[SocialistPunk]

When I talk about socialism on various online posting sites that are not specifically political, I am reluctant  to use the term "the workers" when talking about a socialist vision for the world. I tend to use "the people", as it comes across more inclusive and avoids a protracted argument about class, that inevitably ends up with some referring to the "middle class"etc.I am aware that it could be seen as a dilution of socialism/communism, but if you can get people to start to think about an alternative way of organising society, it probably does more good than squabbling over who or who isn't working class or  middle class. Then there is the issue of who constitutes the ruling class. 

[SocialistPunk]

Unfortunately Gnome, I do have a lot of time on my hands these days, I am also unfortunately unable to engage in my previous hobbies. But seeing as there is little of the social aspect of socialism on this site, I expect you don't give a damn.What is a bit weird is you are accusing me of having too much time on my hands, yet you keep digging up stupid pictures that have nothing to do with this thread.As for tediousness, you do nothing but post irrelevant pictures, when you have little to actually add to a debate.   I ask again, will you engage in this thread using reasoned argument or continue trying to derail this thread with pointless pictures and sarcastic comments?

[SocialistPunk]

SocialistPunk wrote:

So I invite Gnome to dispute what I say using reasoned argument, instead of the usual "It's our Party and your not invited, so there." approach.

 

gnome wrote:

 

It's embarrassingly obvious that gnome has nothing worth contributing to this thread, other than childish blather. He's been invited to present a reasoned response to my ideas and enquiries and this is what he provides.If a forum member finds a thread too challenging, boredom often sets in, so the best bit of advice I can offer is, just don't read it.Try this instead.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb3kR6XXvWE

[SocialistPunk]

Thanks ALBI suspected the Party would at some point answered such a challenge.When I read the bit about the capitalist class not having hands on involvement with the running of capitalism, workers do it all etc. One word kept spinning around my little brain, socialisation. The system is self perpetuating, with institutions confirming the bias in favour of minority ownership. I mean, it's a little obvious that capitalism didn't just suddenly pop into existence from thin air, it evolved into existence with many of the old feudal institutions continuing the ideology of minority control. I thought that bit was a little obvious. I'm sure the Party reply was much more in depth though.

[SocialistPunk]

jondwhite wrote:

What else is the answer to charges of sectarianism? Or the charges put by George Walford herehttp://gwiep.net/wp/?p=387As you can imagine, it takes a good deal to leave me speechless. But that did, the first time I heard it. The blind, unthinking conceit of that answer! If you disagree with the Socialist Party that shows you don’t understand them. They have nothing to learn from anybody. There is no possibility of anybody knowing more than they do and no possibility of them being wrong.

Hi JDWDo you or anyone in the Party know if this challenge was ever answered?

[SocialistPunk]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Short answer, IIRC the party poll itself merely affirmed that the cofnerence result should be enforced, rather than affirming an express policy. Teh second answer is that since the mebers who wanted to go to the wall over the issue have all left, and the majority never don't give a damn about the name.  Who, after all, cares about what the name on the the Head Office Feaces is?

I'm not sure if you read my post correctly YMS but the highlighted section below is saying that the Party poll is in effect a tool of enforcement, so you (see highlighted section above) have simply confirmed my point about the Party poll being to ensure no "whittling" takes place. Only it wasn't "enforced", as a slow return to the use of the full name has occured. Also if a Party poll confirms a conference decision, would that not then become policy? Imagine if a Party poll confirmed a mood for a name change to that which I advocate, World Socialist Party (..), surely it would then become Party policy to use that title?

SocialistPunk wrote:

As has been pointed out, technically the decision still holds as only a Party poll can overturn a Party poll. I expect that rule is in place to ensure "whittling away" of Party wide decisions can't take place?

Question, can a Party poll be overturned by anything other than another Party poll? The answer as far as I can tell, is no.Another question, if the Party mood had changed so dramaticaly as to want a return to the full name use, why not instigate a Party poll to overturn the one in question, and seal the deal 100%?These are Party rules under discussion here, are they not?Secondly it would seem that members do "give a damn about the name" as there is still disagreement to this day over the use of The Socialist Party and The Socialist Party of Great Britain. There is also a diference of opinion over what should be on the Head Office fascia, and some care so much to see it changed. If everything was ok regarding what version of the Party name to use, I would not be asking these questions now. It's not like I'm making this stuff up, it exists. I'm just confused as to how an organisation that places huge importance on procedural structure can allow  the "whittling away" of Party wide decisions?Your post makes no sense.,

[SocialistPunk]

Hi VinIf I've got this right, back then a number of members were kicked out for going against a Party decision to use The Socialist Party as opposed to The Socialist Party of Great Britain? That in 1991 a Party poll ratified the use of the shortened title.As a Party poll can only be overturned by another Party poll, you would expect that to be the end of the matter. But it wasn't. ALB has spoken of the "whitling away" of the decision, to the point that now The Socialist Party of Great Britain is once again back in widespread use, with it soon to be in place over the Party headquarters in London.How has that happened? Have the membership that voted in 1991 via a Party poll changed their mind so much as to forget as to why a not insignificant number of members were expelled. That expulsion was a big deal back then, from what I've heard. It now looks like it was a waste of time and more importantly of Party members.How can a Party wide democratic decision taken in 1991, via Party poll presumably to settle once and for all the issue, be whittled away? As has been pointed out, technically the decision still holds as only a Party poll can overturn a Party poll. I expect that rule is in place to ensure "whittling away" of Party wide decisions can't take place?

[SocialistPunk]

gnome wrote:

Mistaken identity or what?  This station may serve as a training ground for our candidates and speakers but overall is it doing us any favours?Helen Pattison of The 'Socialist Party', not to be confused with The Socialist Party of Great Britain, on Voice of Africa radio with Elizabeth Jones of UKIP.  Starts at 6.40 minutes in…http://www.mixcloud.com/davidallen3139/ukip-rep-goes-nuts-telling-people-to-shut-up-live-on-air-and-she-wants-to-run-the-country/ 

I had a quick listen to that, I spilt my cup of tea when Jones loses it.UKIP showing their true colours once again. 

[SocialistPunk]

gnome wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

If a full Party debate has not been undertaken, a scenario may arise where the supporters of one side of the debate get extra undemocratic leverage.

That's a little rich coming from someone who's not a member but has prolific forum leverage nonetheless.A full Party debate has been undertaken over recent decades, incessantly, and the outcome, with the exception of an aberrant period which resulted in the loss of two branches and over 40 members, has been consistent.

1986 Party Poll wrote:

Are you in favour of changing the name of the Party to World Socialist Party (Britain)? Lost 72-229

2014 Conference resolution wrote:

In furtherance of the resolution of Conference 2008 this Conference resolves that the full name of the Party be included on the HO fascia. Carried 61-38

 

All I am suggesting in light of the growing WSM is that the SPGB move into line with overseas comrades and adopt the title of World Socialist Party. It openly speaks of a global view of the aims of the Party in this digital age. The 1986 decision to reject a name change happened before there was widespread use of the term WSM (it may not even have been a concept  then) and the internet as we know it today was not in existence, so instant global communication hadn't yet made the world a much smaller place with the possibilities it offers. The SPGB is bogged down with too many identities, so it makes sense to jetison unecessary identities in favour of one. I happen to think a one that reflects the global aim of socialism would be more appropriate at this stage in the development of the WSM, rather than sticking with one that has a hint of national pride, simply for the sake of conservative tradition.I never, ever expected to see the Party, I saw as transcending capitalist ideology, cherishing concepts as tradition. What has happened? I'll say it again, the time is right. The SPGB membership is at an all time low, so a change would be less painfull, though not for the conservative traditionalists. Party finances are good right now, so fear of losing a legacy or two is irelevant. Historical identity can be legaly protected. A big publicity campaign could be organised and there is a lot of potential mileage in the story of the SPGB quest for solidarity with a growing WSM. It could potentialy change the old Edwardian image of the Party to that of a vibrant growing movement. Spin, spin and more spin can be put on the story.There are more reasons to make the change now than there were in 1986. There is also the issue of the Party poll in 1992 ratifying the use of The Socialist Party over the Socialist Party of Great Britain, that technicaly over rules later conference decisions.So I invite Gnome to dispute what I say using reasoned argument, instead of the usual "It's our Party and your not invited, so there." approach.

[SocialistPunk]

I guess the answer to this question depends on whether or not SPgb party members believe in participatory democracy?

[SocialistPunk]

gnome wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

Everyone on this forum is already aware that you like to make a big deal about non Party members offering views about the Party.

Spot on, Cobber.  Those who have so much apparent interest in the Party and concern about its affairs and wellbeing should apply for membership.

Gnome dear chap,You only post stuff like this because you can't put up a good case to counter what I say regarding the pros and cons of a name change. So I'll continue to post on any issue I so please, on this open socialist forum, whether you like it or not.The socialist who introduced me to socialism when I was in my teens, would say,"If you can prove me wrong I'll accept it."          

[SocialistPunk]

Thank you very much Gnome, I never would see myself as having any kind of leverage over Party decisions whatsoever. I am simply a guest of the Party on an open forum.Everyone on this forum is already aware that you like to make a big deal about non Party members offering views about the Party.

[SocialistPunk]

ALB wrote:

I think we need to draw a distinction between our "emblem" on the ballot paper (which is an immediate issue) and a general logo (which has been discussed for over 20 years without being able to come to a decision).We are registered with the Electoral Commission to contest elections under our full name of "The Socialist Party of Great Britain". They will not let us use or register as a variant "The Socialist Party". What we can use (and do) is "The Socialist Party (GB)". I suppose, because we have registered "World Socialist Movement" as a variant, we might be able to get away with our emblem saying "The Socialist Party World Socialist Movement". Also, we are entitled to register three different "emblems", so we could register both.This is an immediate issue that needs resolving before next year's general election and cannot wait for a Conference resolution but we could get an indicative vote at ADM in a couple of weeks. Unlike the less immediate but still important issue of a general logo and the not at all immediate issue of a complete change of name.

Adam,BTSomerset already pointed out that they found the array of diferent socialist identities confusing, so what do you suppose using something along the lines of "The Socialist Party World Socialist Movement" might do? More confusion. If SPGB was used at the Euro elections then it would be better to stick to that at the upcoming general election.What I and BTS (with sympathy from Alan) are suggesting is that the Party makes things a whole lot simpler and more loaded up with meaning. By adopting permenently World Socialis Party (…). It could be (UK) as already exists or it could be (GB).I'm sure the historical identity of the Partycould be protedted legaly.As BTS points out it wouldn't take long for sympathisers etc to get used to the name change, especialy if the Party makes a huge effort in going public about it.I've never advocated a rush for a name change, as it is an issue that needs a lot of discussion. It is only my intention to debate the pros and cons of the issue. So far there is not a lot of solid reasoning coming from the supporters of the status quo.As to a logo. A great idea, but while the question of The Socialist Party or SPGB is still undecided, it makes no sense to launch into hastily deciding one for the upcoming elections, until a full Party debate can be undertaken (unless it already has). If a full Party debate has not been undertaken, a scenario may arise where the supporters of one side of the debate get extra undemocratic leverage.

[SocialistPunk]

If confusion "is always likely" doesn't that make the 2008 resolution wording a bit pointless.It should have said something along the lines of "As confusion is always likely, the Party should use the full name in all situations".

[SocialistPunk]

There is also the issue AlB has brought up several times on various threads, regarding the Party poll in 1992, I believe, that ratified the Party's decision to use The Socialist Party whenever possible. ALB also mentioned that a Party poll can only be overturned by another Party poll.There is a lot of confusion and complication regarding the Party name, I suspect some of it has come about as a result of not wishing to lose ground to the left wing on matters relating to socialism. That would explain why a small party have half a dozen socialist identities?[edit] I see you got the Party poll issue in before I'd finished my typing Steve. A very valid point of Party rules as far as I can tell

[Author]

Posts