[rodmanlewis]

Then there are these extra questions:Q: How many members do you have?Q: It is noticed that some founding members of your organisation left and joined reformist organisations. Can you explain this?Q: When socialism is established, will you open the prisons and let everyone out?Q: What will be the driving force in a socialist society. What will motivate people to get up in the morning?Q. Will socialism be a static society?

[rodmanlewis]

Leaving out all my unsold Socialist Standards for recycling.

[rodmanlewis]

Vin,I'm sure this can be done by party members. It will be like the speaker's test, but done in an aggressive manner to hone the members skills in dealing with hostile interviewers.Imagine a scenario of, say, two interviewers (played by party members) firing incessant, and often irrelevant, questions at the interviewee, not giving them time to answer properly, and the interviewee insisting that he deal with the questions in full, In other words, not allow themselves to be intimidated.There's also the question of radio phone-ins where the presenter can switch you off at a moment's notice before you can fully outline the socialist case. You have to try to anticipate what the presenter is going to ask, and try to expand on what you have said, thus making it more difficult for the presenter to drift off into irrelevancies. The interviewee, if necessary, can make a comment like: "As I suspected would happen, I am being asked the wrong questions.Just a few thoughts.

[rodmanlewis]

I think that members who are going to be in the "public eye" need to have done more than pass the speaker's test. They need to be trained on how to deal with grilling by a hostile interviewer; spot trick questions; bring the discussion back on track when it is starting to drift; insist on dealing with key points of the socialist case etc.      Julian Vein

[rodmanlewis]

What you seem to be saying is that the better we put our case across the lower the vote will be!

[rodmanlewis]

jondwhite wrote:

rodmanlewis wrote:

Why should a non-member be concerned about who we do and do not expel?

Because the SPGB have a unique responsibility to the working-class as evidenced by policies including our completely open meetings policy. Why else should the working-class support the Socialist Party?

That's true, but if someone chooses not to be a member, we can assume he doesn't agree with SPGB's stand on everything. In other words, he's waiting for us to change our principles and practices until they suit him."When the party decides to do this, that and the other, then I'll (re-)join you."

[rodmanlewis]

Now, did he leave because he disagreed with the socialist case as expounded by the SPGB, or does he think they are not socialist (enough)?

[rodmanlewis]

Why should a non-member be concerned about who we do and do not expel?

[rodmanlewis]

A couple of points not mentioned are was Nally committing TUSC to breaking the law, and was there a "law-breaking" clause in his election address?Anyway, the more important thing is his reformist (and, therefore, capitalism-maintaining) policies.

[Author]

Posts