SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
rodmanlewis wrote:Most of these refugees come from Muslim countries. This could indicate one of two things:Islam works hand-in-glove with dictators or is powerless to stand up to them.
Surely it could indicate both?
No shock it was an anonymous posting, because stuff like that coming from Party members is embarrassing and rather worrying.Alan, it seems that some in the Party don't like freedom of discussion. Over on the "Money free world" thread on this forum a Party member was suggesting the discussion be stopped because they thought some of the ideas were too speculative and so out of step with the Party line.The bizarre thing is, that anonymous poster obviously thinks the Party has lost its way because free discussion is taking place on a variety of subjects on various online media. But I always thought freedom of discussion was an essential component of socialism. We join the SPGB/WSM because we agree with core principles set out in the DoP. But the world we live in is constantly throwing up issues that are up for discussion without interfering with our core principles.Perhaps some dream of a return to a golden age, before online social media, where the SPGB speaker on the platform was more often than not the most well read and articulate, able to dominate the debate and blow away all opponents.Alas those days are no more, welcome to the 21st century of social media bear pits and instant access to a vast library of digital information.
I know about the history with TZM, Alan. I meant with these people, Social Rebirth.Where ever we find people who share the same end goal as us, we should officialy make contact, extend the hand of friendship and focu on our similarities. Like I say, building a network of groups who could reference one another wouldn't be a bad thing.
ALB wrote:You know the answer, Alan. They're no more interested in unity and cooperation than we are.and any attempt at this would probably fail and end in internal arguments and acrimony. Anyway, it's not such a problem at the presebt stage when it's still just a matter of spreading the general idea as different approaches will get to different people.ALB, has the Party officialy tried any attempt at extending the hand of friendship with these people?I find the above highlighted sentence makes me rather uncomfortable. It suggests "we" are happy to be a small isolated, rather grumpy, outfit of wanna be revolutionaries, only interested in an "our way or the highway" approach.There could be numerous groups out there who share our end goal. I don't think it is beyond reasonableness to forge a network with these other groups. Then we wouldn't have the embarrassing claim that we were the only ones who wanted a world of common ownership and democratic control etc.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Quote:Goes to show we are not aloneIf we are not alone, why do we go it alone, Brian?Who is it incumbent upon to seek unity if we share core principles and basic ideas – them or us?
Good point Alan.I've heard it said on this forum that the SPGB will only be part of the revolution. Suggesting that workers will organize in various ways but share a common goal.If there are others out there who have very similar end goals, and there are, we should be reaching out in a comradely fashion to make connections. I'm not suggesting an attempt at amalgamating, simply forging links with the various groups who share a common goal.
Hi KAZ,I too have been following this thread, and although I disagree with the "practical steps" being put forward I recognize the value in the discussion. However it appears you are finding it difficult to recognize the value of the free discussion of ideas.I was under the impression the SPGB believed in open discussion of ideas, not the suppression of ideas and thoughts that do not conform to party policy? That is a much more dangerous route to go down, than the free, often messy discussion of differing views and ideas. As far as I can tell there is no party policy being decided here.
KAZ wrote:Socialism/ communism is not the same as the moneyless society. You started this discussion with that very admission. The abolition of money is a (probable) product not the aim. The Aim is stated before the D of P (I's so old school).I think the history of the evolution of the money meme in SPGB circles will have to be my subject. I have sent a great file to Mike Foster dealing with this but not sure if he intended anything but a display. Timeline: Off hand, late '60s, but was always tacitly understood.USP: It is not the complications of implementation but the geekiness of the concept of the abolition of money I object to. We put ourselves in the same category as Zeitgeist? Head geeks of Geek City. USPs are a capitalist concept rooted in the bourgeois ideology of marketing, catering to the lowest common denominator, accepting the derogatory notion of the eight second attention span.Socialism is simple but requires a certain amount of mental working out. Robbo might use the word cerebration. We make it over-intellectual at our peril. But over-simplification, the boiling down into a series of "thou shalts" (such as "thou shalt have no money") is far worse and is the cause of all the problems the Partly is currently experiencing.Jack Bradley: Alas not online. I can send you some stuff from the archives or scan it and ask someone to put stuff on the web. Technically it was (Enfield and) Haringey branch rather than individual activity. Surprised you don't know. You bin around yonks.Hi KAZ,What you seem to be saying is, if we must to discuss this subject, keep it simple but not too simple. Have I got that right?
I would have thought if members of the EC (a party administrative body) were only partly aware/informed of what was taking place within the party they belong to, they may have at some point thought it a good idea to get fully informed by one means or another? Especialy as the issue would at some point require a decision being made by them.
Alan,If you, me and Brian knew, I fail to see how the others didn't know?I suppose if "usual channels" had been followed straight away, it wouldn't have made a good public argument first.
I would have thought it was obvious what the "usual channels and procedures" were for a member wishing a statement to find its way to the EC.The first port of call would be through their branch. In he absence of that "channel" another branch could be approached or probably easier than that, an email could be sent to the General Secretary at HO, asking that the statement be presented to the EC for discussion.As Brian asks, "..why all the fuss.."?
Alan does make some interesting points. One in particular is that digital communication, like it or not, is here to stay. So I don't see why a party committed to Direct Participatory Democracy can't use it to keep members more informed about decision making.For example in the May EC minutes regarding the AV committee and one members video work, we have a rather cryptic reference made, "Other concerns were also expressed.", found in the last paragraph before Motion 9.Any member without inside access to what was discussed at the EC meeting, is basically left in the dark as to this reference. Yet it was recorded as being part of the reasoning for Motions 9 and 10. We are left to make our own assumptions as to what the concerns are.Surely the wider SPGB membership have a right to know what information the EC bases its decisions on? In years gone by there was excuse enough that gaining access to such information was a cumbersome and time consuming process. But now we have the internet and instant online communication. Relevant questions could be asked and the information made available?Matt also is correct. The recent disruption driving this issue was completely out of order, given that there existed the most fundamental unit of party democracy, the branch, that the "injured party" could have used, appropriately, to address any concerns.
jondwhite wrote:If you've corresponded with someone by letter or e-mail, then would you say you had 'met' them? Probably not, hence why taking a meeting to mean a meeting in real-time only would solve all of the problems of quorum, electing, seconding and voting in non-temporal "meetings".Not 100% sure what you're getting at JD. Would you be willing to elaborate?
gnome wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:gnome wrote:The real issue, shirley, is that measures need to be put in place to prevent a repetition of this particular interminable and acrimonious thread…If my memory serves me, many moons back the NERB requested that the forum moderator not intervene unless specificaly asked. With hindsight, that decision was a bad call.
I have it on good authority SP, but am frankly incredulous, that the moderators do not have "jurisdiction over the NERB section". It seems that any intervention can only occur if requested by the branch…
It's something that will be on the discussion list at the next NERB meeting. Whenever that is.I remember posting as a guest at one NERB meeting, saying something along the lines of it being an interesting experiment.It was inevitable the issue of disruptive behaviour was going to be put to the test sooner or later. It's the way most things progress. Failings are indentified and put right, then on to the next problem. A never ending process.
gnome wrote:The real issue, shirley, is that measures need to be put in place to prevent a repetition of this particular interminable and acrimonious thread…Good point. There does appear a need, for the elected chair of an online meeting, to be able to gain some control when faced with disruptive members.If my memory serves me, many moons back the NERB requested that the forum moderator not intervene unless specificaly asked. With hindsight, that decision was a bad call.Two possible options are available. The online meeting is subject to moderation like any other thread, meaning the moderator is able to dish out warnings and suspensions for disruptive behaviour. Or some form of temporary moderator powers are given to the chair, with possible use decided by the branch?In either scenario the members of a meeting must be made aware of the moderation system in use before each meet. Perhaps it culd be written into SO?
