The WSM and the future identity of the SPGB and SPC
- This topic has 193 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Do we want to be a monument or a movement? It is a 'no-brainer'
jondwhite wrote:I think the questions about the WSM identity have been addressed. SPGB and SPC don't fit in to the custom of new companion parties being called World Socialist Party but SPGB and SPC are being kept because of tradition and simply because members keep reaffirming they want to keep these names. SPGB and SPC are some of the earliest groups to exist so this is a factor too. The SPGB and SPC were names already commonly used before World Socialist became popular. Ditching the original names wouldn't make a great difference without discarding other historical baggage too.Indeed and here's one such result:"Are you in favour of changing the name of the Party to World Socialist Party (Britain)?" Lost 72-229 (1986 Party Poll)It would nothing short of barmy to change the name of the Party after 110 years of unbroken continuity without a single shred of evidence that such a move would remotely be of benefit. There's nothing to stop us giving more emphasis to our aim of World Socialism in our literature and elsewhere as is reflected in three of the six descriptions registered with the Electoral Commission. World Socialist Party (UK)World Socialist Party (EU)World Socialist MovementIn the recent Euroelections, for example, we used the full name of the Party and "World Socialist Movement".
Hi jondwhiteWith all due respect that is not an answer to the question that Alan and I posed. We asked how the WSM identity came about, how it was decided, when etc. The WSM companion parties from India and New Zealand could have simply named themselves, The Socialist Party of India, The Socialist Party of New Zealand, instead World is given a significant place in the title, exclaiming without any doubt whatsoever the aim is global socialism.I'm already aware that tradition is the main reason the SPGB and SPC cling to their names, but tradition is no real reason to cling to anything that is out dated. I understand the members reluctance to face change, change is scary and as has been pointed out, the SPGB using the tag The Socialist Party did not see a change in fortunes.Alan has already pointed out simply changing names is not the magic bullet, and emphasises the importance of utilizing the global potentials of the "world wide web", in a major rebranding.
alanjjohnstone wrote:No, a re-naming of ourselves is not suffice in itself to re-kindle our hopes. We need a new image, a re-branding of our content and ideas, and a new way of organising that goes beyond the parochial geography of whatever state we happen to be resident in and a movement that encapsulates the politics beyond borders that the internet has technologically offered an opportunity for us to utilise.Some will say there is no evidence that a name change will have any positive effect. And how often have we heard the words "where's your evidence", when discussing how socialism could improve the lot of humankind?But the issue of a name change is not about evidence of gaining more popularity etc. It's about declaring outright in one sentence that you advocate world socialism. No more petty arguing with other British socialists about who has or hasn't been socialist for longer, let those nationalist Leninists argue amonst themselves over a nationalistic image of socialism, while the world socialists get on with the job in hand.
"changing names is not the magic bullet…." Why do these have 6500 followers? https://twitter.com/WSWS_Updates And the SPGB has 190? https://twitter.com/4SocialismNow edit: Or the official SPGB has about 600 followeres. Perhaps an experiment, we are after all 'scientific socialists'
Vin Maratty wrote:"changing names is not the magic bullet…." Why do these have 6500 followers? https://twitter.com/WSWS_Updates And the SPGB has 190?Easy Peasy. Because despite their grandiose (and misleading) name the WSWS ('World Socialist Web Site') are Trotskyite reformists and we're not.
http://www.wsws.org/WSWS is very successful with its reporting gets linked to by many other websites that are not Trotskyist and sometimes could be described as simply left-wing radical.It has a formula of presenting itself predominantly as a socialist news service rather than purely party promotional (the parent of WSPS is the Socialist Equality Party) with in depth analysis. I have mentioned that the blog committee is exploring various possible futures and WSWS ability of many of its articles being picked up by radical activist websites is someting we may think well worth aspiring to-wards.Some wish the blog to reduce its content to a couple of blogs daily (if that), and i would say there is some merit in that suggestion – But only if the blog posts are of exceptional high standard with unique research and analysis that WSWS can sometimes provide. The present bloggers are not trained snipers, none with academic marxist economic, philosophic pedigree, who can take out a target with one shot…hence our reliance on the old fashioned blunderbuss strategy in the hope that some of the widely-dispersed shot hits the target.The Standard cannot carry too long, wordy articles but a blog can so it can become a theoretical tool that theStandard as a broader, more popular magaine doesn't try to be. I think this was decided as a conference policy to drop more Marxist technical articles and aim for the more general reader.This leaves scope for a blog to fill that gap. We could be blogging on the Production for Use Committee research, for instance…but we aren't because they aren't giving us information on its progress and their findings to date but i am sure they are uncovering plenty of data that can be used in propaganda. I thik the sae can be said for other aspects of the socialist case. The blog doesn't necessarily require to edit down submissions to 1,500 words and miss out all the citations lists or quotes. Our blog just need to format them a bit better, that is all, and any graphic design advice on that is welcomed.i think this is part of the "re-branding" of our content and ideas we need…To offer up originality, in which we present our evidence to combat the prevailing academia/media view on their own ground, to be seen as a place where when someone wants background material , thinks …"ahh…i'll go to that socialist website…they have facts and figures.." (and when SOYMB has been quoted as a source elsewhere, our stats go shooting up so it has an impact on visitor traffic).A change of name would certainly be a decision that would clearly indicate our serious intent on a new, reinvigourated approach to political action but the work in re-designing our image can begin first by re-focussing our presence on the web.
Vin, I've clicked on the SPGB twitter link and in the top left of the page is a red flag with the words Great Britain above it and "workers of the world unite for" below.Only when I click on the flag does the full name of the party appear, everywhere else is the abbreviation SPGB.I don't have a twitter account, so am not sure if I am seeing everything, but what I am seeing immediately is unspecific regarding identity.
This is the party's twitter page. I think you've been looking at some fans pagehttps://twitter.com/officialSPGB
On the founding conference name debate:
Quote:Anderson and Lehane moved:"That the name of the Party Shall be 'The Socialist Party of Great Britain."'Neumann and Blaustein moved an amendment:"That the name of the Party Shall be 'The Social-Democratic Party'".A good discussion followed, Hawkins, Jackson, E. Allen, Turner and Kent speaking in favour of the motion, and Martin, Mrs. Salaman, Killick and Albery for the amendment. On a show of hands, there voted for the amendment 27 against 76. The amendment was therefore deemed lost.Martin and Neumann moved a further amendment:-"That the name of the Party should be 'The Social-Democratic Party of Great Britain'."After some discussion a vote was taken, and there were 31 in favour and 73 against. The amendment was declared lost.Another amendment was moved by McEntee and Hutchens:"That the name of the Party shall be 'The Socialist Party of Great Britain and Ireland'." This amendment was also lost, only 6 voting in favour.There being no further amendments, the motion: "That the name of the Party shall be 'The Socialist Party of Great Britain' was put to the meeting and carried by 91 votes to 3. The announcement of the result was greeted with loud applause.Via SPINTCOM files
admin wrote:This is the party's twitter page. I think you've been looking at some fans pagehttps://twitter.com/officialSPGBI think the 4socialismnow was the official twitter of the party for a number of years, or at least being linked to from the official party materials including websites.
norm_burns wrote:I'm getting 'an error occurred while downloading the file' from Young Master Smeet's link above.I'm not sure where that file is located but go to this link for an even more comprehensive account of the Party's inaugural meeting.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2004/no-1198-june-2004/minutes-inaugural-meeting
SPINTCOM > Files > Standing Orders Committee and look for the file called "Inaugural Meeting" (members only).
Why are there 'imternal' docs only available to members|?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.