SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Here's something interesting for the Brand bashers on this thread. You may be interested to know what company you are keeping. A Labour supporting comedian by the name of Robert Webb.http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/31/robert-webb-russell-brand_n_4180398.html?utm_hp_ref=ukHere's a bit from the article:Writing a response piece in the current edition of the magazine, the Peep Show actor criticised Brand for effectively "telling a lot of people that engagement with our democracy is a bad idea".Webb said Brand's article had had the opposite desired effect on him, as he decided to rejoin the Labour Party after reading it.“What were the chances, in the course of human history, that you and I should be born into an advanced liberal democracy? … That we can say what we like, read what we like, love whom we want; that nobody is going to kick the door down in the middle of the night and take us or our children away to be tortured?” he said.“The odds were vanishingly small. Do I wake up every day and thank God that I live in 21st-century Britain? Of course not. But from time to time I recognise it as an unfathomable privilege."On Remembrance Sunday, for a start. And again when I read an intelligent fellow citizen is ready to toss away the hard-won liberties of his brothers and sisters because he's bored.”He said that one lesson from history was that revolution “ends in death camps, gulags, repression and murder.”Who is the clown?
Hi Ed, thanks for your contribution to this discussion. Nice to see some support for introducing more tech into the party. I can see the logic with keeping such meetings audio only.Good to see the Kent & Sussex branch giving these ideas a go. Keep it up, as such tech is often very slow, unreliable etc in the early days, but with time and patience it often works out. It is gonna be part of the future in any case, so the party may as well give such tech a go. If it works, great. If it doesn't work, well at least it was tried.I agree that online voting is too risky right now. It would be open to establishment sabotage. It will be something for a future socialist society to take full advantage of. But it doesn't stop the SPGB from taking advantage of the tech that will lay the foundations for full e-democracy, such as the stuff we are discussing here. Full working democracy such as we advocate will rely on people being included and informed wherever possible, as much as possible.
Matt wrote:Don't bother. If she hadn't got voting papers,Conference motions etc.then she hadn't made sure we had her address or some other reason. We spend a fortune on postage for all these items.Very dismissive Matt. Not nice at all.
Matt wrote:Members are not kept in the dark.Every effort is made to facillitate them.Individual members may elect to distance themselves.This is their right.I seem to recall a few months ago in the EC minutes, a female member of long standing, from the North East, sent in her form F. She cited isolation and the fact she had heard nothing from the party in many years as her reason for wishing to leave. If I can find it I'll post the link on this thread. So much for members choosing to distance themselves.
DJP wrote:gnome wrote:Brand mentions revolution without specifying what he means. He also talks of not voting, increasing taxation and much else besides. "Everybody's (sic) talking about it" simply because he's a self-seeking publicist and 'celebrity' whose words and actions are guaranteed to be seized upon by a fickle and gullible public. Unlike Ken Loach, Brand's a fly-by-night and we should distance ourselves from him; that's the lesson.Hear, hear!Brand's commentary is full of so many vagarities that pretty much anything can be read into them.If criticism of capitalism is back on the agenda, and it seems it is, it is not because of the actions of pop stars or celebrities but because it strikes a chord with the realities of daily existence, and if the New Statesman chose the clown Brand to speak on the serious subject of social transformation it is not because he is some champion of the field but because they know he has a following and will sell papers.It serves the establishment very well that this issue is put into the mouths of such clowns.
I saw the interview on Youtube and I saw no clown in Brand. What I saw is a man genuinely angry and frustrated at the continuing failure of capitalism. He said he didn't have all the answers, but he did say there were people in society, (the internet being one obvious place) that where offering solutions. Ok so he didn't recite an SPGB manifesto, if that makes him a clown then probably many members of the SPGB were at on time or another clowns looking for an alternative. Who knows, one day he might stumble on the answer.Of course he and others like him haven't put revolution on the agenda. Brand himself acknowledges why it is being spoken of more freely these days. He talks of the gross inequality, leading people to question the status quo. Just because he is a rich celeb doesn't mean he can't see whats going on, and comment on it. If he helps to raise the profile of rebelious talk then it's to be welcomed. Another point worth mentioning is that during that, no doubt edited, interview he says things that you seldom hear being said on television. Clown I think not. Inteligent, articulate bloke, frustrated with mainstream politics, questioning the status quo and thinking along the lines of many a fledgling socialist, seeking an alternative but not fully there yet. Most definately.
Matt wrote:"In the document, Deconstructing the Socialist Party, Paddy Shannon talks of the wider membership being in the dark on many issues: "Most members are outside the loop, and frequently have not the faintest idea what is going on. When a dispute arises, they are in the dark. When help is needed, they don't offer. When opinion is courted, they are too uninformed to give it."I am merely trying to find ways to change that. "
I don't want to contribute to this or any thread.Any more than a sentence is a waste of my time.There is nothing to change.This is not a Leninist organisation.It does not resemble one.Even at the time of the document being written it was not true. It was old hat.With the rejection of certain individuals and branches,this had already been changed.It is evolving all the time.Even in part in the past as an angry response to the document cited.Members are not kept in the dark.Every effort is made to facillitate them.Individual members may elect to distance themselves.This is their right.The complaint now is more likely to be that of' 'message overload'.You can stress elements all you want but I reject this totally and absolutely.Sorry you feel that way Matt, but you seem to have wasted a few more sentences than intended on me. Angry ones at that.I never said members are kept in the dark by any deliberate means. But by the very nature of the amount of business the EC have to deal with, I expect some things are kept brief in the minutes. All I am advocating is a simple system of broadcasting and recording the full meeting so that non EC members can have full access. What is so wrong with that? I am not suggesting the way business is done in the party is radically altered, the party has nothing to hide so there would be nothing wrong with broadcasting party meetings. You say there is nothing to change, yet accept the reality of evolution, the very essence of change. I simply advocate speedier evolution to keep up with the future, and dare I imagine it, to help shape the future of democracy. I'll say it again as you seem to have missed it. I imagine a future socialist society where everybody will be able to access the decision making process. Whether that will be to simply observe or to participate, I don't know the exact outcome, but technology will continue to benefit democracy, of that I have no doubt.How embarrassing would it be if the SPGB and WSM were pipped at the post by another political organisation, when it comes to technology and democratic inclusivity. I do not think the party is, or resembles, a Leninist organisation. Here's what I said.
SocialistPunk wrote:…I suggest there are Leninist like elements within the SPGB. I stress the words "Leninist like elements ", as I know the party is commited to the principles of full and open democracy.Note the words "like" and "elements", as opposed to a statement such as "Leninist organisation" and I don't know about you or anyone else but I think I made it clear that I believe the party to be committed to full democracy. It is why I feel able to discuss this subject openly and freely. However it seems others think it a taboo subject. How dare I suggest the party could be made even more democratically inclusive. I'll ask a question again. Does anyone think a future socialist society would not take advantage of the potential democratic benefits of digital communication? I see that society embracing every method to improve the democratic process. Unless of course anyone thinks there is no room for improvement? Something seems to have touched a nerve. I think I know what it is and I'm afraid you are mistaken. My original intention for this post was to discuss what I am now trying to discuss, hence my opening statement, unfortunately certain recent events seemed to resonate with some of the points made in the document. It now seems that some think I am using it as a battering ram to bash the SPGB. I don't expect to be believed, as even socialists sometimes form opinions that are based on subjective evaluations.Anyone is of course free to reject anything I say totally and utterly, but I have been known to have a point from time to time.
Hi Matt, glad you have taken the time to contribute to this discussion.I'm not sure what you think I'm advocating here. For starters there is no reason why an EC meeting that is being broadcast over the internet, for party members to view, should not be as lengthy or considered as any other meeting. Also I am not suggesting that we have a set up whereby people can contribute online to the meeting, and thus potentially disrupt proceedings. All I advocate, in this respect, is an opportunity for the membership to be fully informed in as much of the decision processes as possible. Do you imagine that the future socialist society we advocate would function behind closed doors, relatively speaking, with the wider community being left ill informed? Like it or not digital communication is here to stay and is becoming more and more integrated into every aspect of peoples lives. The SPGB and companions need to get up to speed quickly or risk being left behind. I see future progress being tied up with making the WSM more democratically inclusive. This is but one way it can be done.In the document, Deconstructing the Socialist Party, Paddy Shannon talks of the wider membership being in the dark on many issues: "Most members are outside the loop, and frequently have not the faintest idea what is going on. When a dispute arises, they are in the dark. When help is needed, they don't offer. When opinion is courted, they are too uninformed to give it."I am merely trying to find ways to change that. Part of that is to openly discuss the subject in a public space. Unless of course the issues addressed in the document have already been dealt with.As for the idea that the party lacks any Leninist aspect, here are some words from the same document. A quote I previously used: "The Executive CommitteeWe are always having to explain to sympathisers that our EC is not like a Leninist Central Committee, yet the similarity is obvious. Despite our protestations, it is hard for members to escape the impression that this body does indeed wield power. It has for example the power to call a Party poll, issue a Party press statement, appoint any committee, bring a charge, instigate any meeting, refuse any A form or F form, sanction any act by any member or branch, and dispense or deny permission like any good old-fashioned dictator. The fact that its teeth are drawn does not detract from its influence. The fact that it cannot create policy by the front door does not entirely prevent it doing so by the back door, through its subcommittees. To insist that it has no power is, unfortunately, unrealistic and somewhat trusting."There is also the matter of certain stirrings within the party, regarding requirements for membership going beyond a full socialist understanding and taking subjective criteria into account. I can't seem to track down the relative thread on this forum about the recent SWP troubles. But I seem to recall people being critical of the SWP in incorporating ethical and moral conditions on members. If I am not mistaken,the SPGB consider the SWP to be a Leninist party? Then there has been a few occasions on this forum where party members balked at the idea of subjective notions of morality and ethics. Yet some in the party wish to bring subjective notions of "acceptable behaviour" into account when it comes to joining. Taking the opinion voiced in the document mentioned, about the power of the EC being Leninist like, and the move afoot to incorporate subjective criteria for entry into the party, I suggest there are Leninist like elements within the SPGB. I stress the words "Leninist like elements ", as I know the party is commited to the principles of full and open democracy.
jondwhite wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:For starters, Adam mentions the EC meetings being held via skype, that will allow them to be viewed by anyone interested in how the EC goes about its decision making. A step in the right direction, if a little late in coming. Perhaps such openness may avoid future decisions based on personal grounds, as dubious discussions will be open to full scrutiny.I agree with this but on a technical point, skype isn't being used to broadcast EC meetings, online streaming (which isn't difficult) will be necessary to do this. This could even be done using the SPGB webhost and free software as a platform.
Thanks for the clarification JDW. Glad someone thinks broadcasting the EC meetings would be a step in the right direction to make the party more democratically inclusive and open to scrutiny. If the wider membership can gain full access to the internal workings of the party then the cliques and Leninist feel of certain aspects of the party that was alluded to in the document of the thread title, could possibly be averted. At the very least it would be a start. However the chances of such change happening soon are not good given the track record of the party responding to technological change. But I remain an optimist.
Steve, I wouldn't hold your breath for any possible explanations on this forum.If the party decide to go down the route of considering issues other than socialist understanding before allowing people in the party, then the guidelines for entry are gonna be extensive. Can you imagine subjective reasons, the likes of which could be endless, being debated by members of the Membership Applications Committee and the EC, every time a person seeks to join. It would be comical. So to avoid subjective nonsense being rattled out, the party will need a list of specific "do's and don'ts" for prospective members. Perhaps a "three strikes and your not in" policy could be drawn up, based on a list of "do's and don'ts". The party would then have its D of P and along side it a D n D. Perhaps even a pledge of allegiance ceremony could see prospective candidates swear an oath over an old copy of Das Kapital.I think the Leninists in the party have the scent of blood in their nostrils. Embarrassing.
Hi JanetI am very pleased someone has taken the time to consider what I am trying to unravel here. Thank you very much.Before I get down to some attempts at suggestions, and they are just suggestions to get debate flowing, I would also like to thank Alan for his acknowledgement that there is a problem regarding the snail pace that change seems to travel at in the party. Also for his spot on observation regarding the EC decision to block re admission into the party of two recent ex comrades. We can only hope the EC at some point, heeds simple logic, rather than being swayed by hyped up party mythology.Now back to the issue. I do not pretend to have all answers to all problems, but firmly believe problems need to be addressed openly.We socialists advocate a global system of common ownership and democratic control, the likes of which has never been seen before. Such a global system can only work if the democracy we advocate can be made to work with full openness, accountability and inclusivity at every stage. I am not suggesting that every single administrative decision be voted on globally, but everything needs to be fully open to scrutiny. That means if people wish to access the process behind important decisions they should be able to do so. No cliques, no secrets, no information that can only be found out by accessing people in the know etc. Such practices are not in keeping with the spirit of democracy and as such have no place in a genuine socialist organisation.But what to do about it. For starters, Adam mentions the EC meetings being held via skype, that will allow them to be viewed by anyone interested in how the EC goes about its decision making. A step in the right direction, if a little late in coming. Perhaps such openness may avoid future decisions based on personal grounds, as dubious discussions will be open to full scrutiny.I agree with Adam that physical, face to face meetings are the best way to get to grips with the issues the party face on a day to day basis. But for many members, Central Branch for example, it isn't possible on a regular basis and voting is normally only on a bi annual basis. Full democracy is about taking part, whenever possible, in decision making. Could central branch be given its own online meeting space? Central Branch members could be personally invited to take part. I would even suggest members could be helped and encouraged to get online, perhaps assistance could be offered for those who may be willing but unable to afford the initial outlay required to access the internet.I've checked out the links provided by BTSomerset regarding free online voting. As usual the main problem is security, so for the time being it is probably an area where my enthusiasm is way ahead of the practicalities.A couple of suggestions for starters. Lets get some discussion going.
Hi OzyJanet is spot on.We might be ex members but we are still 100% socialist. I think that once you have your eyes forced open, there's no closing them. A bit like in the film, The Matrix.I still think the party is under utilizing the power of the internet. Imagine if the party became a shining example of the democratic possibilities of instant global democracy. I bet that would create a buzz.Some of the criticisms of the party and it's companions is that they are old fossils, out of touch with the modern world. The party has the potential to ram that right down the throats of the doubters, yet I can't even get anyone from the party to discuss it.
After checking out the Russel Brand, Paxman interview from the titled thread in general discussion, I thought now would be a good time to get to grips with the main aim of this thread. Brand refers to instant global communication as being a driving force for change and he is spot on.One of the criticisms aimed at pure democrats such as members and supporters of the World Socialist Movement, is that the democracy we advocate is too slow and unworkable. That in essence was true in the past. But thanks to the internet, instant democracy on a global scale is possible.A couple of questions to get debate going.How has the Socialist Party and WSM companions embraced such powerful, democratic decision making tools?How could digital communication be harnessed to make The Socialist Party and WSM, more democratically inclusive?
Just watched the interview. Wow! You can feel his anger and passion, as well as his frustration with Paxman. That guy is almost there, he is practically a socialist. He just needs a little nudge.I saw him on BBCs Question Time a few months back and he grabbed my attention with some of the stuff he came out with. He told the audience that the only way to change society for the better was to do it ourselves, not wait for and expect feather nesting politicians to do it. I note with interest his remark about the digital age and instant global communication. I set up a thread called "Deconstructing the Socialist Party" in the World Socialist Movement section of this forum to discuss such issues. The party should be aiming to be the most advanced democratic movement in the world by embracing digital communication 100%. Show the way, create a buzz.Hope you catch him Ozy. Good luck mate.
I can imagine that some party members will be thinking that I am merely trying to continue an old argument. That I am using this as a battering ram to bash the SPGB. I even expect some will not believe me when I say they are mistaken.I set this thread up for two reasons. The first was to discuss ways to make the WSM more democratically inclusive. I found the document, of the thread title, and thought it made a number of valid observations regarding the working of the SPGB and how things could be made more inclusive. My view is that the internet and digital communication is not being exploited enough by the party. That is a tragedy given the fact that digital communication technology is here to stay and will continue to make the world a smaller place. I have a couple of ideas how it could be improved and would like an opportunity to discuss them.The second reason for this thread, that has unfortunately high jacked the more constructive part, is the abuse of the democratic process by some in the EC recently. This places the document of the title, slap bang in the spotlight for the wrong reasons. The document talks of cliques forming around the EC and it's committees, not as a deliberate attempt to subvert democracy, but as a consequence of the lack of wider party member inclusivity.I agree with the statement in the document, that EC members are genuine democrats and I regret having to highlight the issue in this manner, but I am not a party member and this is my only way to debate this issue. The interpretation I put on this specific problem, is that people often find it hard to put prejudices and personal value based judgments to one side when making decisions that really should be based on logical, evidence based assessment.When I was twenty I was called for jury service, and I saw first hand the difficulty some found separating their emotive based judgments from the facts of the matter at hand. It is why the jury system in the UK does not allow a persons previous criminal history to be brought into account.Socialists pride themselves on evidence based assessment of the failings of capitalism. We don't just go around saying to people, capitalism is not a very nice system. We leave that to the protest movement. We provide, wherever possible, evidence of capitalism's failings and suggest an alternative.
