SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
So what happens if the SPgb find themselves with just over a majority of Socialist MPs (shudder) in parliament?How do they move from there to dismantling The State?
Vin Maratty wrote:Going to parliament and doing nothing (apart from preventing it being used against the socialist re organisation) appears to contradict principle 6. This principle seems to suggest that socialists will be very busy in parliament.That as the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers, the working class must organize consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic.This has been discussed briefly on another thread, but is a very important topic.I never saw that as any clear cut instruction as to what Socialist MPs (that sounds awful) might get up to if voted into parliament, whether doing nothing or supporting beneficial reforms. In fact it doesn't mention parliament at all. The closest it comes is "conquest of the powers of government".I had thought that parliament was representing the electorate, whomever they are at any given time. Whereas a government does the governing.In fact that brings up the issue of what happens if the people decide to use the SPgb, as elected representatives to gain control of the powers of the state, and the SPgb become the majority in parliament. Do they form a peoples government to dismantle the capitalist system? Presumably this must also take place in a substantial amount of countries to be viable.But would there be a Socialist Party of Great Britain government for a brief period?
ALB wrote:Sorry, cobber. I hadn't realised. It was meant to be read as Ess Punk as in 'Ell Bird.No worries mate. Just yanking ya chain.
Another article that exposes the muddled mind of a "Rockstar"http://www.ibtimes.com/bono-600m-net-worth-musician-whose-u2-band-poster-child-tax-avoidance-slams-big-oil-tax-avoidance
Quote:"The countries of Africa are extremely rich in resources, but why are they poor?" Bono asked Tuesday at this week's Clinton Global Initiative in New York."These rich extractive industries aren't returning the wealth to the people in any kind of fair measure. You can't have it both ways. You can't give alms to the poor on one hand and have your hands on their throat on the other."I wonder if this bloke thinks before he opens his trap.
Quote:Bono defended the tax avoidance by stating that U2 was simply acting like any other business, and any country with tax measures such as Ireland implemented in 2006 should expect some businesses to move out. He also said there is a social benefit to low taxesSpot on Alan, Bonio thinks so much of his beloved Ireland that even with its competitive tax system for "wealth creators", he and his group relocated their financial affairs abroad for an even better rate.
Quote:Bono has previously attracted controversy for the band’s tax arrangements. In 2006 the band transferred the company that handles its publishing royalties from Ireland to the Netherlands to reduce its tax bill.ALB wrote:And I thought this was a thread to discuss SPunk not LBird.Hi ALBI'm not so keen on being referred to as SPunk, here's why.spunkRefers to semenal fluid, and also means to ejaculate. However if you're refering to the below, then I could live with it. spunkA cute guy. Usually only NZ and Australian use.
A couple of questions Gnome.
gnome wrote:As a member of a branch who, by dint of its regular literature stalls, has arguably had more contact with workers than any other branch over the past couple of years, I have personally lost track of the number of occasions when workers, predominately young workers, have thought we were something to do with the outfit otherwise known as the ex-Millies.Do you get the impression that the young people you have spoken to would have differentiated the SPgb from the ex-Militant group by the words, Great Britain used at the end of the Party name?
gnome wrote:It will come as no surprise that I favour using the full name of the party on most occasions and certainly where confusion with a similarly named organisation is not only likely but virtually unavoidable.You say you are in favour of the full Party title on "most occasions". Surely to avoid any ambiguity it would be better to pick one and stick to it on all occasions?
Alan, I think you're definately onto something. You've talked before about the potential of the internet and Party identity. I've highlighted in bold the bit that has put into words the vision I was trying to convey. So simple and obvious it's beautiful.
alanjjohnstone wrote:I suggested a while back on some thread or another that if we have been successful using Skype for EC meetings then we should delve further into its usage…or the interactive system Brian J believes is an improvement that TZM uses for their worldwide internet discussions to hold WSM conferences eventually in the long run leading to a unified World Socialist Party.At some point in the development of the WSM, prospective members will become members of a unified World Party, with countries becoming mere geographical identifiers on a digital map. In readiness for that time it would be sensible for the SPgb to adopt it now.The SPgb is probably not growing, a few new members are likely just replacing members lost to old age and ones who become disheartened. To grow the Party needs to excite a younger active audience. In this digital age, what is likely to do that, clinging to an Edwardian identity that gives off a slight, unintentional nationalistic air, or one that embraces a global identity?
Vin Maratty wrote:I know I keep repeating myself but:I don't think we need a name change, we need to use the same name in the same style on every public document. Simples The Socialist Party (WSM) in a unique and distinctive style. I can't understand why members would wish to continue the confusion by using different names: Like the top of this siteI have to say a bunch of school kids setting up a project group would agree on a single logo for their group and not use a multitude of confusing images.Why is it so difficult for people to grasp?Lots of styles and names result in a party hidden from public view.A very valid point Vin, whatever the outcome of this discussion it is painfully obvious that the Party needs to decide what name and identity it wants to be known by. A school kids project would have this issue sorted out early on. It's basic stuff.I don't see it as a case of members not being able to grasp it, rather a case of difference of opinion as to which of the two identities the Party needs to rally under. ALB said on another thread, the Party thought it had been done in 1988, but as can be seen with this discussion so far the Party has been unable to pin it down. If "lawyerly" argument over interpretation happens every time an attempt is made, it doesn't bode well for a socialist revolution.My suggestion for adopting the World Socialist Party tag is about more than a simple name change. It's about becoming a clearly recognisable part of a world movement, not to mention it would present a much needed PR oportunity.Then there's the added bonus of the multi identity problem being left behind once and for all.But whatever happens the Party desperately needs one identity.
If the blurb regarding Party polls is still in the Party rule book then, as Steve says it isn't open to interpretation regarding Conference votes being just as good as a Party poll.I imagine Party polls are useful to deal conclusively with issues of considerable singular importance, and are not used that often. As such they carry considerable weight, probably the reason why they must be overturned by another poll.
YMS wrote:Not really, another conference resolution could do the trick. Always go to the lowest level body that can do the job. In fact a branch poll or floor resolution could clarify the interpretation between the various resolutionsNot really sure what to make of the above quote, it seems to accept that Party polls are the higher authority, yet claims the mess can be cleared up with "the lowest level body that can do the job". That is precisely what has happened, a decision to eliminate a multiple identity Party crisis, has been "whittled away" by Conference decisions with the interpretation that Conference is just like a Party poll. And what a mess that has made.In reality I'm not really that bothered whether or not the SPgb bends its own rules to suit whomever. For me it's simply further proof that the squabble over multi identities will never go away. The move back to the full title with Great Britain in it, has probably come about as a reaction to the lack of success the abbreviated title has brought. The probability is very high that the opposite will happen sometime in the not too distant future. So it will continue, until at some point a growing WSM takes charge and ends the problem for the SPgb. Why wait til that day? Why keep repeating the same damaging mistakes over and over.The Party needs one identity, one Public Image. Surely it is obvious which one, World Socialist Party (..).
If you want to get "lawerly" YMS, there is cross over with some of the details between the 1988 Conference and those of 2008 and 2014. That suggests a Party poll is needed to clear the decks, so to speak.
Steve has a point.If it says in the rules Conference is a Party poll, then thats fair enough. Party polls are obselete and the rules need updating.
Hi DJPI found this and it seems to confirm what I previously thought. I've highlighted the relevant part and unless this is out of date (and if it is why) then….PARTY POLLS26. A poll of the Party shall be taken at any time by the Executive Committee; it shall also be taken at the request of a Delegate Meeting, or Conference, or by four or more Branches sending in a requisition stating the matter upon which the poll is desired. The Executive Committee shall call a specially summoned Party Meeting before the issue of Ballot Papers. At such meetings only motions concerned with procedures shall be tabled. Branches shall hold at least one specially summoned meeting to discuss each Party Poll. The returning date of voting papers to be twenty-eight days from the date of issue. A Party Poll shall be interpreted to mean that every Party member shall receive a separate ballot paper and vote individually, i.e., as in the method adopted for the election of Party Officers. The result of a Party Poll shall overrule all other decisions (i.e., EC, Conference or previous Party Poll decisions). (N.B. For Party Poll on Executive Committee and Party Officers' vacancies, see Rule 12.) Addendum: Branch polls may be called by the EC or any Branch, suggesting a wording for a resolution. If an absolute majority of Branches pass the resolution, the EC shall consider it as if it were a floor resolution
Now the pointless needling is finished with, I can get on with the discussion.
Young Master Smeet wrote:SP,What the party poll said was, in effect, that conference is to be obeyed, Conference has since changed its instructions. Nothing untoward there. If the party poll had said "the form of name shall be the Fishcakes Party" then we'd need a party poll to change the name (or form of name), as it is it said "please abide by a conference decision". A little lawyerly, I know. Some people may care, many do not.Hi YMSYour post reads a little muddled YMS. I think you are confusing the various Conference decisions and the one Party poll.Let's try this. As I understand things, a 1988 Conference decided to emphasise the use of The Socialist Party over the Socialist Party of Great Britain. The two names having been in use simultaneously since 1904.A 1991 Party poll ratified or "enforced" the 1988 Conference decision on the use of The Socialist Party as the preferred title. It also rejected a move to allow members to use the Great Britain version if they felt like it.So the scene is set in 1991 for the Party to at last have one specific public identity.Obviously a democratic organisation like the SPgb can over time change its mind over various issues. No problem with that. So seventeen years later a 2008 Conference decided to officially endorse the use of the title, The Socialist Party of Great Britain in some areas.You have pointed out the wording of the 2008 Conference does not mean all restrictions on using Great Britain have been lifted. So what we have as a result of the 2008 Conference decision is a return to the multiple identity confusion the 1988 Conference and 1991 Party poll sought to get to grips with once and for all.Then there is the constitutional aspect of the Party poll still trumping other decisions. Technically it means that the 2008 Conference decision is invalid. That could have been avoided if a Party poll had been called to overturn the poll of 1991. Logic dictates that any wish for a return to the multiple name usage, the 1991 poll tried to remedy, would require removing the technical barrier of the 1991 Party poll. A constitutional requirement, surely? The reason why I bring this up, is this thread is about the future identity of the SPgb. I advocate the SPgb adopting the World Socialist Party identity. An identity that once and for all frees the Party from the squabbling and confusion of multiple identities. I'm aware that some get very uncomfortable when these issues are brought up in public, more especially when it's by a non Party member. But if I had been allowed to get on with what I was trying to ascertain, then it may have been apparent sooner that my intentions are in fact noble. Though I suspect some will still think otherwise.
