Why would membership of the SPGB be refused
- This topic has 259 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Read with interest the reason/reasons given by the EC member, for voting against readmission. To put it bluntly, claiming that there may be the possibility of future misconduct, is a subjective opinion, not borne out by fact! How could it be, the future is not yet written. Are we to extrapolate and say, that any ex member of a different political grouping be refused admission, because there is the "possibility" the applicant may go back to his former political beliefs and start spouting say, Tory or Labour propoganda at a Party meeting or on a Party platform?The EC members rationale is flawed and I would say, based on a clash of personality, not conclusive proof or evidence.The rejected applicant, has contributed to this forum for a considerable number of months, with some good and helpful hints and contributions, without exhibiting the actions claimed of him. I think it is about time the past was placed firmly in the past and that we move on.The successful Euro election cmpaign and the sterling efforts of Branches and members notably, I hasten to add, Kent and Sussex regional, deserve no less!!!
SP, Just to speculate on the extent we could practice our democracy, we have trialled EC members participation via Skype with i think a degree of success. I'm not sure if we have experimented with them being broadcast. Each EC meeting ends with the nomination of the rotating chairperson. We could do as Adam suggests and have an EC chosen by lot from all our members online or have access who wish to volunteer. Naturally the difficulty would be maintaining continuity on some issues that are spread over time but by members' constant scrutiny of more extended minutes and "sitting in" as EC meeting are broadcast on Skype this could be overcome.But it is in realms of speculation right now. There may be a few snags with the old-fashioned way but they are NOT fundamentally flawed, despite what is being claimed. We have one situation that has a long history and much has been time devoted to resolving it. We have already been notified that the issue will be continued at the next EC meeting. Our problems are not on par with other organisations and some will claim the problem is one of too much party democracy and transparency. As for over-representation from one branch, i think it is inevitable without video participation. Although we have provincial members on the EC, times of travel often mean late arrival or early departure. It is also helluva expensive paying train fares. More use of Skype has to be considered if we re to get a full geographical spread of representation on the EC. But we do successfully have involvment of non-London/Home County members in a number of committees and departments.
gnome wrote:Since you're determined to push this regardless of the consequences and in the absence of confirmation from anyone else, the accusations, now apparently deleted, were made on a social networking site. I saw them for myself as did others.Do we really want to retrieve old postsIs it not rather religeous for a revolutionary movement to talk of sins? If that is the case then I will continue with the theme "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"
I'm not hiding behind the rulebook, I'm pointing out the actual structures involved and rebutting accusations of anti-democratic practices. Some lurkers may find it useful to see.I cannot see any problem with members of the EC being from the same branch (certainly not one that could be solved by barring that circumstance), and frankly I feel it's more than a little insulting to two EC members in suggesting they can't make their own minds up on a situation.As a point of principle, I'd have no objection to the executive functions being handled by a branch (as has been known to happen in the First International and a few anarchist organisations),
Young Master Smeet wrote:, and frankly I feel it's more than a little insulting to two EC members in suggesting they can't make their own minds up on a situation.I agree. So I have to assume that the said members were made fully aware of the whole situation. If so then they ccould at least show me the respect of explaining it to me and who it was that gave them the 'evidence' to convict, and was it from an impartial source.I have to say that the said members have never asked to hear my side of the story, which to anyone's mind could lead to an erroneous. I am suprised at your assumpion that there can be a fair trial without a defence.
Young Master Smeet wrote:…frankly I feel it's more than a little insulting to two EC members in suggesting they can't make their own minds up on a situation.I think that you might be missing the point of my criticism, at least, YMS. To me, the problem is EC members 'making up their own minds', rather than attempting to put forward the party's 'own mind'.Surely the EC should see itself as the 'mind of the party' (and attempt to discern the wider mood on any issue), rather than the rather narrower (and less democratic) mere sum of its own individual preferences?Perhaps that's what SocialistPunk and I are grasping at, the notion of a 'spirit' of democracy within both members and those elected to party bodies?Personally, I don't think that this can be captured in the words of a constitution. Perhaps the shortest form is 'comradeship'.
"Surely the EC should see itself as the 'mind of the party' (and attempt to discern the wider mood on any issue), rather than the rather narrower (and less democratic) mere sum of its own individual preferences?"Surely you are walking the tightrope of the EC substituting itself for the party. (i know you probably don't mean this)We have however ensured that it does not happen by forbidding constitutionally it such powers as to put forward in the name of the EC motions to conference or to decide on policy that it may "see" as being in the party's interest. We have in place party-polls to present members feelings. Now you wish the EC to be a mind-reader!!The Gen Sec is elected in a procedure that reminds me of a huntergatherer tribe who selects its chief by locking them in a hut until somebody eventually cracks and volunteers to be chief. Each individual member of the party and not just a EC member is a reflection of the "spirit", the "soul" or the "mind" of the Party. He or she carries that shared consciousness, knowingly or unknowingly, with him or her into every role conducted on behalf of the party. Belonging to the party is more than just card-carrying, as you can see by the determination of Vin to become a member.
LBird,"the mind of the Party" is to not admit to membership anyone whose membership would be detrimental to the interest of the party: the EC members have made that determination, and are going to be asked to think again. The wider party may now intervene if it so wishes.I think that's slightly better than hoping for telepathy from our EC members.I have a couple of points I want to put to my own branch about this, but I'm going to show them some courtesy and raise the points there first.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I think that's slightly better than hoping for telepathy from our EC members.alanjjohnstone wrote:Now you wish the EC to be a mind-reader!!I know that many in the party are not aware of the influence of Einstein, but I rather thought that Alexander Graham Bell's invention (or, and I know this thought will definitely blow your minds, 'emails and the internet') was in use by now within the SPGB.So, it's the considered opinion of at least two party members that SocialistPunk and I are arguing in favour of 'telepathy'?Boy, do the 'materialists' hate 'idealists', with their talk of 'ideas', 'spirit' and 'telepathy', never mind that entirely idealist construction, 'democracy'.What a novel ‘idea’: the EC communicating with the party.
YMS, I'm not getting through, probably never will.I asked you before if you think the party is perfect and that nothing more can be learnt or improved upon, but you didn't answer.I think this is an opportunity to avoid, what I insist is a conflict of interest, (I've spoken to a couple of non political friends about this and even they think it a bit democratically dodgy) from happening again in the future.In the real world it is a problem coming from such a democratic organisation. The issue should be, how to avoid a similar thing in the future, but then to do so you gotta be able to see how it looks from the outside.Put it this way, the rule book is not a weighty tome full of ever growing amendments for every single issue. Why? Because free thinking socialists are expected to be able to navigate the complexities of keeping democracy on track, without having to constantly check the rule book for every eventuality. That means such appearances of conflicted interests should not be put upon the party in the first place. As I said previously the tabler of the motion should have the sense to see the possible problem and at the very least table an objection to be voted on when the EC is made up of a more balanced spectrum. This is important precisely to avoid the appearance of clique like behaviour, regardless if it is the case or not.Sorry if you can't see the problem, but we've been here before and nothing has been learnt. Here we go again.
You're not getting through because your point is baseless and mistaken. Don't go blaming me for you being wrong. I don't see a conflict of interest, ED has nothing to gain nor lose: he simply has an opinion, and has acted upon it. You're entirely right, the rulebook guides an open process, that is ongoing.
Sorry YMS, but I guess we will have to agree to disagree about the baselessness of the situation.I'll put it very, very simply.Two SPGB members have a punch up on the forum.Many, many months later, one of the two, while on the EC tables a motion to disallow the other back into the party. The vote goes his way. It so happens his Branch colleagues are a majority on the EC that day.The reason given is that of mistrust. and is simply a "preventative" measure in the best interests of the party.However, it seems that the one tabling the motion is able to trust himself to make the right decision, despite being the one who drew first blood between the two.That is the situ in a nutshell. Yet you see no conflict of interest here.
"the EC communicating with the party." Well , the way things are going it may well end up communicating with the party with an upturned glass and a ouija board… but i'm known for my doom and gloom…I would have however have thought that this lively forum exchange of over 200 posts was doing just that…communicating the 'feelings' of some of the party. Not all are members of it But as YMS said we have branch meetings which may well discuss and decide to present their opinion for the next EC meeting to weigh up.
"I don't see a conflict of interest, ED has nothing to gain nor lose: he simply has an opinion, and has acted upon it. "Yes YMS, Ed did have an "opinion" but, however, an "opinion" is not fact and as a member of The Socialist Party, I expect decisions to be based on "fact". Not feeling, possibility, could happen whichever term one wants to use. As I said in an earlier post, if one was to use "previous", or supposed "previous" on which to base decisions, ex members of other political groups, applying to join, would, in light of this recent application refusal, have to be refused membership. I.E. one could say, "I am not sure that the applicant would not revert to his former political stance of supporting Capitalism and this could, in my opinion, happen on a Party platform and reflect badly on the Party.". In a nutshell, that is what is being said about the recent applicant. It is just supposition and not based on any evidential proof.So YMS, do support decisions made on opinion and inference, or on proof and evidence?
SocialistPunk wrote:However, it seems that the one tabling the motion is able to trust himself to make the right decision, despite being the one who drew first blood between the two.You'd like to make out it was that simple but it's not, is it? We're talking here about an ex-member who, whilst still a member, slagged off the Party on a social networking site and there are those who think that given similar circumstances he could well do it again.You know, you're doing a fairly good job of convincing me that my fellow branch members might be right after all. Keep it up.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.