Are physical meetings the best form of democratic control in 2015?

[Anonymous]

We will have to agree to disagree on that. untill there is more evidence. I am convinced Brand and Corbyn would not have happened without the internet. I don't have to be in the same room as you to engage in collective political activity.  Can you explain why I need to be? I could join you delivering leaflets rather than speaking to people via the internet. I don't think I will bother with the 'collective political activities' of summer schools or a 'Diggers' walk or perhaps visiting Marx's graveI dont think they are political activityies and they divert us from rabble rousing for revolution. The fact that we have attracted so few during this period of Austerity is overwhelming evidence that we are wasting time and resources and heading in the wrong direction.But mine is a tiny voice only posterity will judge.

[ALB]

I wasn't talking about our particular collective activity at the moment, but about political activity in general (meetings, rallies, election with a chance of winning). You are probably right about Brand and, before him, Zeitgeist . They are/were essentially internet phenomena. But I think "Corbynmania" is different. and is more like what I'd expect the take-off of socialism to be like: overflowing meetings, etc.

Vin wrote:

The fact that we have attracted so few during this period of Austerity is overwhelming evidence that we are wasting time and resources and heading in the wrong direction.

This isn't a logical argument. Merely an assertion on a par with Robbo's that it's because we are opposed to religious people joining. You might be right but what you say does not follow from the fact in question. There could be any number of other reasons for the fact in question including our anti-religious stance …. Not sure how you'd prove either. Perhaps the two of you could get together to work out a protocol for deciding which one of you is right,

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

 

Vin wrote:

The fact that we have attracted so few during this period of Austerity is overwhelming evidence that we are wasting time and resources and heading in the wrong direction.

This isn't a logical argument. Merely an assertion on a par with Robbo's that it's because we are opposed to religious people joining. You might be right but what you say does not follow from the fact in question. There could be any number of other reasons for the fact in question including our anti-religious stance …. Not sure how you'd prove either. Perhaps the two of you could get together to work out a protocol for deciding which one of you is right,

 Thats not fair ALB.  I don't assert  that the Party attracts only a few people because of its silly, pointless  and self defeating policy on barring religious-minded socialists.  That  is just one reason, and probably quite an important one –  though its importance is probably grossly understated if you are looking only at the number of applicants rejected because they hold religious views as opposed to the probably much larger number of individuals who don't bother to apply when they learn about this policy.  My guess is that most of them just drift away, disillusioned with socialism altogether , and once again the SPGB will have succeeded in shooting itself in the foot. However,. I am on record for stating that the Party is failing for a number of reasons, not simply because of its policy on religion.  In fact, probably the most important of these is what I've called the "small party syndrome" which is a self perpetuating self-reinforcing process whereby the very smallness of the Party works to keep it small.  This is no fault of the SPGB; its about the dynamics of political persuasion.  Because you are small this diminishes your credibility in the eyes of outsiders and that diminished credibility, in turn,   then works to keep you small.  It is only when you reach a certain threshold of numbers – a critical mass –  that the "small party syndrome" factor begins to weaken.  But to get to that threshold  you need to optimise your effectiveness in attracting new members  on every front including scrapping altogether that ridiculous policy on religion (or at least modifying it, perhaps,  to bar only individuals who belong to organised religions) So why then do you suggest that Vin and I "get together to work out a protocol for deciding which one of you is right"?  Is it not possible that both of us could be right? Come to think of it this may be yet another reason for the SPGBs poor performance to date – the tendency for members to think simplistically in only black-or-white terms

[Anonymous]

 

ALB wrote:

Vin wrote:

I think Corbyn Mania was also the result of the Internet yet we persist with the old pre digital methods

Really, just an internet phenomenon?  Do you really think that his campaign would have taken off without the well-attended public meetings he held up and down the country (even if they were advertised via the internet).  The internet is a tool, which we do and should use, but is not a substitute for collective political activity of one kind or another.

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

So why then do you suggest that Vin and I "get together to work out a protocol for deciding which one of you is right"?  Is it not possible that both of us could be right? Come to think of it this may be yet another reason for the SPGBs poor performance to date – the tendency for members to think simplistically in only black-or-white terms

and to be very defencive of the party's failed performance and methods. when we should be taking a gamble.

[ALB]

robbo203 wrote:

So why then do you suggest that Vin and I "get together to work out a protocol for deciding which one of you is right"?  Is it not possible that both of us could be right? Come to think of it this may be yet another reason for the SPGBs poor performance to date – the tendency for members to think simplistically in only black-or-white terms

Precisely my point , there can be any number of reasons why our membership and support is only progressing slowly. But that's a criticism of Vin's analysis (or, rather, assertion) than of what I've been arguing.

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

 But that's a criticism of Vin's analysis (or, rather, assertion) than of what I've been arguing.

Do I really need to prefix my posts with 'this is my opinion'? Surely it is all opinion?To say 'that is just an assertion' is not a counter argument.

[DJP]

Vinn wrote:

To say 'that is just an assertion' is not a counter argument.

It's not meant to be a counter argument, just an indication that you've made a claim without also giving any reasons or argument to back it up…

[Anonymous]

DJP wrote:

Vinn wrote:

To say 'that is just an assertion' is not a counter argument.

It's not meant to be a counter argument, just an indication that you've made a claim without also giving any reasons or argument to back it up…

That is just an assertion.Are you interest in the subject or are you just scoring points?.I was  making  tentative hypothesis. You must have come across such things during your science courses. I never claimed objective truth but there is a lot of cirumstantial evidence to support my belief. And I may collate it but then I may not.There is no evidence whatsoever to the counter argument: that public meetings, attacking workers that have a different vision than ourselves , summer schools, diggers walks etc etc are working. In fact the evidence is against thatYou do not ask members to support such assertions? Proof is required on both sides. Where is the evidence that what we do is working?gimmi gimmi    

[DJP]

To be honest I'm fairly disintersted in this discussion, it seems fairly two bit to me. There are no magic bullets. I have no opposition to further web based activities like Youtube films etc but at the same time there's no reason to discontinue what we have been doing as well. As yet it seems that those who have made contact with us online, without any face to face meetings, just turn out to be inactive paper members…

[Anonymous]

DJP wrote:

 As yet it seems that those who have made contact with us online, without any face to face meetings, just turn out to be inactive paper members…

How do you know they are inactive? Your statement is unsupported and value laden. You value certain methods/members to others. I think being on line is more active and productive.You want evidence?How many new non-members have visited public meetings, attended summer schools etc and how many have visited our various internet sites?Isn't this a valid operationalisation ? Of 'success'?The statistcs would support the hypothisis, I am sure of that.I am not surprised you are not interested in this thread. I'm sure you prefer giving talks to small audiences, but it is getting us nowhere.

[Anonymous]

DJP wrote:

As yet it seems that those who have made contact with us online, without any face to face meetings, just turn out to be inactive paper members…

wow DJP your statement stunned  me.  Could you alaborate on this type of member and how many we have?And in what way they are inferior?ie 'just paper members'

[DJP]

Vin wrote:

How do you know they are inactive?

It's quite simple. Because they don't engage in branch or commitee activity.

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

So why then do you suggest that Vin and I "get together to work out a protocol for deciding which one of you is right"?  Is it not possible that both of us could be right? Come to think of it this may be yet another reason for the SPGBs poor performance to date – the tendency for members to think simplistically in only black-or-white terms

Precisely my point , there can be any number of reasons why our membership and support is only progressing slowly. But that's a criticism of Vin's analysis (or, rather, assertion) than of what I've been arguing.

 Yes, but that does not mean that what Vin suggests as a reason for the SPGB's  poor performance does not hold water.  Nor what I suggested is a reason – its irrational and pointless ban on socialists who happen to hold religious views.  I agree with you that there are multiple reasons why the SPGB is performing badly  (is it even "only progressing slowly" ? I thought the membership was, actually, slowly  falling in absolute terms) I'm afraid I get the feeling that this is a bit of cop out argument, Adam  . It sounds like you are saying because no single reason can be adduced as to why the Party is performing badly you therefore do not have to seriously consider any such single reason  and prefer to hide behind the defence that are multiple reasons that account for the problem. As if "multiple reasons"  was not made up  of many single reasons. Its the same with DJP's comment that there are there are no magic bullets.  Yes of course there are no magic bullets but that does not mean you don't use any bullets at all. Its the cumulative impact of multiple bullets hitting their target  that we should be looking at. Like I said , and take this or leave it as you wish, it is across a broad front that the Party needs to radically change – not just one or two cosmetic changes here or there – if it is ever going to stand a chance of reaching that critical threshold where membership growth becomes easier.. You know,  I'm frankly dismayed by the sheer conservatism of some my comrades in the SPGB, their unwillingness to even to try out  new approaches.  Jesus christ, life is too short as it is as I know all too well .  Live a little more dangerously, comrades.  Where has 110 years of being inflexible and  "sound" , got you? Although I am not a member (and would be reluctant to rejoin an organisation that seems so sadly intent upon remaining in the same old rut dissipating the energy and enthusiasm of its own members who discover they have wasted years of their life in a party that going exactly nowhere) i have to agree with Vin's sentiment that  some comrades in the SPGB  tend be very defensive about the party's failed performance and methods. when we should be taking a gamble".  Indeed,  although I would extend that also to its policies as well.  The requirements to join the SPGB should be pruned back to simply what is absolutely necessary to ensure its revolutionary socialist outlook; anything else should be scrapped.  The SPGB is not meant to be some arcane  philosophical debating club; it is meant to be a serious political organisation with a serious practical objective in mind – socialism Give those of  us outside the Party a strong enough reason to join – or , indeed, rejoin – then I'm convinced the fortunes of the SPGB could be turned around in a fairly short time,.  Continue as you are and you face the prospect of a slow haemorrhaging of the very life blood of the Party until nothing is left – like the Cheshire Cats grin. Anyone who doubts that has only to consider the fate that seems to have befallen the Socialist Studies group.  Fast forward maybe 30 years and that could be the SPGB…

[alanjjohnstone]

I would be interested in the opinions of those who conducted EC meetings via Skype, whether it was a positive or negative result for them. I think its not been widespread use and just the odd occasion. If we are to acquire empirical evidence i would delay Conference/ADM technology until we iron out whatever snags there is with  our monthly EC meetings online. I suggest if we are to experiment and trial it should be with those and then become more ambitious later.Again i am with Robbo because many are now aware and probably getting fed up with the repetition i am pushing for some sort of special devoted conference…a re-founding of the Party, so to speak,  where all is thrown on the table again and debated and discussed. Many things will be only re-stated, some will be re-formulated. What will be interesting is if anything new will be added. Others will also know i have referredin the past  to the demographics of the Party member's ages and the future fate of branches (although one branch seems to have gone against the trend). Without having the simple facts that could be made available of the ages of those who participate in the Party polls i would be more pessimistic than Robbo. I recall we had the Conway Hall for our conferences. Now its in HO. When will it be the upstairs in the kitchen? 

[Author]

Posts