impression of a rigidly monolithic organisation which is most unfortunate. And talking of attracting more people into the Party, creating the conditions for a "surge"in its support, this is bad psychology as well. If you are open about the diversity of opinion within the organisation, this lowers resistance to joining such an organisation. The outsider is induced to take sides in the ongoing debate and has thus perhaps unwittingly crossed the threshold that would otherwise deter her from identifying with organisation as such. The organisation as such would then come across as something altogether more inviting , drawing people in rather than confronting them from the apparent or external standpoint of that of a cult requiring unquestioning conformity and compliance with what it officially pronounces is the case.
gnome wrote:Quite possibly but just as likely to be acts of desperation. That augers well for us, ultimately. but we're still not credible, not because we are small, because all parties are small to begin with, but because our message is not perceived to be credible. So, our smallness has little or nothing do with strategy, membership test (abolish that tomorrow and say bye-bye to the revolutionary alternative), bar on admitting religious individuals or any of the other myriad reasons put forward for our lack of progress.I don't agree with this. Yes all parties start out small but that does not in any way invalidate the "small party syndrome" thesis – that smallness makes for lack of credibility which tends to perpetuate smallness. The thesis doesn't assert that small parties cannot become big parties. It merely asserts that maximum resistance to growth occurs at that stage in the growth trajectory when the organisation is still small. That is why it is crucially important to remove any conceivable obstacle to growth at this point where the SPGB is currently at – namely, a very small political party that has, if anything, been declining rather than growing in numbers. The "relative weight" of one new member now, I suggest, would count for far more than when , or if, the SPGB, ever did become a mass party Secondly you seem to be taking the view that since there are a myriad of reasons put forward as to why the Party is small therefore any one of them cannot be regarded as significant . Therefore by extension, any one of them can be disregarded, ignored and brushed under the carpet. This is false reasoning. It is the cumulative impact of multiple reasons that cause the Party to remain small and consequently it is quite legitimate to address each and everyone of these reasons on their own terms.. Removing them one by one will have, in my opinion, an incremental and cumulative impact on the fortunes of the SPGB No one , incidentally, or at least no one I know of, is calling for scrapping the membership test. You are quite right – get rid of the test and you can kiss goodbye to the revolutionary credentials of the SPGB. I am all in favour of the membership test. My point is simply that the membership test is too stringent and that the question of whether or not you hold religious beliefs is utterly irrelevant to the socialist cause. There is no way anyone can convince me that just because someone believes in a god, an afterlife or some mysterious creative cosmic energy in the universe that such a person cannot become a socialist. Thats just preposterous. Theoretically it is conceivable that such a person may be weaned away from her socialist convictions but so might a hardline atheist. Some of the most hardline atheists I know are fervent supporters of capitalism. But does the membership test forbid you to be an atheist? No. The party´s argument essentially boils down to saying that you are guilty until you can prove your innocence but totally inconsistently it does not extend this argument to atheists who are equally capable of supporting capitalism in theory All we should be concerned with as Morris pointed out is "making socialists" – that is , people who want and understand socialism and how to get it. I personally know a number of people who want and understand socialism who happen to hold religious views but are prevented from joining the party because of that. I understand that some of the SPGb.s active supporters have religious views, the few who have not been sufficiently turned off and prompted to drift away altogether because of this ridiculous, self defeating and pointless policy. Actually it is because I believe in the necessity of a membership test and because I believe the membership test as it is – minus this clause on religion – is more than adequate enough to ensure any non socialists cannot possibly be admitted into the SPGB that I argue that this policy is illogical , superfluous and an impediment to party growth. For that reason alone it should be scrapped or, at least modified, so as not to allow in only those who belong to organised religions whose social policy is anathema to socialists
jondwhite wrote:How come surges in support or membership of political parties happen? And why has the SPGB not experience such a surge in support?I can think of several reasons1) The SPGB is nowhere near the kind of critical mass that would permit it to seem credible. Its smallness, in other words, tends to keep it small – the "small party syndrome". This is a very important factor and it explains why it is extremely difficult for small organisations to take off. Its a vicious circle to an extent – the party is small therefore it lacks credibility. Because it lacks credibility it continues to remain small 2) The problem of "what to do in the meantime". This is perhaps the major weakness in the party's whole platform and it is a problem that draws would=be supporters away from the Party and into the welcoming arms of reformist organisations. It is simply not good enough just say reformism is not going to work if socialism appears (as it does) to be some very long term goal while the SPGB does really have much to say or offer on what to do in the meantime. This whole area is something that seriously needs working on 3) Another problem is that the party is unnecessarily restrictive in its membership requirements. A prime example of this is, of course, its ban on socialists who hold religious views. Its totally unnecessary since the membership test (minus the question on religion) is more than adequate to ensure that only revolutionary socialists are admitted. It is entirely possible to be a historical materialist and hold religious views, anyway. There might be other requirements too that are unnecessarily restrictive. The purpose of the Party is solely to work to establish socialism and only those requirements that are absolutely indispensable to that task should be used in the admissions procedure. Whether or not a god exists it totally irrelevant to the socialist goal 4) The SPGB appears at times to be unduly monolithic in its outlook. which is unattractive and uninviting This may be partly a function of what I call "policy creep" such as when attempts are made to establish the official party case on , say the cause of economic crises. Different opinions on the subject don't get enough of an airing. What constitutes the "party case "should be pruned back to the basics and everything else should be seen as prpvisional or contingent . The Socialist standard should be thrown open to debate – or have a dedicated debate column. It would make for a more stimulating and interesting read 5) The propaganda of the Party is not sufficiently targeted and the tone adopted is often inappropriate to the audience it is intended to reach. The controversy over the Party's attitude towards the Corbyn phenomenon is a case in point 6) The Party does not do enough to encourage the active involvement of its own members. It is too complacent and laid back and too reliant on the argument that "we are a voluntary party and you cant force members into active". No you cant and should not have to "force" member to be involved but you don't have to go to the other extreme of doing nothing to proactively encourage them to be involved. Only a small minority in the Party appears to do anything at all. A focused and coordinated campaign on the internet could draw in members who could not otherwise be physically involved I could go on but that enough to get going on with!
SocialistPunk wrote:I was being ironic Robbo. Some months ago there was a discussion on this forum about party progress and a party member insisted millions of people had heard the SPGB/WSM case for socialism and delibertely rejected it.I disagreed, as like you I'm of the view that not that many people in the real world have a clue of the existence of the SPGB/WSM. I also tend to agree with you that numbers count, that an extremely small political party advocating pretty far out ideas is not taken seriously by those who get a fleeting glimpse.Yes. I seriously doubt whether 99% of the population have even heard of the SPGB, or consciously recognise/remember the name – let alone have a clue about what the SPGB stands for. I have just been experimenting these past few days with this FB page which I mentioned earlier called "Socialism v Capitalism" just to see what kind of response making socialist posts on that site might elicit. There is just no way I can keep up with the responses. The traffic is awesome for a relatively small site of just under 7000 members. A few comrades have responded to my suggestion that people join this site in an attempt to blitz it with socialist ideas and see what comes of it. A few more comrades would not go amiss. This is just one site I came across by accident and judging by the number of "likes" I've had I would say quite a few people are receptive to socialist ideas. There are probably thousands of other sites like this. The SPGB is barely scratching the surface. Vin is absolutely right about the potential of the internet. Physical meetings are fine as far as they go and you don't have to choose between one form of activity and the other. But there is obviously far more scope for activity via the internet not just once a month or whatever but on a daily basis and by members who might not otherwise be able to get to physical meetings. If you want to keep the Party from declining you have to get members involved and active. Though I am somewhat out of touch with what goes on in the Party these days it does not appear to me to be very proactive in getting members involved. It seems to be rather laid back and complacent but I might be wrong It would probably pay dividends for the Party to think of a coordinated and relatively large scale campaign of internet activity focusing on a number of pre selected sites – like the one above
jondwhite wrote:Without getting too sidetracked, you don't have to think lifting the ban is a good idea to acknowledge that the bar on the religious minded hasn't yet led to a mass socialist party we seek. Personally I think there are other issues hopefully to be addressed in ADM.I think lifting the ban would help significantly but I don't think it is some kind of magic bullet as JPR put it. It won't instantly make for mass appeal since there are other factors involved in the Party's poor performance. Nevertheless I urge comrades to seriously consider the suggestion On another matter I've just come back from the Socialism versus Capitalism FB site (see my previous post) . The place is mayhem, just buzzing with responses and I can't keep up. I see Comrade Alan Hendrie has just posted stuff linking to SPGB material and is already getting responses. It just illustrates the kind of opportunities that are available. The SPGB could and should avail themselves of these opportunities and make far greater use of the internet than it does as Vin suggested. As an experiment why don't folk here converge on that particular FB, blitz it continually for a short period of time and see what comes of it. Just as an experiment. You might be pleasantly surprised!
