Excellent video

[moderator1]

Goes to show we are not alone:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaXhRlpusXE

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

Goes to show we are not alone

If 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?

[moderator1]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

Goes to show we are not alone

If 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?

I'm currently trying my best to make contact with them.

[alanjjohnstone]

The video is among many that we could recommend and most were put online under the creative commons conditions which means we can include it on our own website, so why don't we? For an organisation that seeks common ownership, isn't it strange we won't make use of videos (or articles) that are not solely our own party property?Why the reluctance to acknowledge that there are others on our own wave-length?  That was the real intent of my question. I find it incongruous that we cannot make use of others tools when our aims and often our means coincide. I find it strange that we cannot form links and cooperation with others.Do we have to be 100% in agreement? Isn't it enough to concur on 90%, particularly when the 10% difference may not even be on core principles but merely style of communication such as use of language or the baggage we all carry. 

[ALB]

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.

[alanjjohnstone]

I'm the doom and gloom merchant, Adam…don't you go trying to steal my thunder with negative thoughts…We  can still make use of their work and creativity as i suggested by posting their and i'm not talking about mergers but recognising where we agree and don't agree and perhaps going on to sharing some resources if the differences are not fundamental ones.. We could have joint meetings/workshops if we acknowledge that the hostility clause need not apply and could share the same platform. All i am suggested right now is some comradely cordial relationships and i'm pleased Brian is endeavouring to establish that at a personal level although i think it could be more worth-while if we later approached alike organisations as an organisation. 

[SocialistPunk]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

Goes to show we are not alone

If 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.

[SocialistPunk]

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]

Quote:

has the Party officially tried any attempt at extending the hand of friendship with these people?

I think we have tried to become closer to Zeitgeist in the past…showing their movies, inviting their speakers to address meetings ( but they are a nebulous lot), and us participating in their own media PaddyS was interviewed on their online radio station….Zeitgeist is more an amalgam of individuals in a fluid organisation rather than a political party but we shouldn't simply give up even if our open hand of friendship is ignored or even spurned. Perhaps the Sanders phenomenon making socialism a more respectable word has brushed off on some of the Zeitgeist activists who previously shied away from socialist/marxist terminology. Maybe their position has shifted a little to our favour  But we did ourselves no favours by designating them a political rival…I'll leave others to recite the conference decision which i would have to search out in the archives to cite accurately but i wasn't too enmoured by the conference decisionFor sure you cannot force others to be your friends but we can set up opportunities that do bring us closer together and it will often take more than a few efforts to gain trust. I'm patient and persistent and think we should persevere.One thing we always have in our favour as a party is our political integrity and we should highlight that much more particularly when we have honest differences…we won't thrust our views down other peoples throats just for a result. 

[SocialistPunk]

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]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

But we did ourselves no favours by designating them a political rival…I'll leave others to recite the conference decision which i would have to search out in the archives to cite accurately but i wasn't too enmoured by the conference decision

We shouldn't really be discussing this whole issue here, but as we are, here's the result of the 2011 Conference motions on Zeitgeist:

Quote:

Motion: "This conference rules that the Zeitgeist Movement is a political
organisation within the meaning of rule 6." Central London Branch

For 49 Against 47

MOTION CARRIED
 Motion. "This Conference considers that active support of the Zeitgeist Movement is incompatible with membership of The Socialist Party." East Anglian Regional Branch For 69 Against 30 MOTION CARRIED

I hope you bothered to vote on the first one as the vote was very close. One thing is clear, though, that there'd have to be a mandate from Conference to go down the route you and SP are advocating. Who knows you might get it.

[moderator1]

ALB wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

But we did ourselves no favours by designating them a political rival…I'll leave others to recite the conference decision which i would have to search out in the archives to cite accurately but i wasn't too enmoured by the conference decision

We shouldn't really be discussing this whole issue here, but as we are, here's the result of the 2011 Conference motions on Zeitgeist:

Quote:

Motion: "This conference rules that the Zeitgeist Movement is a political
organisation within the meaning of rule 6." Central London Branch

For 49 Against 47

MOTION CARRIED
 Motion. "This Conference considers that active support of the Zeitgeist Movement is incompatible with membership of The Socialist Party." East Anglian Regional Branch For 69 Against 30 MOTION CARRIED

I hope you bothered to vote on the first one as the vote was very close. One thing is clear, though, that there'd have to be a mandate from Conference to go down the route you and SP are advocating. Who knows you might get it.

To compare TZM with Social Rebirth is imo an absurdity and ludicrous despite the fact both seek much the same changes we are seeking and neither represent a political challenge to capitalism.  As a matter of fact Social Rebirth consists of two or three people at the most who are taking advantage of social medium to criticise and condem the arguments of the various capitalist apologists like David Attenborough who supports Malthus.Nevertheless, there is nothing in the rules or any conference resolution for that matter which stipulates individual party members can not cooperate or engage with groups like Social Rebirth.  Lest not forget there are more socialists outside of the party than members.  And always will be.In this regard I'm trying to make contact with them to ascertain whether or not they have come across us and been influenced by our arguments.  In the meantime, I see no reason why we can't recommend and use the two videos they have produced as a means of advertising the socialist case independent of the party.  Also it would illustrate that the 'thin red line' is with time getting decidely thinner!

[alanjjohnstone]

An anonymous comment has been placed on the Socialist Courier blog raising the issue of my personal opinions about the party posted on this thread and so i post it and my reply here for those who may wish to continue the discussion:  Anonymous1:40 pmReading your contribution to the 'Excellent Video' thread. Have you not thought of resigning from the Socialist Party and joining these people? You have urged a name change, selling no.52 and putting the Standard wholly online.It seems you are determined that the SP should hand in it's political resignation which, given what kind of organisation it is these days wouldn't be a bad idea. So, all power to you!ReplyDelete  ajohnstone12:41 amThis is a blog of the Edinburgh and Glasgow branches of the Socialist Party. Where exactly on this blog, or any other blog published on the internet under the name of the Socialist Party, has such proposals ever been made? Does any such suggestions appear in the above article which you have felt a need to add a extraneous comment, for instance?The Socialist Party is proud of its democracy and its facilities for internal debate and discussion and has various forums where individual members can raise issues and matters and exchange views and opinions with other members. And that is exactly what they are, personal perspectives, until the Party goes through a political decision-making process on any possible proposals for change to the way the Socialist Party conducts its business and campaign for socialism. Or do you advocate suppression of dissenting voices regards to how we act and present ourselves in public and the imposition of some sort of a party-line when it comes to debate and discussion within the Socialist Party? In future, please take your concerns about a blogger's relationship to the Socialist Party and its future to the appropriate forum webpage where i am sure your contribution will receive the fuller response that you seek. In future, please restrict your comments on this blog to the content posted on this blog."

[SocialistPunk]

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. 

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

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.

Nor has he ever thought that sometimes playing Devil's advocate is a means of eliciting the necessary exchanges to further the case for socialism. I will readily accept criticism that i am perhaps not asking the right questions to get the important and vital answers we need to improve and promote our presence within the workers movement. But our current political trajectory has to be seriously questioned and answers found to our present stagnation and inevitable decline as a political party. I will happily have any of my proposals shot down in flames if better alternatives are offered. They are not issues of principle.  

[Author]

Posts