Primary elections, open and closed, US and UK inc. Labour

[Young Master Smeet]

Those political parties are full of workers: millions of workers voted Tory, I don't see why they should have a say in the running of our association.

[jondwhite]

Because our organisation has as our purpose their emancipation. We can't do it without them.

[DJP]

jondwhite wrote:

The working-class non-members aren't our opponents, our opponents are the ruling-class and their political parties.

We are engaged in a battle of ideas. We cannot co-operate with people who hold ideas counter to ours, at the present point in time this includes the vast majority of the working class. The working class have to realise that there ultimate interest lies in the abolition of capitalist social relations, it's up to us to try and help speed up the process and in doing so some members of the ruling class will be drawn to our side.

[DJP]

jondwhite wrote:

Because our organisation has as our purpose their emancipation. We can't do it without them.

You're right the socialist party on it's own cannot and will not bring about Socialism. But at a time when our ideas are not shared with the vast majority we cannot just act is if they where.

[Young Master Smeet]

jondwhite wrote:

Because our organisation has as our purpose their emancipation. We can't do it without them.

Nope, the organisation has as our purpose our emancipation.  We're not doing this for anyone else.

[robbo203]

DJP wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

Because our organisation has as our purpose their emancipation. We can't do it without them.

You're right the socialist party on it's own cannot and will not bring about Socialism. But at a time when our ideas are not shared with the vast majority we cannot just act is if they where.

 Strictly speaking, this is not relevant since what I gather from what Jondwhite is saying is that participation of outsiders in the affairs of the SPGB  in open elections would be limited to the selection of it personnel, party officers  or parliamnetary candiates in these open elections. It wouldn't effect policy which would remain under the control of the membership, Personally, I cant see much point in the idea though it might in theory attract more interest – or at least curiosity – in the SPGB.  At a latter stage, if and when the SPGB were ever to become a  "mass party", this idea might become a lot more relevant.  But hopefully by then the Party would have long since dispensed of some of those more restrictive and redundant policies it has at prersent – like its silly idea of barring religious minded socialists – that have inhibited its progress thus far.

[ALB]

That's the solution to Robbo's problem. Get people whose only difference with us is over religion to declare that they support our aims and values, pay £3 and get to vote to choose our election candidates ….

[Young Master Smeet]

I believe he was proposing something like that around the time he left the party: someone proposed a long EC resolution condemning the idea…

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

That's the solution to Robbo's problem. Get people whose only difference with us is over religion to declare that they support our aims and values, pay £3 and get to vote to choose our election candidates ….

 Well not quite,  ALB – though the "problem" you refer to is not mine but the Party's to the extent that it seeks to handicap itself with unnecessarily restrictive membership criteria that inhibit it  own growth as in the case of its on religious beliefs.  Not even Marx would have upheld such an extreme  position as the rules of the First International would demonstrate. Nevertheless to take up your idea and run with it a little – if people were asked to declare that "they support our aims and values",  (barring the contested issue of religion) would this not amount to a kind of membership test?  If so, how would you justify limiting their involvement to the selection of election candidates alone?.  Is an intermediate or compromise solution possible? I am asking this in all seriousness. I  would be interested in exploring this idea further though I don't believe the suggestion of paying £3 for the privilege of choosing an SPGB election candidate in an open election is a desirable, or even practical, one but I assume you offered made this suggestion in jest – no?

[jondwhite]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Nope, the organisation has as our purpose our emancipation.  We're not doing this for anyone else.

If by 'our' you mean the working-class and not the party membership alone, then that's my point.

DJP wrote:

We are engaged in a battle of ideas. We cannot co-operate with people who hold ideas counter to ours, at the present point in time this includes the vast majority of the working class. The working class have to realise that there ultimate interest lies in the abolition of capitalist social relations, it's up to us to try and help speed up the process and in doing so some members of the ruling class will be drawn to our side.

DJP wrote:

You're right the socialist party on it's own cannot and will not bring about Socialism. But at a time when our ideas are not shared with the vast majority we cannot just act is if they where.

I don't think anyone is saying the vast majority of the working-class either in general elections or those who might vote in an open SPGB primary, share the ideas of members. Isn't that the problem? Wouldn't open (primary) elections by workers of SPGB members to the SPGB EC speed up the process?

Young Master Smeet wrote:

And that free association controls the message it puts to those workers through elections under universal franchise.  A requirement for primaries denies minorities the opportunity to become majorities, imnsho, and are anti-democratic.

To change tack a little, would you describe the Corbyn surge as a minority becoming a majority through open (primary) elections or has Labour been subverted?

[Young Master Smeet]

jondwhite wrote:

If by 'our' you mean the working-class and not the party membership alone, then that's my point.

Nope, I mean party members.  We're not doing this on anyone else's behalf, we can't do this on anyone else's behalf, we're doing it for ourselves.

jondwhite wrote:

To change tack a little, would you describe the Corbyn surge as a minority becoming a majority through open (primary) elections or has Labour been subverted?

No, I wouldn't.  It's a majority that's always been there, the blarite minority is the one that's being submerged now: that's part of the deal with broad church coalitions.  I'd rather the Blarites and Corbynites were in separate parties competing openly.

[Author]

Posts