[SocialistPunk]

ALB wrote:

Steve, YMS is not talking about the particular case in question but about the general principle of it being legitimate to take into account what any ex-member applying to rejoin said while a previous member exercising their right to criticise the party, a principle which Socialist Punk has challenged as undemocratic. This is a discussion about this general principle. I don't think this general principle can be challenged, even if its application in a particular case could be.

(my bold)Hang on there one minute Adam. I can see history repeating itself here. This is how situations take on a life and mythology of their own.Please can you provide evidence of where I state anything about the party procedures being undemocratic? The most I have said of what is going on, is that it tarnishes the spirit of democracy, in that there appears to be some conflict of interest contained within it.Of course the party needs to consider the rejoining of ex members who go against the principles of the party, it's common sense. I have never denied this fact. The imaginary scenarios used to distract from reality are examples where party members do not accept party policy and rules etc. In effect not socialists.They could be seen as negative, non constructive critcism. Whereas in the real world the criticism Vin engaged in was positive, in highlighting problematic unsocialist views and actions by a small minority. In this real life situ' such criticism is perfectly acceptable as it does not conflict with party policy.I am now starting to believe that if I applied to rejoin, my criticism here would probably be used against me. That would then be a rejection of an ex member on the grounds he believed  in too much democracy.  

[SocialistPunk]

I am unsure if I have entered some surreal universe on this thread. Some people seem to insist on derailing the topic by insisting on generalisations and imaginary scenarios. Conveniently forgetting that the present discussion was triggered by an actual event. Not only that, the instigator of the event in question has spoken openly of his reasons for his actions on this thread. We are dealing with a real situ here. It is easy to unravel this. Did Vin go against party policy in criticising the things he found disturbing? The stuff I have quoted below is mostly personal opinion, based on one persons slant of long past events.This needs confronting openly to ensure Vins case is dealt with on a factual basis and not left to personal animosities. The party prides itself on using facts to challenge capitalism, rather than emotion/morality etc. This case should be no different.So here we go again. Did Vin break party rules and regulations, as has been insinuated recently by YMS? A simple question requiring a simple answer.  

Ed wrote:

I am perfectly happy to explain my reasons for moving that the form A from Mr Marratty be rejected. The main cause being the behavior of the former member when leaving the party. Where, when it was clear that the EC would not bow to his demands he set about a campaign to discredit the party across various forums and social media Accusing the party of being undemocratic and homophobic among other things. In my opinion his actions have caused lasting damage to the party's reputation and thus qualifies as action detrimental to the party. A charge that would have been filed against the member had he not resigned before it could be put into action. A very convenient way to avoid such a sanction which would have excluded him from membership. It is my opinion that the former member would likely behave in the same way under the same circumstances if he were to be readmitted.                      

---

Vin this is not a punishment. I believe that due to your past behaviour you pose a risk to the party if you were to be admitted as a member. This is a preventative measure. It is my opinion that the risk of you repeating your past behaviour is one that the party would be stupid to take. The fact that you don't even seem to remember denouncing the party as homophobic and undemocratic while you were still a memebre only shows that you have learned nothing from your past mistakes and proves to me that they would likely happen again.                    

---

 As per usual the tag teaming begins.Alan, Marratty denounced the party as homophobic while still a member. Is this acceptable behaviour for a member of the party? Is this not behaviour which you would call detrimental to the party's causeMarratty & Colborn you haven't changed. I can already see you resuming your usual tag teaming games. Painting yourself as victims when you were the perpetrators. Sickening. Accusing others of driving people out of the party when it is you who force members to the point of resigning. You hounded me across various threads for months. I did in fact go back and read them before I made my decision which certainly confirmed it. The way I was treated was disgusting and frankly the party failed to provide a safe space for me. I have no doubts that you will do the same to some other unsuspecting member. Probably after a few drinks…

[SocialistPunk]

ALB wrote:

Socialist Punk, I don't know why you are pursuing this matter so zealously. Obviously, the party has a right to question an applicant even an ex-member who criticised the party when they were a member. Imagine the case of a member who, as they are perfectly entitled to as confirmed by that 1973 conference resolution, criticised the party for, for instance, not advocating reforms or for thinking that parliament should be used to get to socialism. There is nothing to prevent them expressing this view. Imagine then that they resign and later apply to rejoin. Clearly, they would have to be questioned on this and in fact if they hadn't change their view could have their application rejected.So, the general position is clear. That's the general principle but only one EC member has said that it should apply in the particular case you are concerned about to bar an ex- member re-joining. It was not the view of the Membership Application Committee, nor of the 2 EC members who voted against. It wasn't even the view of the other 2 present who voted to reject the application. I doubt it's the view of the other 5 EC members who were not present. We'll see. I'm sure it's not the view of most members on this forum or our facebook page who have followed developments since the unfortunate events of over a year ago now.So you are making a mountain out of a molehill and by bringing up what somebody may or may not have said or done in the heat of the moment just before or just after they resigned and which the person concerned regrets you are opening old wounds. Most members, I think, are prepared to let by-gones be by-gones and get on with positive socialist activity.

Hi Adam,  Why am I pursuing this matter so strongly. Because I see a problem with the answers or lack of being used to justifying the barring of Vin rejoining. We even have imaginary scenarios being presented, when I am trying to stick to reality. It means that if socialists are voting on issues without being aware of the party stance (of all things, free speech) then they are doing a disservice to the principles of democracy. The worse bit of all, no lessons are learnt and it happens again and again.In your imaginary scenario, you say the offending applicant seeking to rejoin would need to be questioned. Where I ask was Vin given such an opportunity by the EC, upon his seeking to rejoin? In the real world some minds had already been made up, concerning Vins so called guilt, despite his numerous apologies and eagerness to rejoin and promote the party.Again I will state that Vin, while a party member, committed no "crime" in criticising the things that disturbed him. He did not attack the DoP, he did not advocate reformism, he did not promote race hate or the allowing of religious socialists into the party, nor did he join another political group. Yet on a number of occasions now, the EC have rejected his rejoining.As a life long socialistI, party sympathiser and one time member, I care enough simply to wish to know on what grounds.I am well aware the MAC accepted his application, I know you and another member voted against the motion. (Like Gnome I'm not sure what you mean about the two who voted with the motion,despite not agreeing with it, sounds a bit odd) and like you I do not believe it to be the view of the absent EC members.All I seek is to ascertain if the reasons given so far for Vins continued refusal are valid, according to party policy. So far the reasons given are weak.I don't understand the reluctance to face reality on this issue. Once more the party has a chance to learn from a mistake and become stronger, take it. Why all the fear of criticism?  

[SocialistPunk]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

SP: "signifying acceptance of the object and principles of the Party." If a member criticises the party in such a manner as would indicate that they do not accept the object and principles of the party, their membership would be rendered invalid. Likewise, if they criticise from the standpoint of another organisation, they should go and join it. This would depend on the facts on the ground. Obviously, criticism while still a member is more protected than when a non-member but we'd still be entitled to take it into account (as it was when I rejoined).

YMS, are you saying Vin, a long standing party member and hard working activist (who no doubt knows the DoP and accepts them inside out and without doubt), rejected and trashed the DoP?  Is that seriously your reference to Rule 1? Because if it is that is pretty serious stuff you are throwing about.As to Rule 6 it would suggest you are laying a claim that Vin sought to join another political organisation in trashing the SPGB. As opposed to the reality that he criticised the forum and in fact ended up defending the SPGB from the attacks of others on that forum.So it turns out this is the argument that supports the rejection of Vin rejoining the party on a number of occasions by the EC. If he had done those things he would have faced action detrimental rapidly, instead he was asked to reconsider his resignation.

[SocialistPunk]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

If a non-member who has been publicly criticising the party applies to join, then we have the right to put a question mark over that application. Also, the right to criticise the party, since you ask, is limited by rule 1, obviously (and, to a certain extent, by rule 6).

Hi YMSNot sure if you fully understand that this situation is about a party member criticising the party and not a non member. I don't think it necessary to quote the paragraphs from this thread that state this.I've looked at the party rules 1 and 6 and I don't see the relevance to this case. Could you please explain how these rules apply to (in this case) a party member criticising the party?1. Any person desiring membership shall sign the application form signifying acceptance of the object and principles of the Party. Such application shall be lodged with the Branch Secretary, whose duty it shall be to place same before the next business meeting (to which the applicant shall be invited) for consideration. After examination of the applicant, a majority shall decide, subject to ratification by the Executive Committee. Upon acceptance by the EC an applicant shall be deemed a member as from the date of enrolment by the Branch. The EC shall every five years issue to each member a combined rules and membership card, showing the name, address, the registered number, date of enrolment and name of Branch. Any application rejected by the Branch shall be forwarded to the EC together with the reasons for the rejection.6. A member shall not belong to any other political organisation or write or speak for any other political party except in opposition, or otherwise assist any other political party     

[SocialistPunk]

Hi AlanI am not trying to impose anything regarding non members on the party.This issue is about Vins behaviour while a member. It's quoted all over this thread, that Vin accused the party of being undemocratic, homophobic, on other sites while in the party.In my question I should have been a little clearer, but I condensed the question as most will know what the issue is about.What we have is Vin criticising the SPGB while a member. He leaves the party. Tries rejoining and finds his critical views about certain deserving issues are brought up as an excuse to disallow his re entry. Yet according to party policy, he did nothing wrong in being critical.Is that valid grounds for blocking his rejoining.You yourself have been very balanced in this matter, as you say Vin has appologised several times, contributed positively to this forum and in other areas and seeks to get stuck in as a member of the party in the North East in helping to reignite the North East Branch.I hope that makes my point a bit clearer.

[SocialistPunk]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Vin, you were right to bring this issue out into this public space. For too many months now your detractors have kept this issue simmering, I am unsure how many times the EC has rejected your Form A. And for what, that you are an untrustworthy, undesirable for criticising the party and that you may do it again in similar circumstances.You know Vin, in similar circumstances I would expect you to criticise the party, as too should others. As a socialist it is (to use TWCs words) a moral duty to openly criticise any unsocialist actions/views taking place among the WSM. If that is uncomfortable for some then tough luck for them, let them join the SWP, SLP etc..Criticism is at the heart of any democracy, without it there is no debate, no involvement, no scrutiny, no learning, no change and ultimately no democracy. So I will continue to ask a simple question.Is there anywhere in SPGB rules/conference decisions etc that prevents a party member from criticising the party, whether in private or in a public space?

Hark! What is that I hear in the distance? Why, tis the deafening roar of silence.Not even a sarcastic comment from Young Master Smeet or Gnome.I think we've established that the party does allow criticism from members, in public spaces. As a truly democratic, open, socialist organisation it couldn't be otherwise.The next stage is to establish if the rejection of a Form A based on the applicants criticising the SPGB in a public space is a valid reason, given that it is the position of the party to allow criticism?  

[SocialistPunk]

Vin, you were right to bring this issue out into this public space. For too many months now your detractors have kept this issue simmering, I am unsure how many times the EC has rejected your Form A. And for what, that you are an untrustworthy, undesirable for criticising the party and that you may do it again in similar circumstances.You know Vin, in similar circumstances I would expect you to criticise the party, as too should others. As a socialist it is (to use TWCs words) a moral duty to openly criticise any unsocialist actions/views taking place among the WSM. If that is uncomfortable for some then tough luck for them, let them join the SWP, SLP etc..Criticism is at the heart of any democracy, without it there is no debate, no involvement, no scrutiny, no learning, no change and ultimately no democracy. So I will continue to ask a simple question.Is there anywhere in SPGB rules/conference decisions etc that prevents a party member from criticising the party, whether in private or in a public space?

[SocialistPunk]

Vin has already asked this question, but I'm gonna state it very, very simply again.Is there anywhere in SPGB rules/conference decisions etc that prevents a party member from criticising the party, whether in private or in a public space? Hi Vin, forgot to answer your enquiry. Not sure about the Miners Gala, still rough 7 months post op. Were you gonna try for a stall or sell literature as an SPGB member?

[SocialistPunk]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Are members of the SPGB barred from criticising the party on other forums? There is a conference resolution on that which defends the right of all member to criticise the party and as all meeting are open to the public then that by implication means public criticism

I think that just about nails it Vin. If it is ok for members to criticise the party, then this was a non starter long ago and should not have gotten this far.By the way Vin, when is the Durham Miners Gala? And would it now be too late for you to represent the SPGB there if you are let back in by next months EC?I want to say I am far from happy with myself for bringing the past up in criticising Ed. We buried the hatchet long ago and now I have burnt my bridge. Thats what happens when issues are left unresolved. So often we wade in fists flying forgetting there are people at the centre of it all.For what it's worth I offer my sincere apologies to Ed and Vin.

[SocialistPunk]

Steve, that is a good point. Yet more illogical nonsense, as now they are basing Vins pre determined guilt on stuff I am saying, it gets better. Smacks to me of minds already made up long ago. Or perhaps there are mind readers or clairvoyants in the party after all.Anyone ever seen the film Minority Report?

[SocialistPunk]

Nice one Gnome, I like that reasoning. Thank you for pointing it out.In that case the same could be said of Ed. In similar circumstances he may kick off again. How does the party know he can be trusted?  Just using the same logic. What we have here is an issue everyone thought was done and dusted. Yet another EC decision keeps it boiling. When will you lot learn? To top it all off, this has a potentially disastrous effect for the North East Branch getting back on its feet. Vin would have made the Branch quorate I believe. Why would any member, at this time want to scupper another Branch? 

[SocialistPunk]

Sorry YMS, but I guess we will have to agree to disagree about the baselessness of the situation.I'll put it very, very simply.Two SPGB members have a punch up on the forum.Many, many months later, one of the two, while on the EC tables a motion to disallow the other back into the party. The vote goes his way. It so happens his Branch colleagues are a majority on the EC that day.The reason given is that of mistrust. and is simply a "preventative" measure in the best interests of the party.However, it seems that the one tabling the motion is able to trust himself to make the right decision, despite being the one who drew first blood between the two.That is the situ in a nutshell. Yet you see no conflict of interest here.

[SocialistPunk]

YMS, I'm not getting through, probably never will.I asked you before if you think the party is perfect and that nothing more can be learnt or improved upon, but you didn't answer.I think this is an opportunity to avoid, what I insist is a conflict of interest, (I've spoken to a couple of non political friends about this and even they think it a bit democratically dodgy) from happening again in the future.In the real world it is a problem coming from such a democratic organisation. The issue should be, how to avoid a similar thing in the future, but then to do so you gotta be able to see how it looks from the outside.Put it this way, the rule book is not a weighty tome full of ever growing amendments for every single issue. Why? Because free thinking socialists are expected to be able to navigate the complexities of keeping democracy on track, without having to constantly check the rule book for every eventuality. That means such appearances of conflicted interests should not be put upon the party in the first place. As I said previously the tabler of the motion should have the sense to see the possible problem and at the very least table an objection to be voted on when the EC is made up of a more balanced spectrum. This is important precisely to avoid the appearance of clique like behaviour, regardless if it is the case or not.Sorry if you can't see the problem, but we've been here before and nothing has been learnt. Here we go again.

[SocialistPunk]

Hi Adam,I note with interest the following.

ALB wrote:

 Ideally, in my view at least, the EC should be a representative cross-section of the party membership. They could even by chosen by lot.

Does that mean you would be in favour of a limit as to how many EC members are from any single party Branch? The event that we are discussing here is, I imagine quite a rare situ. But no matter how it is defended it still looks problematic that a conflicted decision was passed by an EC with a majority from a single Branch that the conflict involves.I note you use the word ideally, and there in lies the crux of the matter, in not enough members being available to perhaps put a limit of two members per Branch at any one time. With a larger membership it could be done, but at present it would be difficult and may end up hampering the EC. 

[Author]

Posts