Information request on Party Policy
- This topic has 53 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Are all people who leave your party class traitors. I ask because I am an ex member who tried to defend another ex member Steve Colemen and I was censored.
So to clarify – your forum is a free for all for attacking past contributions from fellow workers but if they will not be allowed to defend themselves ? If this is the case then I say fair enough, after all it is YOUR forum but please stop being hypocritical in your attacks on other 'left wing' groups by making unsubstantiated and overblown claims about yourselves.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:Are all people who leave your party class traitors.No, of course not.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:So to clarify – your forum is a free for all for attacking past contributions from fellow workers but if they will not be allowed to defend themselves ?The forum rules are quite clear. The forum can be used to discuss pretty much any topic in general. It is however not to be used for the discussion of matters concerning the behaviour of individual forum users.The procedure for reporting offensive or off-topic posts is explained in the forum guidelines and rules."No personal attacks. Neither post nor respond to incendiary material. If a post elicits a strong negative emotional response it may be best to wait a while before commenting. Nothing requires an immediate reply. Re-read the post and your response before sending."
Of course all ex-members are not class traitors. That was an opinion expressed by one member elsewhere about one particular ex-member (unfairly in my opinion and that of many others, but that's another matter), not about all ex-members and certainly not the 6 or 7 who have posted on this forum.But some are, such as this ex-member of Swansea branch who is now a UKIP councillor:http://www.ukip.org/page/bill-mountford-suffolk
ALB wrote:Of course all ex-members are not class traitors. That was an opinion expressed by one member elsewhere about one particular ex-member (unfairly in my opinion and that of many others, but that's another matter)In recent years this "particular ex-member" has served as specialist adviser to the House of Commons Information Select Committee inquiry on ICT and public participation in Parliament, policy adviser to the Cabinet Office, a member of the Royal Society committee on public engagement in science, a member of the Puttnam Commission on parliamentary communication with the public and chair of the Electoral Reform Society’s Independent Commission on Alternative Voting Methods.Still think he's a champion of our class and in the forefront of the struggle for socialism?
DJP wrote:TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:Are all people who leave your party class traitors.No, of course not.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:So to clarify – your forum is a free for all for attacking past contributions from fellow workers but if they will not be allowed to defend themselves ?The forum rules are quite clear. The forum can be used to discuss pretty much any topic in general. It is however not to be used for the discussion of matters concerning the behaviour of individual forum users.The procedure for reporting offensive or off-topic posts is explained in the forum guidelines and rules."No personal attacks. Neither post nor respond to incendiary material. If a post elicits a strong negative emotional response it may be best to wait a while before commenting. Nothing requires an immediate reply. Re-read the post and your response before sending."
Your opinion is hardly objective, you are 'admin' defending admin with a different hat on! What do you call that?
While very few ex-members become "class traitors" that doesn't mean that they are therefore all "champions of our class and in the forefront of the struggle for socialism". It's possible to be neither the one nor the other.The things you list could be seen as an attempt to make things less undemocratic under capitalism and so not reforms that we would necessarily regard as anti-working classa. After all, we are not opposed to all reforms. Our policy is that we do not advocate any reforms, however favourable some might be. Not at all in the same category as an ex-member who becomes a UKIP councillor and spouts anti-working class stuff about "too many immigrants" and "defend Britsish sovereignty".Basically, I think we should adopt the same position to members who leave after putting in sterling work for socialism as what Kropotkin advocated: just thank them for what they've done and leave it at that. Except where the person has come out as a declared opponent of socialism I think personally that this sort of discussion about an individual is invidious.
As I was an Executive Officer for the Government I am a little worried now. Perhaps the Party could issue a list of occupations that constitute class treachery.I could have become a matyrand stayed on the dole and struggle to buy trainers for my kids. Who comes first Family or a pat on the back from a'fellow socialist'? No brainer as the Americans say. And Well said, Alb. I totally agree.
ALB wrote:an ex-member who becomes a UKIP councillor and spouts anti-working class stuff about "too many immigrants" and "defend Britsish sovereignty".David Ramsay-Steele went from being a member of the SPGB to being a founding member of the Libertarian Alliance presumably because he was bowled over by the "economic calculation argument".However, what rational train of thought can lead one from being a socialist to becoming a exponent of nationalism? The mind boggles!Is Ramsay-Steele's book kept by the library department? I've also noticed a reel to reel of a debate between him and Hardy which should be an interesting addition to the site.
I personally find the lame defence of this particular individual not only invidious but obsequious. We're not talking here about an ordinary member of the working class struggling to support his family by working in a local government department or whatever but one who willing became embroiled in various aspects of the day-to-day functioning of the capitalist state. In my book that amounts to class treachery.
Not only invidious but cowardly and amoral to boot. Knew Coleman in the 80's and I, for one, cannot believe a man who held the views Steve did and put them with such eloquence and forcefulness, could now, be a supporter of Capitalism.If Steve had gone around informing, or advising supporters of the system how to "rig" ballots, my opinion may well be different but I have no proof, nor accusation that he is, "a ballot rigger". Surely to "rig a ballot" so that the outcome is not as it should be, would be more than frowned upon!Good comrade in the 80's Steve and a bloody good asset for the Party and in the fight for Socialism. Steve.
I may be missing a point here. Does Steve Coleman do this voluntarily? If so, could he be working from the inside? Perhaps what he discovers may benefit the socialist case.If he does not do it voluntarily and it is the way he gets a living then unemployed is a a horrible alternative. Slightly off topic but if Coleman joined this forum would members still be able to call him a class taitor? Or would that be considered an offence under forum rules?
Has anyone any proof that Steve in his role as, " chair of the Electoral Reform Society’s Independent Commission on Alternative Voting Methods." tried to implement, """ballot rigging"""? surely this would be the action of a class traitor, just having a "job" however, how can he be called a class traitor for that? Are all workers who have "jobs", class trators? Surely, by the logic, or illogic of some, just being employed would be seen as perpetuating Capitalism.Steve.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:Slightly off topic but if Coleman joined this forum would members still be able to call him a class taitor? Or would that be considered an offence under forum rules?I would have thought that if one forum user where to call another a "class traitor" it would break Rule 5. "Personal abuse, flaming and trolling will not be tolerated."But then if the "class traitor" in question was a capitalist and also a socialist this could be taken as a compliment!
Socialists do not merely argue against the system as such, but against those who, in a number of ways, support it. And, if that includes some ex-members, then so be it. A socialist is more than someone who holds socialist views. A socialist is one who communicates those views to fellow-workers.As an aside it should be noted that not all socialists are eligible for party membership; those in the police or armed forces for example.
Would Steve Coleman be eligible for party membership if, say, as " chair of the Electoral Reform Society’s Independent Commission on Alternative Voting Methods." he actively supported "vote rigging"? Would the act of supporting """vote rigging""", make him an ineligible candidate for membership? Moreover, would anyone found to have engaged in the anti-democratic practice of """vote rigging""" be ineligible for membership? Steve.
- The topic ‘Information request on Party Policy’ is closed to new replies.