discussion of dissenting opinions
- This topic has 18 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Where, exactly then do you provide for discussion of dissenting opinions, if you do?
I never rally got an answer on the Yahoo groups forum and it's dissatisfying there. Way too much dogmatism, absolute statements and just reposting of your official documents.
You've replied to me here frequently, but this is technically the SPGB forum.
thanks
At one time we had an internal magazine called Forum for dissent but it was discontinued long ago and there is a reluctance to resume anything like it due to the history of acrimony it caused. . So now it is just various internet sites, Spopen and here. http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/spopen/infoWe have an annual conference and an annual delegate meeting where many items for discussion rather than motions are debated. Perhaps someone might download them for you and send off-list. One member has been collating critiques of the party over the 100 years of the Party's existence from non- and ex-members but again it is on files that aren't accessible to non-members, not because of any censorship, just the way Yahoo is set up. The really fruitful discussions of dissenting opinions are probably post-branch meetings when members re-locate to a local licensed hostelry to refresh themselves with an alcoholic beverage or few and indulge in some reflection and criticism — in vino veritas, as they say.
The short answer is the internet. The internet has made it futile to try and restrict discussion, as you will hear the so-called 'socialist workers party' say 'internal discussion stays internal' and expel members discussing it on facebook as was done this year. They have yet to come to terms with the internet, perhaps they never will.Even if the SPGB had never set up forums online, no member should have their membership eligibility affected by openly discussing, disagreeing or criticising the SPGB elsewhere on the internet (facebook etc.). Just as pre-internet, members are free to discuss, write about SPGB business wherever and whenever. This pre-internet period is the period when Bolshevik parties were just as hostile to openness and would be expelling members discussing internal matters in public.Does this sound like the sectarian behaviour that the SPGB is often characterised as having? Often sectarian is misused to mean sustained political criticism, but the more important question is would a sect really be so open and transparent?However, the SPGB has set up forums, in fact since since 2001 in some cases. For over a decade, quite possibly the longest a political party has run forums which still exist, the SPGB has had forums for discussion online. Even the supposedly open AWL refused to acknowledge this fact when patting themselves on the back for allowing comments on their website and claiming to be unique.There is some criticism of the SPGB on the WSM Forum yahoo group from a former Deleonist who dropped the class struggle called Ken Ellis. I can provide you with some historical critiques, some better than others, if you PM me your e-mail address. Forum Journal from the 1950s, should really be available on this site, its available on scribd, but its a little airbrushed out.Personally, I think some members of the SPGB has become more conflict averse when it should be conflict aware and on the other hand some members like people in any organisation anywhere have made the occasional ill-judged belligerent comment in a meeting when generally it should be more considered.Discussing critiques of the SPGB on forums other than on SPGB forums, would probably help on two or three counts. One and the most important and dramatic effect, it would prove our commitment to openness. Two, it would better equip members for rational discussion of politics with other non-members. Three, it would raise the profile and awareness of the existence of the SPGB.But if any organisation tells you its members are perfect then you shouldn't believe them and its usually a sign they're willing to deceive you from the beginning.
jondwhite wrote:…. as you will hear the so-called 'socialist workers party' say 'internal discussion stays internal' and expel members discussing it on facebook as was done this year. …no member should have their membership eligibility affected by openly discussing, disagreeing or criticising the SPGB elsewhere on the internet (facebook etc.).admice wrote:Where, exactly then do you provide for discussion of dissenting opinions, if you do?I am not suprised that you have noticed. I know some members believe that disagreements make the party look bad and are a waste of forum space. Personally, I disagree and believe it to be unhealthy, but I have decided to respect their choices.
Yes, I've been posting here, as you know, but I'm in USA so 'officially or technically' (can you tell I'm obsessive) I shouldn't post here. "The really fruitful discussions of dissenting opinions are probably post-branch meetings when members re-locate to a local licensed hostelry to refresh themselves with an alcoholic beverage or few and indulge in some reflection and criticism — in vino veritas, as they say".Dang, I'm really missing out :(Thanks (and dam you alanjjohnstone, lol)
"no member should have their membership eligibility affected by openly discussing, disagreeing or criticising the SPGB.. "Someone with their finger on the actual source will help me out but we do possess a conference ruling that protects members raising objections and differences to party policy.It does, of course, carry the necessary caveat, that counter proposals still have to be compatible with the party's object and principles. The recent dispute on EC rejection of application for membership was not on political beliefs but on behaviour, rightly or wrongly.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Someone with their finger on the actual source will help me out but we do possess a conference ruling that protects members raising objections and differences to party policy.The Conference Resolution you are referring to will be this one passed in 1973:
Quote:This Conference reaffirms that nothing in the Party Rules should be so understood as to prevent any member or members from expressing criticism of the Party verbally or in writing.alanjjohnstone wrote:The recent dispute on EC rejection of application for membership was not on political beliefs but on behaviour, rightly or wrongly.No reasons were given by the EC.
I mostly meant like me, a non-member (but partial supporter).Also on the WSM forum some member mentioned it is for promoting your platform (I can't re-find the post) when I asked there, so I thought you don't want conflicting ideas, though you have been tolerant of mine. thanks
The two are not incompatible, admice. The main purpose of this forum and the Yahoo WSM Forum is to "promote our platform" (after all, we pay for them and our members devote their time to maintaining and moderating them) but we do this by encouraging discussion, including criticism, of what we stand for. Since you've been here you'll have noticed "dissenting opinions" from reformists (look at the current discussion on the Luxemburg thread), currency cranks and even out-an-out racists as well from others who don't agree with our approach on how to get to socialism. We welcome this because through discussion is one of the ways in which people become socialists. It also tests the validity of our views.
admice wrote:Good, yay. You had your oopportunity to get rid of me, too bad you didn't take it
Why should we get rid of you? Since when have you broken any of the guidelines and rules? Serious challenges to our case do not represent a breach of the guidelines and rules. In fact we welcome them!
Here's a piece from the anti-politics brigade attacking open disagreementhttp://words.steveklabnik.com/on-leftist-infighting
Quote:By drafting the principles together, the co-signing organizations are taking historic steps to actively extinguish divisiveness from their respective groups. The principles will ensure respect for the soon-to-be-permitted march on September 1 by people planning non-permitted activities, and in turn, participants in the September 1 march will adhere to the principles and do nothing to sow division among the many activists coming to the Twin Cities to protest the RNC.The principles are:Our solidarity will be based on respect for a diversity of tactics and the plans of other groups.The actions and tactics used will be organized to maintain a separation of time or space.Any debates or criticisms will stay internal to the movement, avoiding any public or media denunciations of fellow activists and events.We oppose any state repression of dissent, including surveillance, infiltration, disruption and violence. We agree not to assist law enforcement actions against activists and others.This is where the worst sorts of anarchism can end up. Substitutionist and policing speech but not actions.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.