SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:Actually we are known well outside the hard left. Amongst the soft left too and beyond them to people who are interested in politics generally and of course labour historians. And there are many other writers, essayists and bloggers like the one Vin has drawn attention to on another thread some of whom will be ex-members. I agree that this is still only a small percentage of the population in general but it's the same minority which would be interested at first in some new (ly named) party. So why throw away the progress we have already made in getting known amongst such people? It would be bonkers to change our name and throw all this away. I mentioned before what I think is the way forward. It's to keep our official name (with its history) but emphasise more that we are part of a World Socialist Movement, a name we have also registered with the Electoral Commission and used on the ballot paper for the recent Euroelections.We have also registered "World Socialist Party (UK)" as a variant of our name and so could use this on the ballot paper now without having to change our full name.The words "World Socialism" are also on the emblem, to go against our candidates' name on the ballot paper, which is presently under consideration and which will also be registered with the Electoral Commission.
Is it important if the Party is known among the hard, middle or soft left, they're not hammering at head office to join or help bring about a socialist revolution. They are in it for their own sake, not for the workers of the world. Has the left knowing about the SPGB all these years put a stop to the decline of the Party?As for any sympathy with any academics etc there might be mileage that could be exploited in why the SPGB should be changing names after 110 years.Lets face it it's not even a radical change, World is put in front of Socialist Party and (GB) is put in brackets, and as ALB says there already exists a variant using UK instead of GB, registered with the electoral office. But having half a dozen identities is rather ridiculous and I have to question the mindset that thought it a good idea to cover all bases with different names. Reminds me of the Mad Hatters tea party.
ALB wrote:It would be bonkers to change our name and throw all this away."Bonkers" is a good word to describe the Party approach to names and identities so far, and it is to the credit of Kent and Sussex Regional Branch to get to grips with it. And as I don't expect the SPGB members to go for a alteration to the name at least some consistency can be found.So to summarise the defence of the status quo, we have1) Known to the left and those with political OCD2) Known to political bloggers and essayists3) "Bonkers" to throw away the aboveAt some point in the future the WSM will grow with more and more World Socialist Parties springing up and it is my view that at some point there will be murmuring of elitism aimed in the direction of two parties that insisted on keeping their traditional identities. I see those two parties for the sake of solidarity and equality, changing their identities to outwardly reflect that of the majority of World Socialist Parties. There will be no room for even a whiff of elitism in the form of conservative tradition within the WSM. If that day comes, it will be more painful for the two minority parties. If the SPGB were to take that step today, (and I don't mean before the general election) it would be easier considering the low membership and stable finances. All sympathisers and interested academics and essayists could be notified, of the upcoming change.The press department would kick into high gear putting out press releases telling of the 110 year old party adapting its name in solidarity with the growing WSM. It could be the biggest relevant publicity drive the Party has ever known. The history and identity of the Party could be legally secured. In reality the SPGB has more to gain than lose,
Nice tactic Gnome. If you can't provide any answers, just wheel out the, "We've already spent the money, so there", defence.
Spot on BTS (hope you are ok with BTS, if not just say).The Party needs a brand that reflects the aim of World Socialism. I can't see any valid reason that a change would be detrimental to the Party.From the experience of BTS, one name, one logo, one brand reflecting the aim would have made it easier to distinguish and locate for people who are looking for an alternative.I think some of the defensiveness when it comes to the history of the Party name, is the battle with the left wing. As if the constant squabble over who is more socialist, will somehow win converts. It's a lost cause.Let's be honest about this, what name and brand paints an image of global socialism?The Socialist Party of Great BritainorWorld Socialist Party (GB)
Hilarious, I had a good laugh.. That's the stuff he's probably saying, in private, to his Bullingdon chums.
gnome wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:I'm glad that after 110 years the Party is on its way to getting a consistent recognisable image.So am I; in fact I'm positively delirious.
Quote:Earlier you said:gnome wrote:But in reality the name is relatively unimportant;But it's still preferable to keep the name we already have.Now if you'll excuse me I have some important party work still to do before I get my head down for the night.
If a name is unimportant, as you stated, why is it preferable to keep the existing name? There must be a reason or reasons why the existing name is preferable?
gnome wrote:We have a name; we've had it for 110 years, and we're on our way to getting a consistent recognisable image.I'm glad that after 110 years the Party is on its way to getting a consistent recognisable image.Earlier you said:
gnome wrote:But in reality the name is relatively unimportant;gnome wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:The biggest reason provided for sticking to the status quo name wise, is history, or more precisely public profile. So the SPGB need to look at its public profile to see if a name change would do harm as far as that goes. In other words would a change of name to World Socialist Party (GB) loose the party potential new members. Is that at all likely?More pertinent a question is would a change of name do more good than harm? But in reality the name is relatively unimportant; we want workers to examine the contents of the bottle and not simply make a cursory observation of the label on it. If that's all we think workers are capable of then we'd better drop any pretence or reference to socialism.
Hi GnomeThe only problem with what you say regarding the unimportance of name, is that your own branch seems to think a consistent image is important and name is part of image etc. Unfortunately without a solid, consistent image people don't get a chance to examine the contents.If name is unimportant, then where is the harm in adopting a World Socialist Party identity. To borrow a phrase, "It does exactly what it says on the tin."World, the planet on which we all live and share in its fortune/misfortune. Socialist, common ownership and democratic control of the worlds resources by the people of the world for the people of the world. Party, suggesting the political context. And for all those with a Great Britain fetish, we place it in its relevant place (GB) in brackets simply as location identification.As to any harm to the party, the membership is probably at its lowest ever. I also suspect, that if the Party did an up to date membership audit it would probably find less members than previously thought. As far as I'm aware Party finances are in good health. What about public profile.Just how well known is the SPGB with the British public? Alan has already suggested the Party commission a poll to find that out. I came across figures that point to there being around forty seven million registered voters in the UK. A poll could give an idea as to how many of those people may have heard of the SPGB. Another pertinent question would also be, what harm do Party members think a change of name could do to the SPGB?
Some miss the point of this thread.The Socialist Party of Great Britain does not conjure up an identity of world socialism. It is that simple.As I pointed out a few posts ago the WSM now consists of five parties on four continents. Three of those parties go by the tag of World Socialist Party. There is no ambiguity when it comes to the goal of world socialism for three of the five socialist parties.The biggest reason provided for sticking to the status quo name wise, is history, or more precisely public profile. So the SPGB need to look at its public profile to see if a name change would do harm as far as that goes. In other words would a change of name to World Socialist Party (GB) loose the party potential new members. Is that at all likely?
I've taken this from the Kent and Sussex Regional Branch thread, as it highlights change over time in the expression of socialism.
gnome wrote:steve colborn wrote:The use of archaic terminology, ie Great Britain is, IMHO, an anchor to an outdated and failed past and "does not" reflect our objective.Like here perhaps?Declaration of Principle 8 wrote:The Socialist Party of Great Britain, therefore, enters the field of political action determined to wage war against all other political parties, whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist, and calls upon the members of the working class of this country to muster under its banner to the end that a speedy termination may be wrought to the system which deprives them of the fruits of their labour, and that poverty may give place to comfort, privilege to equality, and slavery to freedom.
SocialistPunk wrote:I note with interest that there is no mention of world socialism, instead what we have is "…and calls upon the members of the working class of this country…"In the internet age, the SPGB no longer communicates to just the workers of the UK and can truly see itself as part of a global socialist movement with five parties now in existence on four continents.The time will come when the socialist parties of Canada and Britain change their identity to that of World Socialist Party (location) status. My view is, that time is now.
gnome wrote:steve colborn wrote:The use of archaic terminology, ie Great Britain is, IMHO, an anchor to an outdated and failed past and "does not" reflect our objective.Like here perhaps?
Declaration of Principle 8 wrote:The Socialist Party of Great Britain, therefore, enters the field of political action determined to wage war against all other political parties, whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist, and calls upon the members of the working class of this country to muster under its banner to the end that a speedy termination may be wrought to the system which deprives them of the fruits of their labour, and that poverty may give place to comfort, privilege to equality, and slavery to freedom.I note with interest that there is no mention of world socialism, instead what we have is "…and calls upon the members of the working class of this country…"
Hi OzyI couldn't use the link you posted so…… http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2014/oct/01/george-monbiot-war-on-the-living-world-wildlifeI think I've got a Guardian account, so will give a crack at engaging with some of the comments about the article. Not now though, it's time for my beauty sleep.
Absolutely spot on YMS.I've read some crap on another Party site and this should put an end to it. Hopefully it will allow the North East Branch to get on with what they wish to do, to facilitate the spread of socialist awareness. I can't imagine true socialists would wish to prevent that.
More on the "social cleansing" in London.
Russell Brand wrote:Maybe we'll put something together worth voting for….among us.Hi JSAn interesting article. I like the statement I've quoted below. As Ozy and Rodshaw say there are stirrings, whether it be from the likes of TZM and TVP or the PLM (who identify themselves as socialist). It would seem that environmental issues are a major driving force for these movements."An alternative path to the neoliberal-capitalist development model is needed: a 21st century socialist alternative. This is no time to tinker at the edges, pleading for minor changes. The capitalist system must be dismantled and a socialist system must be constructed, one that is based on social and economic solidarity and the power of the masses – a ‘bayanihang sosyalismo’ for the 21st century. There is no capitalist sustainability. A 21st century socialist alternative gives us more than a fighting chance to address the climate crisis."A question party members may be able to shed light on. There seem to be a few groups advocating similar aims as the WSM, is this something new or has it always been an idea ebbing and flowing through the last century? Hopefully we are on the cusp of a major shift in peoples consciousness, perhaps driven by the necessities of environmental sustainability and survival of our species rather than a political argument.Imagine if all such movements, WSM, TZM, TVP, PLM and others could be united under an umbrella of commonality. The desire to achieve a moneyless, leaderless, global community of democratic common ownership, that could responsibly sustain our development as a species well into the future.That would be a force to be reckoned with.
Here's an interesting question, could we describe The Venus Project and TZM as socialists? Might sound like a bit of a daft question, to all concerned but I would consider people who have ideas such as this, fellow travelers along the road to a truly human society.I guess it depends on how a socialist is defined?Just a little something to think about.
