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
-
In fact, the files on the yahoo groups Spintcom and Spopen can only be accessed by those Party members who have signed up to the group and only members can. But, as DJP has just explained, that's yahoo not us.
DJP wrote:The only reason at present is because that is the only way the yahoo groups lets you do it..If there are any, then how come they're not on this website?
I've taken this from the Kent and Sussex Regional Branch thread, as it highlights change over time in the expression of socialism.
gnome wrote:steve colborn wrote:The use of archaic terminology, ie Great Britain is, IMHO, an anchor to an outdated and failed past and "does not" reflect our objective.Like here perhaps?Declaration of Principle 8 wrote:The Socialist Party of Great Britain, therefore, enters the field of political action determined to wage war against all other political parties, whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist, and calls upon the members of the working class of this country to muster under its banner to the end that a speedy termination may be wrought to the system which deprives them of the fruits of their labour, and that poverty may give place to comfort, privilege to equality, and slavery to freedom.
SocialistPunk wrote:I note with interest that there is no mention of world socialism, instead what we have is "…and calls upon the members of the working class of this country…"In the internet age, the SPGB no longer communicates to just the workers of the UK and can truly see itself as part of a global socialist movement with five parties now in existence on four continents.The time will come when the socialist parties of Canada and Britain change their identity to that of World Socialist Party (location) status. My view is, that time is now.
Just to add in my couple pennies… Great Britain is the name of the main land mass of the British Isles, and is not actually nationalistic, as the only use it has is geographic. It does not include the Isle of Wight, Isle of Sheppy, Anglesey or any other place that you would consider part of the United Kingdom or the British Isles. Stating that one is British is only a claim to the fact that one considers their home within the British Isles. To see the flaw in this usage, you only have to look so far as the Republic of Ireland. They are technically British, as in they're part of the British Isles but are a completely separate nation state.TLDR – Great Britain isn't a nation; it's just a place. Don't get GB and UK mixed up
I think you are right. I hadn't realised this before but as a geographical term "Great Britain" refers only to the main island in the British Isles, i. e excluding, as you say the over 1000 smaller islands surrounding it as well as the island of Ireland. At least that's what wikipedia says:
Quote:Great Britain also known as Britain /'br?.t?n/, is an island in the North Atlantic off the north-west coast of continental Europe. The island has an area of 229,848 km2 (88,745 sq mi), and is the largest island of the British Isles, the largest island in Europe and the ninth-largest in the world.With a population of about 61 million people in 2011, it is the third-most populous island in the world, after Java (Indonesia) and Honshu (Japan). It is surrounded by over 1,000 smaller islands.The island of Ireland lies to its west.The island is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, constituting most of its territory: most of England, Scotland, and Wales are on the island, with their respective capital cities, London, Edinburgh, and Cardiff. Politically, Great Britain commonly refers to the island together with a number of surrounding islands, which constitute the territory of England, Scotland, and Wales.So the "Great Britain" in our title obviously refers to the political unit. Of course the "Great" in the political title still has a geographical connotation rather than being about illusions of grandeur even though that's not how many British nationalists see it.Another pub quiz question and answer is: What do Irish nationalists call the "British Isles". The Atlantic Archipelago.
Regardless of any rationalisation of the meaning of 'Great Britain' in the party title, the perception remains nationalist and therefore a put-off. We would certainly not chose such a name today.
I agree. I'm sure we wouldn't. But there are other organisations that have. For example this one founded in 1985.They lost a recent court battle to protect their name.Another possible legal battle over a name is TUSC:http://www.tusc.co.uk/
Some miss the point of this thread.The Socialist Party of Great Britain does not conjure up an identity of world socialism. It is that simple.As I pointed out a few posts ago the WSM now consists of five parties on four continents. Three of those parties go by the tag of World Socialist Party. There is no ambiguity when it comes to the goal of world socialism for three of the five socialist parties.The biggest reason provided for sticking to the status quo name wise, is history, or more precisely public profile. So the SPGB need to look at its public profile to see if a name change would do harm as far as that goes. In other words would a change of name to World Socialist Party (GB) loose the party potential new members. Is that at all likely?
Or, would we need a name change for World Socialist Movement (SPGB)?
SocialistPunk wrote:The biggest reason provided for sticking to the status quo name wise, is history, or more precisely public profile. So the SPGB need to look at its public profile to see if a name change would do harm as far as that goes. In other words would a change of name to World Socialist Party (GB) loose the party potential new members. Is that at all likely?More pertinent a question is would a change of name do more good than harm? But in reality the name is relatively unimportant; we want workers to examine the contents of the bottle and not simply make a cursory observation of the label on it. If that's all we think workers are capable of then we'd better drop any pretence or reference to socialism.
People are missing the point (as well as going round in circles). We don't need to change our name. Just use a different version of it. In fact I think we've found a good enough solution which gives us the best of both worlds: our legal name remains "The Socialist Party of Great Britain"; we normally call ourselves "The Socialist Party"; and we add "World Socialist Movement" when appropriate.What needs to be resisted is the temptation to reintroduce the full name as our usual name, which some comrades haven't been able to resist (witness the recent votes to reintroduce it on the front page of the Socialist Standard and on the fascia of Head Office). That's nostalgia rather than presenting ourselves in the best way.
As does facebook. So when we refer to the world socialist movent ……….sounds like another organisation.
The top of this site calls the party 'The Socialist Party of Great Britain' as does the 'official' twitter. Spintcom and spopen use 'The Socialist Party of Great Britain'edit: as does the blog etcThe party needs to decide: I would go for The Socialist Party (WSM) create a unique design and logo around it and use it consistently.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.