[SocialistPunk]

ALB wrote:

What was it you put to the North East branch? Was it a criticism of our policy or simply of our methods of putting it across?

Now if ALB is referring to the DoP, then I have had and have no problem there. I do have a problem with the way it is put across.As for the remark I made about the branch.

robbo203 wrote:

  A real scientist would would weigh up the evidence and consider what went wrong with the experiment but not the SPGB.

It was essentially along the above lines, about the lack of willingness to try different approaches.I don't recall details, if I could I would provide them. But I'll try to put across as much as I can.Now, I am not having a go at individuals, there were good dedicated socialists when I joined. We did some good work, contesting elections, national, European and local. I do remember being frustrated by personality clashes, that predated my joining. I definitely think they interfered in branch unity and productivity. Another member and myself often faced unproductive criticism from less than supportive members. Occasional attendees would pop up and throw a spanner in the works, without offering alternatives, then disappear for months. After the election activity died down I got increasingly fed up of these problems. Things came to a head and I told the branch what I thought.

ALB wrote:

There may only be 300 members in the Party, but decisions as to what we say and do are made democratically and can only be changed democratically.  In trying to change our policy on admitting people with religious views Robbo was on to a non-starter (not made any more likely to succeed by the rather abrasive and aggressive approach he adopted). The membership have repeatedly and overwhelmingly rejected this. It's just not going to happen.The one about socialism being a moral or ethical issue as well as a class issue is more evenly balanced. Some members have been arguing this since the 1950s and, for a few months in 2010, it was even the Party's adopted position. So that could well change. But only democratically.

The religious issue, as I have previously said is not a major issue for me, if the party wish to turn away socialists so be it. As for the strange idea about voting on whether the party thinks socialism is moral or not. That looks like it came straight out of a Monty Python sketch. What a waste of time.It is what I see as an obsession with irrelevant intellectual details. Plenty of theoretical "scientific socialism" but little effective material action.DJP is right when he said the party was slow to embrace the internet. I know he has said that is being addressed. Hats off to him and the others who are getting on board with relevant activity. Better late than never, as the saying goes.

ALB wrote:

If your criticism is only of how we operate this an open question and there is a wide range of opinion in the Party over this.

There may be a wide range of opinion, but it is not obvious by the end result. My criticism is not only about party approach but also of image. As I said earlier about the branch in fighting, this forum is full of it. I believe in unity, those of us who believe and want socialism are too few to be attacking, baiting and chasing away each other off.The state has nothing to fear from a small group of in-fighting, backstabbing, revolutionaries. If it wasn't so serious it would be hilarious. Make a hell of a sit com though?

[SocialistPunk]

gnome wrote:

Quite a few allusions here and from other folk but not one person yet has made any concrete analysis of what they think is wrong with the party and having done so suggested any remedies.   We all genuinely want to hear why the SPGB is "in decline" if indeed it is.

Don't fret Gnome old chap, I'll get round to it shortly.I just need to answer a couple more points from the thread whence this issue first reared it's unpleasant head.

[SocialistPunk]

I am now able to address some of the issues raised about this subject that started on the Religion Word thread (connection allowing).

Ed wrote:

I think we would all admit that we could be doing better but I don't think that the problem is the policy on religion and any argument for changing it should be based on theory not whether we would attract 10 more members

I don't think my point about how poor the party is doing relied solely on the issue of letting socialists with religious beliefs of one kind or another, into the party. It is far from being a core problem. I think it is self defeating to turn away socialists because of belief in whatever, especially now the party numbers are so few.But that is the party choice.All political parties are doing badly, most people are seeing through the lies and bullshit they peddle. People don't know who to trust. But the SPGB is not offering the same crap, and if it can't make headway now, in this current climate then something is seriously amiss. The message is not the problem, but the messenger. As for Ed's idea that the party is not doing too badly. 332 members, really?Ed has a valid point about there not being enough active members. He also points a finger at me (see below) for not rejoining the party and getting active. I joined this forum to find out what state the party is in. If I joined again I think I would find myself tied up with just this kind of discussion, wasting what little energy I have on trying to persuade members we need to make changes to our approach.

Ed wrote:

So who's fault is it? It's members like me who don't put in the work on committees, and perhaps, just perhaps socialists like you and Robbo who leave the party and then complain that not enough is being done. If you want more to be done and you want to see progress and want change the only way to do that is from the inside with your voice, your vote and your own action. Not from the side lines. The fact is that not enough comrades put themselves forward for these important positions so not enough gets done. If we want the party to grow then that's where we need to start not with changing our principles.

I left the party for reasons I will explain in my answer to ALB.When all is said and done I think many members and ex members know there is something wrong with the party approach, but are probably at a loss as to what to do about it.

[SocialistPunk]

Thanks lads, glad for the responses. I don't have much time to put my responses in now.I just want to quickly say that I am aware of the fact that most socialist groups are not genuine.But there are some interesting comments here, that I will get back to later, as well as on another thread.See ya later.

[SocialistPunk]

That's fair enough, can't see any reason to disagree in general, after all I do not wish to argue for the sake of it. There can exist no way to predict the exact circumstances of a socialist revolution.I have reservations about the idea that socialism will come about globally in equal measures. There already exists huge differences in the likes of organized socialist groups, parties etc. Why should this tendency change in the future?

ALB wrote:

After all, it is not the SPGB that is going to establish socialism but the working class,

Obviously the SPGB are part the working class, and therefore must take part.

Ed wrote:

What we need is a sort of proletarian enlightenment, a sort of paradigm shift.

I thought that was the historical self appointed role of the SPGB and companion parties? To educate, and in a sense be the agents (not leaders) of change, because it wouldn't materialize out of thin air?Was I wrongly informed all those years ago, or has there been a change in the way the movement views its role? 

[SocialistPunk]

A pleasant send off for Robbo, well done!Here is something Gnome said about Robbo earlier in this thread, the emphasis is mine.

gnome wrote:

It's just a bit of tongue-in-cheek banter, northern light.  I've known Robin (robbo203) for over 30 years; nice bloke really but takes himself far too seriously    He's been, and still is, one of the SPGB's most ardent critics, both when he was a member and since, but at the same time one of its staunchest defenders, warding off constant attacks, particularly from those on the 'left'. He possesses the rather irritating tendency of giving the impression that he alone is the purveyor of all perceived wisdom who has to have the very last word on a particular topic, yet despite having been in Spain for some eight years we still look forward to the emergence of a genuine socialist party.Anyway, must go now as I'm off to Canterbury with some fellow-comrades to carry out some 'abstract propagandism'.

I suspect he is a critic of the SPGB because he cares about  the party and can see, unlike some, where the party is going wrong.The party is the same as when I left.I just wish some of the other, hopefully more balanced, socialists will see the need to make an appearance. Maybe then the party may be able to break away from its outdated image.I still find it hard to grasp that the SPGB membership is so low in this digital age of global communication. 

robbo203 wrote:

  A real scientist would would weigh up the evidence and consider what went wrong with the experiment but not the SPGB.

I remember putting this to the North East branch not long before I left. Blank stares are all I got in return. I would refer to such a blank reaction as institutionalized thinking. An inability to step outside the framework of accepted rules and behaviour and so being unable to see what the problem looks like from a fresh perspective. Inevitably the reaction to those who can step outside the structure and air their findings is negative, there will ensue a closing of ranks until the annoyance is neutralized. The initial dust will settle and business as usual continues.A scientific approach would be constant searching, testing and updating to find a formula that works, not repeating the same approach over and over again in the hope it will work.Again I appeal to other voices to make themselves heard. The decline can be reversed.Feel free to criticize, snipe, discuss, nit pick etc. It may eventually lead to progress. Hopefully!

[SocialistPunk]

Ed wrote:

If they are idealists then they may stay faithful to their ideals.

How utterly futile and void of any meaning to the debate. I could just as easily state, if they are psychopaths they will relish the bloodshed, and on and on, back and forth, blah, blah, blah.I wasn't going to bother with this any further, but the reason I jumped into the discussion was to try and bring peoples attention to what it looks like to non socialists.The party looks like a ridiculous historical caricature, stuck in the past, using outdated language and references. From a non socialist perspective the party looks dogmatic, tired and lost in the 21st century.When I left the party some ten years ago, the internet was taking off. You would expect, due to the nature of the internet, (its global communication possibilities, millions of surfers seeking answers to all sorts of issues, random encounter possibilities, imaginative uses etc) that the party would have grown somewhat. I wouldn't expect it to be big by any means but I would expect it to have more members now than when I left ten years ago?Instead it has 332 members. Less if I am not mistaken?Why?The party is on its knees, at this rate the end won't be far off.It saddens me.   

[SocialistPunk]

Ed wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

Can you imagine many people objecting to defend themselves, being torn between what is moral and what is correct? 

Most definitely YES.

Are you serious?We're not talking about religious pacifists here, I'm using SPGB logic, the socialist revolution will be made up of a majority of class conscious atheists. Maybe you were unaware of that one?Your saying that you think class conscious socialists would refuse to defend themselves if attacked by a  minority of capitalists hell bent on resisting democratic change? 

[SocialistPunk]

zundap wrote:

Because it implies that we do what we do for others and not for ourselves. The fact that unnecessary mass privation and suffering exists pisses me off, if it didn't I wouldn't give a toss.Perhaps you could answer the question I put to Robin: you say that desire for socialism is motivated by morality, so can you foresee an aspect of socialist society that would be counter to your self interest, make you unhappy?

I was under the impression that humans are the most social species on this planet. In many respects at times we do things for others without any obvious benefit. I have done so on a number of occasions, even to the detriment of my own health. So much for my self interest! Of course we could if we choose, analyze every ounce of human behaviour for ulterior motives, some academics do just that, to demonstrate that we are animals motivated by self interest. How odd then, members of the SPGB should on one hand claim we are not selfish creatures, capable of living in a highly cooperative society as socialism. Then on the other hand claim socialists are motivated by self interest. I don't get that!To coin a phrase, "There is no I in team".I have never put forward the notion that a desire for socialism is motivated by morality. however I could see an aspect of socialism that would make me unhappy. Being surrounded by people who deny their emotions have any significance and go about like calculating machines.LOL. Sorry I could not resist that one.I do not wish to war with fellow socialists.I have a question. Does it have to one or the other, why not both?

[SocialistPunk]

 

Ed wrote:

That's all well and good but what happens when the moral choice contradicts the correct decision?I mean many people might say it's immoral to have a violent revolution, but if it's the only option available then that's the way it has to be. Supplanting the rational for the sake of a subjective notion is idealism.

Again I apologize Ed, somehow when I read your reply the last sentence didn't appear.I suspect we could end up down an infinite road of philosophical ethics over this one.The way I understand it, the WSM seek to win a worldwide socialist revolution through democratic, relatively peaceful means. If that goal succeeded and the capitalist minority decided to attack the democratic socialist majority, then I am sure self defense would be the only option. It does not mean the revolution would be a deliberately violent one.Can you imagine many people objecting to defend themselves, being torn between what is moral and what is correct? 

[SocialistPunk]

Sorry Ed I didn't see the last sentence of your reply.Please accept my appologies.I'll get back to you shortly.

[SocialistPunk]

 

Ed wrote:

That's all well and good but what happens when the moral choice contradicts the correct decision?

Does that mean you accept the human weakness of morality? If only I could write that in the style of a Dalek.Joking to one side. I notice you use the term "correct decision".  The basis of morality is making decisions between what is considered right (correct) and wrong (incorrect) with regards to behaviour.So I suppose your "correct decision" could be viewed as moral.But please feel free to put forward a hypothetical scenario that could shed light on which is the correct way for a socialist society to conduct issues of an emotional nature.

[SocialistPunk]

 

zundap wrote:

The problem with the concept of morality as I see it is that it's imprecise, sentimental associated with self sacrifice and self denial, whereas self interest is exact, material, is about fulfillment and the self.

I wonder if any one bleating on about self interest is aware of how it sounds to non socialist onlookers. It sounds like  some of the concepts found in science fiction. The Borg spring to mind. To be moral is sentimental, of course it is, morality is concerned with emotions. Emotions are often imprecise, they make us human. Morality does not automaticaly imply self sacrifice, or self denial. I don't get that? How is concern for the welfare of starving children in a world of plenty, self sacrificial? I see sorting out society from a socialist perspective, not only logically sound but also from a moral standpoint, the right thing to do.I think some people here are deliberately misunderstanding this issue. I believe Robbo said that we can have morality as well as socialism, the two can go together.Where is the problem?Does it have to be one or the other?Morality reflects cultural values, what is acceptable or unacceptable at a given time and place, morality is fluid. (I refered to that in a previous post). Who decides moral values, is I think where the problem lies. It is no accident it arose on a thread that originally discussed religious views.

[SocialistPunk]

I think Robbo is way ahead on this one.Morality is not a swear word, morality is simply a word used to condense a number of words into a convenient definition, that being the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are good (right) and those that are bad (wrong). Obviously this differs over time as well as between cultures.A future socialist society will have a moral content. I imagine it will share certain features as we see today, but it will obviously be free from the whims of a ruling elite.Any objections?

[SocialistPunk]

Here I go, please don’t savage me if I appear to have got anything wrong. We should be aware this is a public forum and our behaviour reflects on the movement and could put people off.So imagine if I am discussing the SPGB (and companion parties) goal of capturing political power from the capitalist minority using parliamentary democracy.So I say this is needed in order to take the power away from the pro capitalist state, legitimizing the movement, using their own institutions of democracy against them, reducing the ability for the capitalist minority to be able to fight back etc. So I am asked about the possibility of one or a handful of countries arriving at this point earlier than the rest. Is my response to be that, we will need to leave it up to the socialists then to decide what course of action to take?While I fully accept the idea that if that were to happen the exact circumstances would dictate the approach, but if I were to simply come out with a weak answer such as that, I know I would be laughed at.In my discussions over the years I have never made it that far. It is hard enough trying to get people to grasp the idea of a world without money, borders and leaders in the first place. But if I had, it now appears to me that I would have been left looking like a stereotypical hippy, “Wow man, don’t get too heavy, it will all work itself out in the end man, the people will find a way.”I am keen to learn, as I am sure many others are. 

[Author]

Posts