Organisation update
- This topic has 243 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
As a recently expelled member, I'd like to have a say, perhaps what I say might actually be useful. But the questionnaire appears to be members only. Oh well. Good luck with fixing the poor membership problem.
Paula, the purpose for this thread can be for the likes of yourself to share your views and opinions and see if they resonate with others.
She voted Labour; those murderous soaked-in-the-blood-of the-working-class-atom-bomb-manufacturing fakirs. How on earth are her views and opinions supposed to interest socialists? Other than as yet another lamentable example of traitorous political confusion. No offence.
Bob Andrews wrote:She voted Labour; those murderous soaked-in-the-blood-of the-working-class-atom-bomb-manufacturing fakirs. How on earth are her views and opinions supposed to interest socialists? Other than as yet another lamentable example of traitorous political confusion. No offence.erm, most workers vote for blood soaked political parties. So according to your logic we shouldn't be interested in workers' opinions at all.
Paula mcewan, as Alan has already pointed out, you can have an input right here on this thread and I,for one, am eager to hear what you have to say
Reminder: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.Reminder: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.
Stop stifling discussion.
Apologies for long post – but not been here for years so allow me : )The world’s working class appears – indisputably despite our efforts – to have in recent years undergone something of a significant and positive shift in terms of its understanding of the workings of capitalism and rejection of its ideologies. Support for religion, nationalism, racism, and political leadership in general is – albeit slowly – in inexorable decline. This may in part be the result of ten years of falling living standards, but equally and independently, the ideological defences of capitalism are much weaker in the aftermath of Iraq and austerity; it is increasingly seen as an inherently unfair and broken system. The only defence we now hear is that “there is nothing better”I think, then that we should view the reorganisation of the Party as a positive step to match this political development, rather than make a grudging necessity out of what should be seen as a virtue. A wholesale review of our structure is very welcome, but for me this questionnaire lacks ambition, and doesn’t appear to allow for the option real, substantial change. Talk of holding EC meetings outside London strikes me as very conservative. But hopefully, this is just the start as Brian J says.There is nothing new in what I have to say but I do think that party administration, party democracy and socialist activity are all inter-related. Party democracy should be put online (no more having to post things out from Head Office), and be driven by individual members rather than geographical branches. Resolutions with supporting statements should be posted (text, audio, video) with a minimum number of supporting votes for it to progress to formal discussion over a stipulated timescale, before electronic voting occurs. A well-designed – and moderated – discussion platform would of course be essential to this. Inability/unwillingness of members to access the internet is not acceptable and should not be seen – in 2017 – as a valid reason to reject this opportunity.EC meetings could be 1-2 hours per week, with EC members attending remotely, and streamed to the membership. Off the shelf web conferencing will allow members’ faces to be seen and heard readily, while allowing documents, minutes etc to be posted and read in advance, enhancing participation. There will be confidentiality & security issues, but these are surmountable. Party committees would also meet online and could be streamed, for thems as want to watch, introducing a transparency and voluntary discipline. Party democracy could be participative and immediate, compared to the somewhat remote and sclerotic current situation.Local branches should indeed evolve into activity groups to suit local members’ needs, focussed on discussing and carrying out practical activity, and enhancing the important social function. All such groups should receive funding to enable meetings to be streamed (good quality video & audio equipment). All streamed meetings would be advertised on the website and social media and open to viewers to text/post questions live to the chair/moderator. Rather than speaking to the converted in the back room of a pub, knowing that you might be fielding questions from viewers around the world might make some speakers put in a bit more preparation!We currently maintain an under-used and hugely expensive office. Missed rental income from this must be in the range of £2-3K per week, for which we are able to maintain a presence for at best 3 days per week. Perhaps our mode of organisation is now becoming a fetter on production (our propaganda function). Far smaller, and more suited professional office accommodation could be rented for a fraction of this income off the main street. This would secure the long-term viability of the Party as well as release funds to fully deliver the Party as a democratic digital organisation. Efforts are being made in this regard but we struggle to fill party admin positions because we are locked into a Clapham-centric view requiring some degree of physical attendance, and placing unfair burden on London membersIf we were just starting out with a blank sheet, having our inaugural meeting to decide how we should organise ourselves, would we look to buy four floor accommodation on a busy main street in expensive London, that we couldn’t maintain?! With half our spending going on Head Office (last time I checked), the SPGB is arguably a landlord with a sideline as a political party.But with a digital Party structure consolidated in place, we would be in position to finally break with both the past and with the artificial borders capitalism constrains us within. In consultation with our moribund companion parties we could open up membership to the world. This need not just be symbolic. As well as aiding our isolated overseas comrades by bringing their views into a thorough-going democratic organisation, we may find that in forming the first genuinely revolutionary and international political party it galvanises our own membership. Landless peasants are now using the internet to realise their commonalities across continents and form highly-effective international movements. Surely we can aspire to this too: we are, after all, the only “socialist” political movement that can actually make a coherent and consistent argument to the workers of the world.
Brian Gardner wrote:Apologies for long post – but not been here for years so allow me : )The world’s working class appears – indisputably despite our efforts – to have in recent years undergone something of a significant and positive shift in terms of its understanding of the workings of capitalism and rejection of its ideologies. Support for religion, nationalism, racism, and political leadership in general is – albeit slowly – in inexorable decline. This may in part be the result of ten years of falling living standards, but equally and independently, the ideological defences of capitalism are much weaker in the aftermath of Iraq and austerity; it is increasingly seen as an inherently unfair and broken system. The only defence we now hear is that “there is nothing better”I think, then that we should view the reorganisation of the Party as a positive step to match this political development, rather than make a grudging necessity out of what should be seen as a virtue. A wholesale review of our structure is very welcome, but for me this questionnaire lacks ambition, and doesn’t appear to allow for the option real, substantial change. Talk of holding EC meetings outside London strikes me as very conservative. But hopefully, this is just the start as Brian J says.There is nothing new in what I have to say but I do think that party administration, party democracy and socialist activity are all inter-related. Party democracy should be put online (no more having to post things out from Head Office), and be driven by individual members rather than geographical branches. Resolutions with supporting statements should be posted (text, audio, video) with a minimum number of supporting votes for it to progress to formal discussion over a stipulated timescale, before electronic voting occurs. A well-designed – and moderated – discussion platform would of course be essential to this. Inability/unwillingness of members to access the internet is not acceptable and should not be seen – in 2017 – as a valid reason to reject this opportunity.EC meetings could be 1-2 hours per week, with EC members attending remotely, and streamed to the membership. Off the shelf web conferencing will allow members’ faces to be seen and heard readily, while allowing documents, minutes etc to be posted and read in advance, enhancing participation. There will be confidentiality & security issues, but these are surmountable. Party committees would also meet online and could be streamed, for thems as want to watch, introducing a transparency and voluntary discipline. Party democracy could be participative and immediate, compared to the somewhat remote and sclerotic current situation.Local branches should indeed evolve into activity groups to suit local members’ needs, focussed on discussing and carrying out practical activity, and enhancing the important social function. All such groups should receive funding to enable meetings to be streamed (good quality video & audio equipment). All streamed meetings would be advertised on the website and social media and open to viewers to text/post questions live to the chair/moderator. Rather than speaking to the converted in the back room of a pub, knowing that you might be fielding questions from viewers around the world might make some speakers put in a bit more preparation!We currently maintain an under-used and hugely expensive office. Missed rental income from this must be in the range of £2-3K per week, for which we are able to maintain a presence for at best 3 days per week. Perhaps our mode of organisation is now becoming a fetter on production (our propaganda function). Far smaller, and more suited professional office accommodation could be rented for a fraction of this income off the main street. This would secure the long-term viability of the Party as well as release funds to fully deliver the Party as a democratic digital organisation. Efforts are being made in this regard but we struggle to fill party admin positions because we are locked into a Clapham-centric view requiring some degree of physical attendance, and placing unfair burden on London membersIf we were just starting out with a blank sheet, having our inaugural meeting to decide how we should organise ourselves, would we look to buy four floor accommodation on a busy main street in expensive London, that we couldn’t maintain?! With half our spending going on Head Office (last time I checked), the SPGB is arguably a landlord with a sideline as a political party.But with a digital Party structure consolidated in place, we would be in position to finally break with both the past and with the artificial borders capitalism constrains us within. In consultation with our moribund companion parties we could open up membership to the world. This need not just be symbolic. As well as aiding our isolated overseas comrades by bringing their views into a thorough-going democratic organisation, we may find that in forming the first genuinely revolutionary and international political party it galvanises our own membership. Landless peasants are now using the internet to realise their commonalities across continents and form highly-effective international movements. Surely we can aspire to this too: we are, after all, the only “socialist” political movement that can actually make a coherent and consistent argument to the workers of the world.And how do you propose to support all of these suggestions. Members are currently unwilling to step forward and fill the posts of HOO, Gen Sec and Treasurer.
I don't think that a questionaire is going to resolve our problems. If members of the Socialist Party in England are not willing to fill the posts it is an indication that we are sailing on a sinking ship, and members are not willing to help their own political party because they have lost their optimism, or the vision of a new society. At the present time the SPGB is the only companion party of the WSM which is active, the others companion parties are dead or are dying, What are we doing to do about this ? If we do not wake up, we are going to die and we are going to vanish as a political institution. It is the only genuine socialist organization that erxist all over the earth, Are we going to let it die ?In the past I was a member of several political reformist organizations where their members were willing to die for their organization, and we had less resources than the SPGB.
BrianJ, as someone who talks about positive responses you lapses into negativism in response to the other Brian's post.To solve a problem we have to detect it and describe it before we can determine what the problem is to fix we require group-think. Not one person is i think capable of performing miracles and i am not sure one group of socialists are able to either.It has been said and i don't think it has been refuted but the decline in membership, participation, and activity is not unique to the SPGB but is reflected elsewhere in what use to be called the Impossiblist tradition or the non-market socialist thin red line movement to use John Crump's description of the broader movement.I happen to disagree with BrianG's observation that "…Support for religion, nationalism, racism, and political leadership in general is – albeit slowly – in inexorable decline…", and it is those ideologies that are offering alternatives to socialism which is growing in strength. Reformism in gradualist or radical guises spring up offering already tried and failed policies. But whether BrianG's interpretation or my own is the correct one – we agree on his conclusion …the working class views change as pessimistically as Pvt. Fraser, “there is nothing better”.In fact, if we include those with an interest in environmentalism the prognosis is even more apocalyptic and catastrophic. Indeed on climate change marches "Prepare to meet thy doom" placards would not be amiss.Why in such a political and economic situation so ripe for a receptive audience to the socialist message is our strength not increasing but actually dissipating? That's the real question.If we hold that our political position is the correct one, then the logic leads us to place the fault elsewhere and i have heard fellow members despairing about their fellow-workers and explaining our failure as the rejection of the working class to heed the socialist idea. Others explain our failure simply as inadequate communication and campaigning – that although we are overwhelmed by the capitalist class indoctrination and all is needed is a bit more effort.My understanding of the Marxist dynamic was that it will be a combination of material conditions created by capitalism and the ensuing class struggle and the accompanying ideological education and organisation that would bring about class consciousness. Yet it is simple arithmetic…we have less membership now than when we were founded in relation to population rises.We have to return to our principles and re-consider them or are we condemned to repeating the same strategies, hoping for some miracle that there will be a different outcome…as Einstein said of this process …it's insane. BrianG's contribution did not explicitly offer specific changes bit some are implicit in the consequences. "how do you propose to support all of these suggestions. Members are currently unwilling to step forward and fill the posts of HOO, Gen Sec and Treasurer." you askedIsn't shedding ourselves of the burden of a HO releasing human resources? We keep appealing for and returning to the issue of HO Organisers and keeping the premises open. Isn't transforming into more a web-based party structure, decentralising the Party in the process, lessening the work-load of a few members and spreading and dispersing the load. It may be unpalatable for other members but BrianG did present a way forward.Marcos has also pointed out that there are many in the companion parties and scattered individuals across the globe who can be drawn into activity by the SPGB and companion parties fully metamorphising itself into a one-organisation World Socialist party.I understand, BrianJ your attention is focussed on the immediate task – the questionnaire…and i understand how the organisational structure of the SPGB is seen as a priority…but i have an inkling that it is throwing a life-belt.However, these changes are not going to address the existential questions of how we begin to benefit from the consequences of the political and economic circumstances our class is facing today. We need to return to fundamentals and rather than some contemplation of our navels, enter into a deeper self-examination — and see where it takes us. I don't think we can expect any single person or committee to provide the silver bullet. I don't think it can be accomplished quickly. I am hopeful that the baby-steps we are taking presently will become great strides and giant leaps in the future.I'm not pessimistic. Captain Mainwearing…i'm patient… but against unnecessary procrastination
We want potential members to join our organizations, but we want them to be ready to answer all the questions of the application first, How are they going to answer the question when we do not have a plan, a school, or study group to educate them ? If you look at the forum,( under Reading Groups ) we have a thread opened on 2014 to discuss the Communist Manifesto, and we did not have too much participation, and the thread has been dead since 2014. I have read the CM several times,( Since 1960 ) and I know its content, but we might have potential members that are willing to read our opinions, and participate in the discussion. We must turn ourselves into a school of socialismWe must provide political and economical educations to our potential members. How are they going to learn ? How are they going to answers the questions of the application for membership ? We have several pamphlets that can be used to educate our synpathyzers and potential members. In every aspect of our life we need encouragement and enthusiasm.In the future we should include one, or two articles written in a foreign language in the Socialist Standard.( There are several Leninists Organization doing that already on their Journals and newspapers ) We must open our doors and windows to the whole wide world if we want to be called the World Socialist Movement
Brian wrote:Members are currently unwilling to step forward and fill the posts of HOO, Gen Sec and Treasurer.There are also members that have stepped forward to fill posts but have been blocked by others. Perhap a good start would be to accept these offers?????
Hi Brian, I did expect that response and its not an unfair one. I understand that those doing the work at the moment may see any such talk as veiled criticism. But its a bit chicken and egg. A lot of our work appears to cente round the premises. If the default position was that the work of the party should genuinely be able to be done remotely with little more than a comrade at a laptop and hosted somewhere without having to still relate to a physical version at HO (eg like extracting the email addresses you mentioned from archives) then workload could genuinely be spread out amongst the membership. I'd volunteer to be treasurer but I suspect I'd still need to attend at Head Office once per month , which is not possible. I would happily look at the terms of reference of each position and see if I could contribute but (I've been out of loop for a while so might be wrong) but I presume I cant at one click view that and instead so have to ask someone to find it and email out to me. If anyone has an overview of the various roles and whether they can be done remotely then I'd happily look at it. The mindset should be instead of asking members to volunteer to be HOO or somesuch set of initials that means nothing to 90% of the party outside of Clapham, to outline what the job entails and what parts of it can genuinely be done remotely and how much time that will take.Alternatively, if any party officer has a task or project that can be done remotely then by all means parcel that out – offshore it to cheap labour in Glasgow or Newcastle
Delegate it and I'll do it as will others I'm sure, with no dilution of party democracy. roles and responsibilities etc. I suspetc there is very little that can be delegated though, and thats' what we need to address and continue to try and shift our admin online.The work I'm at has a number of people working rmeotely. It uses Sharepoint for secure access to documents, edit/review facility etc,. There are many other similar products that make this sort of thing laughably easy – I'm sure most comrades have better experience than me at what these things can do. And once you get used to it Skype meeitngs and videoconferencing become second nature.My disappointment with the questionnaire is that I think we all know what the questionnaire responses are going to say. I'm not saying anything novel – I think we all pretty much know how we'd like a new gee-whizz internet-savvy SPGB to look and function. Doing nothing really doesnt look like a viable option for much longer. So to mix metaphors, I'm less for (the old response we always get) "you cant run before you can walk" and more for a Kevin Costner "build it and they will come". We know what's wrong with the current set-up and we have a pretty good idea of how we'd like things to look, so we should be looking at how we implement this, by making the shift to online party admin and democracy the default driver over the next 1-2 years. I return to the point about how we would set up our party if we were just starting out with a blank canvas. I would go so far as to suggest that the Party should be voting at Conference not to disband but to take a break for six months from all activity, meetings, Socialist Standard etc (the world's working class will forgive us) in order to work out how to make this change. If we can do so without that hiatus so much the better but I worry that we simply cant, that the day-to-day blinds us to the bigger picture.Yours for positive socialist activity (with 6 months break of course),Brian GardnerWithout giving too much away at this stage we may have a taker for the post of Head Office Organiser for 2018 and there is a distinct possibility that some of the work associated with the Standing Orders Committee will, at least for the foreseeable future, be done by a comrade online.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.