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
-
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'?
Quite possibly but just as likely to be acts of desperation. That augers well for us, ultimately. but we're still not credible, not because we are small, because all parties are small to begin with, but because our message is not perceived to be credible. So, our smallness has little or nothing do with strategy, membership test (abolish that tomorrow and say bye-bye to the revolutionary alternative), bar on admitting religious individuals or any of the other myriad reasons put forward for our lack of progress.Yes, we have to address the problem of too few active members and those who join online who fail to become collectively involved. But at the end of the day the proportions of those involved in party work is probably not that different to many other organisations, political or otherwise. Some people also seem to forget that workers need to earn a living and have other demands on their limited time which often take precedence such as personal relationships, having and bringing up children and leisure activities.
gnome wrote:Quite possibly but just as likely to be acts of desperation. That augers well for us, ultimately. but we're still not credible, not because we are small, because all parties are small to begin with, but because our message is not perceived to be credible. So, our smallness has little or nothing do with strategy, membership test (abolish that tomorrow and say bye-bye to the revolutionary alternative), bar on admitting religious individuals or any of the other myriad reasons put forward for our lack of progress.I don't agree with this. Yes all parties start out small but that does not in any way invalidate the "small party syndrome" thesis – that smallness makes for lack of credibility which tends to perpetuate smallness. The thesis doesn't assert that small parties cannot become big parties. It merely asserts that maximum resistance to growth occurs at that stage in the growth trajectory when the organisation is still small. That is why it is crucially important to remove any conceivable obstacle to growth at this point where the SPGB is currently at – namely, a very small political party that has, if anything, been declining rather than growing in numbers. The "relative weight" of one new member now, I suggest, would count for far more than when , or if, the SPGB, ever did become a mass party Secondly you seem to be taking the view that since there are a myriad of reasons put forward as to why the Party is small therefore any one of them cannot be regarded as significant . Therefore by extension, any one of them can be disregarded, ignored and brushed under the carpet. This is false reasoning. It is the cumulative impact of multiple reasons that cause the Party to remain small and consequently it is quite legitimate to address each and everyone of these reasons on their own terms.. Removing them one by one will have, in my opinion, an incremental and cumulative impact on the fortunes of the SPGB No one , incidentally, or at least no one I know of, is calling for scrapping the membership test. You are quite right – get rid of the test and you can kiss goodbye to the revolutionary credentials of the SPGB. I am all in favour of the membership test. My point is simply that the membership test is too stringent and that the question of whether or not you hold religious beliefs is utterly irrelevant to the socialist cause. There is no way anyone can convince me that just because someone believes in a god, an afterlife or some mysterious creative cosmic energy in the universe that such a person cannot become a socialist. Thats just preposterous. Theoretically it is conceivable that such a person may be weaned away from her socialist convictions but so might a hardline atheist. Some of the most hardline atheists I know are fervent supporters of capitalism. But does the membership test forbid you to be an atheist? No. The party´s argument essentially boils down to saying that you are guilty until you can prove your innocence but totally inconsistently it does not extend this argument to atheists who are equally capable of supporting capitalism in theory All we should be concerned with as Morris pointed out is "making socialists" – that is , people who want and understand socialism and how to get it. I personally know a number of people who want and understand socialism who happen to hold religious views but are prevented from joining the party because of that. I understand that some of the SPGb.s active supporters have religious views, the few who have not been sufficiently turned off and prompted to drift away altogether because of this ridiculous, self defeating and pointless policy. Actually it is because I believe in the necessity of a membership test and because I believe the membership test as it is – minus this clause on religion – is more than adequate enough to ensure any non socialists cannot possibly be admitted into the SPGB that I argue that this policy is illogical , superfluous and an impediment to party growth. For that reason alone it should be scrapped or, at least modified, so as not to allow in only those who belong to organised religions whose social policy is anathema to socialists
ALB wrote: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.
Adam, much as I might like to rejoin the Party, and I have contemplated this from time to time, I cannot as a matter of principle. Membership of the Party at present is quite clearly predicated on the acceptance of the view that religion is incompatible with socialism. I fundamentally disagree with this position and consequently this rules me out as a possible applicant for membership even though i am not religious myself. I agree the Party is not that monolithic in reality but my point is that it gives the appearance of being so and this is not helpful. Actually – paradoxically – there is a sense in which unity makes not for strength but weakness and that the open display of greater diversity that exists within the Party would actually enhance its appeal rather than diminish it. It strikes as rather odd that the Party does not make use of its primary propaganda vehicle , the Socialist Standard, to bring to public attention the diversity of opinion that does actually exist within the organisation. For instance, in all the years I have known the Party there have been some fascinating theoretical debates on all manner of topics. Why hide these away in the cupboard.? Why not bring these treasures out , polish them up and put them on display? I think I know why and this relates to the point I made earlier about "policy creep". The fact that the Party cannot seem to resist the temptation to come out with an "official" viewpoint on every occasion. It needs to be seen to be taking up a distinct official position and for history to vindicate it for having been proven correct and thusb to cultivate the myth that it is a homgenous body of opinion. Dont get me wrong. Sometimes the Party does need to take an official stand behind which the membership as a whole can "unite" – for instance in the case of some imminent capitalist war. But on other occasions, there is no ´necessity for the Party qua Party to make an official pronouncement so to speak – that is to say, to put forward a particular view on a particular subject in the name of the Party itself. I bring this back to the question of the Socialist Standard which is supposed to be the official mouthpiece of the SPGB . Now I have read stuff in the Socialist Standard which i strongly disagree with and i have no doubt some members to disagree with . For example, I read a statement the other day from an old back number (Ill haul out the reference later if you like) which categorically declared that the case for socialism is based simply on "material self interest", it is not an ethical case at all. Thats is an absurd claim though I wont go into detail here to explain why it is absurd. The question is ' is this the view of the SPGB as a whole of which the SS is its official mouthpiece. If not , if there are members who disagree with this claim why not allow them alos to state their own arguments in opposition to this. Why not , in other words, open up the Socialist Standard to more diversity, to more debate – have dedicated space for this purpose – and to move away from this kind of rigid position that is entailed in seeing the Socialist standard as the official mouthpiece of the Party. Indeed why not allow non party members as well to contribute to the SS as well? Providing they are writing within a framework that accepts, or does not conflict with, the fundamentals of what the Party is all about i see no harm in this at all. To the contrary. An eminent scientist, who knows something about GMOs could be invited to write something in a guest column, for example. The party´s case would not be watered down, it would be enriched So while in reality the Party is not a monolith in practice its current approach in the communication of its ideas is to create the impression of a rigidly monolithic organisation which is most unfortunate. And talking of attracting more people into the Party, creating the conditions for a "surge"in its support, this is bad psychology as well. If you are open about the diversity of opinion within the organisation, this lowers resistance to joining such an organisation. The outsider is induced to take sides in the ongoing debate and has thus perhaps unwittingly crossed the threshold that would otherwise deter her from identifying with organisation as such. The organisation as such would then come across as something altogether more inviting , drawing people in rather than confronting them from the apparent or external standpoint of that of a cult requiring unquestioning conformity and compliance with what it officially pronounces is the case.
jondwhite wrote:A minor point but I believe non-members did write for the Socialist Standard during World War II.Interesting. Why was this discontinued? Surely what matters is what is written, not the person who wrote it. So long as it does not contradict the fundamentals of the Party I cant see any problem with non members contributing. That and much more scope for debate in the Standard on matters that may not be of fundamental importance but are certainly of theoretical interestBoth these ideas might very well significantly enhance the appeal of the journal and make its contents a little less predictable…
I agree with robbo that adhering to a religion is of no consequence as far as your political beliefs are concerned.Each person could be examined on his or her beliefs, to see if these were anti-working class or in any way would be a hindrance to a revolutionary change in society.I have no idea, though, if dropping the demand that all members should be atheists/agnostics would result in a surge of membership for the Socialist Party. In any case, I think it's an completely unnecessary requirement.Many people following a religion do it for other reasons than a belief in a deity anyway, as this article explains – written by a practising, but from what I can glean, non-believing Jew:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/25/religion-sex-pope-francis-us"Over the years, conversations with Jews, Catholics and Muslims have taught me that when it comes to religion, belief is often optional. For many, it’s about belonging and community, a matter of ethnic or familial solidarity rather than theological creed. For increasing numbers of Anglicans, it works that way too. Singing hymns in church is a comfort, reminding them of their childhood or their parents, and leaving them with a glow of warmth towards neighbours they might otherwise never meet………And lastly, there’s the central objection: isn’t religion irrational? This is the Book of Mormon question. To which the most direct answer is yes, it is irrational. It cannot be explained or justified in the clear, stainless-steel language of pure reason. Some of it is absurd and bizarre. But you might as well ask a man why he supports this football team rather than that one. Ask a woman why she loves this man rather than that one. Reason is what separates us from the animals. But it does not account for all that makes us human."Meel
Meel wrote:I agree with robbo that adhering to a religion is of no consequence as far as your political beliefs are concerned.Each person could be examined on his or her beliefs, to see if these were anti-working class or in any way would be a hindrance to a revolutionary change in society.I have no idea, though, if dropping the demand that all members should be atheists/agnostics would result in a surge of membership for the Socialist Party. In any case, I think it's an completely unnecessary requirement.Yes I think thats correct, Meel. Religion is no more inherently anti socialist than is atheism – only contingently so depending on the religion in question of which there are an enormous variety. Engels himself cited the religious communities of North America as proof of the feasibility of communism and radical movements in the past such as the Diggers and the Levellers were partly inspired by religious convictions. In any case, the vast majority of atheists are pro capitalist, even vehemently so, but the Party does not see fit to ban atheists from its ranks. It is thus inconsistent. The logic of its position is that you are guilty until proven innocent – that there is something inevitable about religious beliefs that means that someone joining the party with such beliefs is bound in some sense to betray or work against her socialist convictions even though the membership test itself is more than stringent enough to ensure that only genuine socialists who want and understand socialism can join. Why would a religous socialist join the Party if not out of a desire to see socialism established? The ban simply doesnt make sense. Its like saying a religious scientist cannot be scientific in their outlook. Of course they can. It is quite possible for scientist to keep their religious beliefs and their science separate. Apart from that, science is not the be all and end all of everything, notwithstanding the fetishisation of "scientific socialism" among some members. There are limits to what science can offer; values must be brought into the picture as well. The argument that the struggle to achieve socialism does not also entail an ethical dimension is plainly ridiculous and plays right into the hands of the capitalist ideology of "self interest". I know some folk here on this forum think my banging on about this silly policy is a tad tiresome but actually I think it gets to the heart of the matter of whats wrong with the dear old SP and why it is not making any progress whatsoever after 110 years of trying. Ironically enough, it is in some ways the very embodiment of the religious irrationalism it criticises in others. A rational pragmatic approach to political activity would surely not seek to handicap the organisation with an self imposed and totally pointless impediment to its own growth. .It makes no sense and it makes me wonder if there is some ulterior motive at work than the starightforward stuggle to establish socialism. Maybe some see the organisation as a comfortable refuge from a hostile outside world which needs to be walled up and hedged around with barriers to keep the character of the organisation intact. I dunno. I suspect scrapping the ban on religion in the Party will not of itself result in an immediate surge in membership, though probably a modest increase in numbers in the short term can be expected. But the ban itself is far from being the only thing thats wrong with the way the Party is currently going about doing things as I have already suggested. The whole mindset that sees the necessity to maintain such a ban is precisely what is holding the Part y back in those other ways as well, in my opinion
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.