Surges in support or membership of political parties
- This topic has 24 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Corbyn is alleged to have registered 600,000 supporters to the Labour party in the space of a month.
The Green Party surged in popularity in the last few years too.
Sandi Toksvig claimed on BBC Question Time 1,300 people joined her Women's Equality party and 68 local groups have been formed since its formation six months ago.
How come surges in support or membership of political parties happen? And why has the SPGB not experience such a surge in support?
jondwhite wrote:How come surges in support or membership of political parties happen? And why has the SPGB not experience such a surge in support?Fairly obvious, I would have thought. Workers still think that capitalism can be reformed in their interests and the politicians will do what they can't be bothered to; think and take action.Nah, bollocks. It's all down to the SPGB's faulty strategy.
One big reason will be that to join us you need do more than sign a piece of paper (and make out a direct debit). But the general trend to join political parties must be a good development, even for us, as it means more people interested in general politics and so who we can talk to. Could represent a welcome trend away from participation in single issue charities and campaigning groups.
Oh it's certainly a worry for the anti party anarchists and autonomists but why would workers illusions in capitalism and reforms suddenly fluctuate so wildly?
A realisation that single issue pressure groups don't get anywhere and that to get something done you need to aim at controlling political power? That's a bit of an illusion too if it's to work within capitalism but a different one.
jondwhite wrote:How come surges in support or membership of political parties happen? And why has the SPGB not experience such a surge in support?I can think of several reasons1) The SPGB is nowhere near the kind of critical mass that would permit it to seem credible. Its smallness, in other words, tends to keep it small – the "small party syndrome". This is a very important factor and it explains why it is extremely difficult for small organisations to take off. Its a vicious circle to an extent – the party is small therefore it lacks credibility. Because it lacks credibility it continues to remain small 2) The problem of "what to do in the meantime". This is perhaps the major weakness in the party's whole platform and it is a problem that draws would=be supporters away from the Party and into the welcoming arms of reformist organisations. It is simply not good enough just say reformism is not going to work if socialism appears (as it does) to be some very long term goal while the SPGB does really have much to say or offer on what to do in the meantime. This whole area is something that seriously needs working on 3) Another problem is that the party is unnecessarily restrictive in its membership requirements. A prime example of this is, of course, its ban on socialists who hold religious views. Its totally unnecessary since the membership test (minus the question on religion) is more than adequate to ensure that only revolutionary socialists are admitted. It is entirely possible to be a historical materialist and hold religious views, anyway. There might be other requirements too that are unnecessarily restrictive. The purpose of the Party is solely to work to establish socialism and only those requirements that are absolutely indispensable to that task should be used in the admissions procedure. Whether or not a god exists it totally irrelevant to the socialist goal 4) The SPGB appears at times to be unduly monolithic in its outlook. which is unattractive and uninviting This may be partly a function of what I call "policy creep" such as when attempts are made to establish the official party case on , say the cause of economic crises. Different opinions on the subject don't get enough of an airing. What constitutes the "party case "should be pruned back to the basics and everything else should be seen as prpvisional or contingent . The Socialist standard should be thrown open to debate – or have a dedicated debate column. It would make for a more stimulating and interesting read 5) The propaganda of the Party is not sufficiently targeted and the tone adopted is often inappropriate to the audience it is intended to reach. The controversy over the Party's attitude towards the Corbyn phenomenon is a case in point 6) The Party does not do enough to encourage the active involvement of its own members. It is too complacent and laid back and too reliant on the argument that "we are a voluntary party and you cant force members into active". No you cant and should not have to "force" member to be involved but you don't have to go to the other extreme of doing nothing to proactively encourage them to be involved. Only a small minority in the Party appears to do anything at all. A focused and coordinated campaign on the internet could draw in members who could not otherwise be physically involved I could go on but that enough to get going on with!
Yes, food for thought in those discussion points even though one doesn't necessarily have to agree with them all.But how do we go about debating them?Moaning Minnies can keep carping on and on from within the party and from outside it (one thing that always pleasantly surprised me was the number of non-members we have had as "honorary" members) but how do we actually settle down to resolve those questions? We can deny that there is a problem and blame the rest of the world and carry on as we are. We can accept that there are issues to address but postpone any engagement with them to some indeterminant future because the need for change just might have to be recognised and it scares us and as someone said, better to keep our head in the sand like an ostrich.Change would mean re-directing time and resources away from our prime purpose – challenging capitalism and its promoters but it may save wasted energy in the future if we are more targetted with our tactics.You all on this forum know by now my own opinion on what has to be done….but not all members do since some claim to be not computer-savvy and some are deliberately refusing to join this forum for their own various reasons. And that puzzles me a lot. Just how contrarian are some of us. (Disclaimer: i decline to be active on either Facebook or Twitter so i too am a culprit) As Gnome correctly implies…the allegations and the accusations on the forum are worthless and self-defeating and self-destructive …but for only one very good reason…there is no-where to go with them….no end of the tunnel…nothing that we can call a conclusion…It is endless because we never reach a point where we can implement anything because no decisons are being made. Robbo has laid out 6 propositions (and i would like him to now add those he declined to include so we do have an idea ofthe scale of the debate in his opinion) It is then up to members, branches and committees to then decide what to do with them…
robbo203 wrote:Only a small minority in the Party appears to do anything at all.You make some valid points which you would have more chance of them being acted on if you were a member (there is a tiny minority of members who hold the view that you give as your reason for not joining — we are not that "monolithic").And you could have a go at herding cats or, rather, at getting cats to herd themselves. But the above needs challenging. I don't know what your definition is of "small minority" and "do anything" but, using participation in internal votes as a measure, which has been suggested elsewhere. about one-third of the membership are "active". Hardly a "tiny" minority. Quite high, actually, for voluntary organisations, higher in fact than in my trade union.
It'll be on the Master Form C but I haven't got access to one at the moment. At a guess I'd say about 5 but I'll check with the Assistant Treasurer and get back to you.
Its funny you should mention 'critical mass' as this is something studied in sociodynamics (there is a book called Critical Mass by Philip Ball for example). Smallness does not seem to have been a problem for many new political movements recently including the Zeitgeist Movement in 2009, the Occupy Movement explosion in 2011, or slightly less new and more established, the Green party of England and Wales in 2014.
Quote:In December 2014, the Green Party announced that it had more than doubled its overall membership from 1 January that year to 30,809And if Sandi Toksvig is to be believed 1,300 people joined her Women's Equality party and 68 local groups have been formed since its formation six months ago.I don't think the 'what to do in the meantime' is the problem either. The answer is 'vote for the socialist party', 'support the socialist party' and 'join the socialist party'. Or at least it isn't any more of a problem than what Labour and Tory branches do between elections. They're not running the party or the policy so what are they doing 'in the meantime'?The membership test might have something to do with it, but I suspect if the membership test were abolished tomorrow, there would not be a major surge in membership either of socialists or non-socialists.It goes back to the question Walsby posed and failed to satisfactorily answer, why don't workers who hear the case accept the socialist case? Surges in political support including for parties would suggest political preferences are not fixed psychologically as Walsby-Walford were apt to try and suggest.
Are surges in support or membership for newly credible political parties or movements mainly, mostly or all simply a case of workers 'jumping on bandwagons'?
I think part of this is the SNP and Corbyn: both came from outside the normal bands of what is considered possible, so people may well be beginning to see that their actions can take effect. Further, as with the SNP, nothing succeeds like ssuccess, if people see a movement and a direction fo travel, they are inclined to join in.I think it's fair to infer from the millions of workers who have encountered the party case and rejected it that they don't see it a a rolling band wagon, so they don't jump on. Maybe, as ALB says, greater participation in parties and projects may throw us a few bones…
As an example of a surge, today the SOYMB cast a jaded eye over the 4th anniversary of Occupy Wall St http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2015/09/four-more-years-four-more-years.htmlWhich brings us to RobertS and my pet peeve, the lack of visitors to our blog by our own members.Recently, when for almost a week no new posts appeared on the blog, not one member raised any interest or curiousity in why.When the blog gets referred to on our forum such as with the recent Brighton meeting, there is a visible spike in traffic which shows many member although online aren't really interested in a daily visit to the blog to see what it says.I suggest that too is a sign of lack of activity because one thing the blog is not, is of predictable content. Somewhere Engels talks about suffrage being a thermometer of the working class…What should be our own thermometer?ALB equates the Party with a trade union in that i think BrianJ said was 116 returns, about third of the members as ALB saysIs a voluntarist orgnisation rightly ranked alongside an organisation where many union members feel (rightly or wrongly) alienated from for various reasons and only sporadically fully involved. I recall from my own experience the big turn outs for union meetings were when the meeting was about to make crucial decisions and this has been referred to in regards to the SNP referendum… people thought their own individual vote counted so the turn out was unprecedented. How many of our branches are conducted on automatic pilot and in a sense ritualistic?Maybe someone can check when they are opened and when they are closed?Of course, many branch meetings have discussions taking place so there could be a rush to get to that period. Perhaps more is achieved in the pub afterwards? We have 12 branches and if 5 turn up at each then that is 60 members who make the effort in a face-to-face meeting. And that is a generous estimate, isn't it? But i suppose we can add a few apologies to that. Which brings me again to another earlier question what proportion of meetings prove to be inquorate? I have been in new (or more accurately) resurrected organisation and there is the early halycon days of growth and hope. Maintaining that means activity that is fruitful and actually pleasurable to undertake. We see that one branch which has grown is quite active in street stalls and i guess they find it fun to do since a lot of interaction with passer-bys appear to take place in it reports, while another branch also does street stalls, but i note are only for a couple hours duration. Do they make them fun for members, i wonder? And how enticing and alluring is their stall and approach…shouldn't our politics also be about seductionBut as i have said, this debate will simply be sterile unless something is proposed and put to the Party to actually discuss and then do something about it. I think many members have thought Conference and ADM were becoming rather stale affairs about rule amendments and such like. Substance (and definitely controversy) in motions and even items for discussion put forward seem to be sadly amiss.Or is this simply a mistaken perception of my own? Because of the lack of facts and details then we will always be vulnerable to our own personal impressions which may well be in error …or can be confirmed by the relevant data… Who knows unless we hold up a mirror and have a good critical look at ourselves to appraise ourselves and also nothing like getting a third opinion – seeing us as others do.
jondwhite wrote:Are surges in support or membership for newly credible political parties or movements mainly, mostly or all simply a case of workers 'jumping on bandwagons'?Another way of putting this is that we don't make political decisions individually, or in isolation: any apparent personal decisions take place in a situation, and if people you know (and like) are thinking and doing in a certain way, you are more likely to do so; and if you see people like yourself (or like people you know and like) thinking and doing in a certain way, then you are more likely to think and do likewise.The SP is like this also, not only does it bear resemblance to left-wing organisations, but also comes from a working class autodicdact tradition and non-conformism, and the tradition of the evening class and the street meeting.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.