Liking, Following and Retweeting Posts and Comments on Facebook and Twitter.
- This topic has 25 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I have to say this is an absolute absurdity. A member expelled for 'liking' and 'sharing' Facebook posts.Many members are 'guilty' of this so perhaps clarification is needed. What we can and can't do on social media.NB I have renamed the title of the thread in the hope of encouraging discussion on this matter
I have just heard that jeremy likes a pint of guiness Does this mean i should pour my supply of the black stuff down the drain just in case i am accused of reformism??
On a more serious note are london members on the ball with the grenfell towers demos ?? A relevant leaflet to hand out would be useful.
It seems that we are not the only party having to deal with (or not) comments on social media. This from the Minutes of the June Meeting of the EC of the WSP (India):
Quote:Matters Arising: The EC asks comrade Tabrez Julaha Ajlaf to adhere to our OBJECT and DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES, MANIFESTO and RULES while uploading or posting comments on the social media. He must restrain himself from upholding and giving random confused supports to violence, nationalism, religion, feminism, and other anti-socialist ideas in a mess. – AGREEDALB wrote:It seems that we are not the only party having to deal with (or not) comments on social media. This from the Minutes of the June Meeting of the EC of the WSP (India):Quote:Matters Arising: The EC asks comrade Tabrez Julaha Ajlaf to adhere to our OBJECT and DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES, MANIFESTO and RULES while uploading or posting comments on the social media. He must restrain himself from upholding and giving random confused supports to violence, nationalism, religion, feminism, and other anti-socialist ideas in a mess. – AGREEDAbsolutely horrendous. The control over people's personal life is fucking rediculous. What he posts on his own facebook and what he says to his friends at in his own house is his own business and that of the FBI and the CIA . Same goes for Cde Riggerly
The expelled member says: The charge is that I "liked" on Facebook posts from the Jeremy Corbyn account, and the Red Labour account. And that I shared them. It's completely true. The posts were newspaper articles. There were often comments above the newspaper articles – as with normal Facebook practice. I didn't bother about what the comments said – they were in any event sentiments that I would almost certainly have agreed with. If this practice constitutes expellable behaviour, I am glad that they have expelled me. I've been working in the Gulf for 5 years, using Facebook and other media with one eye over my shoulder to see who's watching, and I'm ashamed to say that I have found myself self-censoring on more than one occasion. Finding the SPGB behaving in this way is daft. I mainly find it humiliating that I've spent almost 25 years in what is the ultra-left's equivalent of the Plymouth Brethren. And I'm ecstatic to be out. The SPGB is a roadblock, not a help, to the working class. Partly by design – the Hostility Clause, for example was a dead letter as soon as we came back empty-handed from the Second International in 1904 – but partly from progressive degeneration of its personnel. There is in particular no understanding of Marxism. A money fetish has been substituted for the suppression of Capital, an anarchist rejection of combination substituted for the pursuit of "world-historical character", a fully formed castle in the sky substituted for what should never have been more than a direction of travel, an initial rough sketch of what is a set of projected relationships, not a place. And so forth. Everywhere one finds abstractions. And as this election has shown most clearly – the SPGB's road to revolution does not start where the working class *is*. The class is expected to shift onto the Party's pre-prepared ground, held vacant since the late 19th century. Only then will it follow the golden road to socialism, which again is fully formed and located … in the 19th century. All competing pleasures the Party will destroy. The SPGB is not a party without leaders – it is a party whose leaders are dead. I'll be finding somewhere that I can be of better use.
Vin wrote:The expelled member says: The SPGB is a roadblock, not a help, to the working class. Partly by design – the Hostility Clause, for example was a dead letter as soon as we came back empty-handed from the Second International in 1904 – but partly from progressive degeneration of its personnel. There is in particular no understanding of Marxism. A money fetish has been substituted for the suppression of Capital, an anarchist rejection of combination substituted for the pursuit of "world-historical character", a fully formed castle in the sky substituted for what should never have been more than a direction of travel, an initial rough sketch of what is a set of projected relationships, not a place. And so forth. Everywhere one finds abstractions. And as this election has shown most clearly – the SPGB's road to revolution does not start where the working class *is*. The class is expected to shift onto the Party's pre-prepared ground, held vacant since the late 19th century. Only then will it follow the golden road to socialism, which again is fully formed and located … in the 19th century.[my bold]I know that you won't thank me for my support, Vin, but here it is, anyway.No understanding of Marxism – only mindless adherence to Engels' 'materialism', the 'progressive degeneration'.An anarchist rejection of combination – only bourgeois individualism and 'freedom' from society's control of production.The class is expected to shift onto the Party's pre-prepared ground, held vacant since the late 19th century – the fruits of materialism, as Marx warned. The belief that 'specialists' in consciousness supposedly already know what workers haven't even yet built.The root of this 19th century disease is Religious Materialism. The result is that the party 'knows Truth', and the members must be watched for dissent.
On the 14th of June Grenfell Towers burnt down. The next day and a few miles down the road North London Branch met "mainly to consider disciplinary action against Cde Simon Wigley". After several topics mostly concerning finances, rent and banking the Branch then went on to decide under the topic: Any Other business: "That Kenny proposed a walk to a nature reserve or similar, including a picnic". Best was saved for last though when – K.Beveridge moved that “Cde Wigley be expelled from the Party”, seconded by J.Lee. Carried 5-1 (7 present). It has to be assumed that the meeting ended here probably with a trip to the pub to discuss the night's work. I'm sure that the workers everywhere hope that that weather stays fine for the day of the picnic.
What was the nature of the posts that the expelled SPGB member shared? Were they saying something in the likes of "Vote Labour" or was it something like "The Tory's are bad"?I'm not a member and have no say in this matter but it would perhaps be good if people could find out what the posts actually said?
When a member refers to a tv program or a newspaper article, they are 'liking' and 'sharing'Independent – LABOUR 6 POINTS AHEAD IN LATEST POLL!! I 'share' this information with my Facebook friends. Action detrimental?
I think here is a huge difference between liking something and supporting it fully from a political perspective.As a for instance, I like "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists", I have recommended it as a starter to non socialisits, I would be happy to see people reading it, however I am not in agreement with all of Robert Tressell's political beliefs.Surely we have to make more sensible responses to electronic media. If we are stupid enough to spend time on issues such as this then we are in danger of becoming a replica of the Ashbourne Court Group and will deserve the derision we get.
Sympo wrote:What was the nature of the posts that the expelled SPGB member shared? Were they saying something in the likes of "Vote Labour" or was it something like "The Tory's are bad"?I'm not a member and have no say in this matter but it would perhaps be good if people could find out what the posts actually said?Sympo is right. The issue is not THAT members "like" something. It is WHAT they "like". As he says, there is a difference between "liking" some criticism, from whatever quarter, of capitalism, the Tories or Labour, and liking a post saying "VOTE LABOUR" or "JEREMY FOR PRIME MINISTER".Of course there's no problem about members using the "like" facility. Banning that would be absurd but that's not an issue.
ALB wrote:Of course there's no problem about members using the "like" facility. Banning that would be absurd but that's not an issue.It is the issue. Nowhere is it suggested that the comrade posted 'Vote Labour' etc. We are talking about sharing or liking a comment posted by another party or Momentum. As an example: Oxfam is not a revolutionary organisation it believes capitalism can work, but we all cut and past, share and like its statistics. It doesn't mean we support reformism. We are a very small party and most nay ALL research is carried out by non SPGB members. Much of what is said on twitter and Facebook relating to politics is the result of research by a non SPGB member. It is crazy to expel a member for agreeing with the result of a non SPGB member's research. For the sake of openess and fairness can we see the content of the offending posts? Do they say VOTE LABOUR!. I think not, so we should not cloud the issue.
Vin wrote:ALB wrote:Of course there's no problem about members using the "like" facility. Banning that would be absurd but that's not an issue.It is the issue. Nowhere is it suggested that the comrade posted 'Vote Labour' etc. We are talking about sharing or liking a comment posted by another party or Momentum. As an example: Oxfam is not a revolutionary organisation it believes capitalism can work, but we all cut and past, share and like its statistics. It doesn't mean we support reformism. We are a very small party and most nay ALL research is carried out by non SPGB members. Much of what is said on twitter and Facebook relating to politics is the result of research by a non SPGB member. It is crazy to expel a member for agreeing with the result of a non SPGB member's research. For the sake of openess and fairness can we see the content of the offending posts? Do they say VOTE LABOUR!. I think not, so we should not cloud the issue.
I thought the allegation was precisely encouraging a vote for Labour via a "like". It would as you say be crazy to charge someone merely for "liking" any comment by an opposing political organisation.For the record a member expelled by a branch has the right to appeal to conference.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.