alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Much appreciated that you managed to track this down, JonD. Even if it isn't what Matt was referring to (but i think it is) the post is still a good read and does make "far-reaching" proposalsIt does make interesting points and forms the basis upon which we could begin to discuss anew our Party's democracy and process. Paddy has always excelled at identifying problems using plenty of descriptive metaphors and analogies. Of course, the change in technology and its style has even been faster than what was expected and strengthens some of Paddy's conclusions. There is a lot in it to digest and much i endorse…But to make it relavant to this current discussion i highlight this comment from Paddy."In a sense, the whole Party becomes the EC"Well, Gnome, as for being discussed further, i think we can judge by the modest number of replies it received.Some progress did get made in adapting to new technology but the speed and scale of that change still left us lagging behind.
Quote:the reason for the instigation of this thread,Let us be perfectly clear. I instigated this thread because of two incidents. The EC making a decision upon a video that was being reported regularly on this forum for any member to comment upon and they insist that there was no consultation with the EC. There was also an opaque reference to "other concerns", something not elaborated upon and left me, at least, mystified. (i can recall another occasion that the EC minutes deliberately mis-reported to the membership, as it was,understandably for a good reason – HO security – but if you were not in the loop, a member would be left ignorant of the real reason, as i was and still am, even though the situation has now escalated to possible future legal case against a contractor.) I queried the decision on the video and the expulsion of the member from the A/V committee on Spintcom and received a critical reply from another member who presented his own idiosyncratic interpretation of the EC minutes and the video. It led me to wonder just why EC members and Party Officers in our committees decline to engage on this forum. Was it full transparency and accountability?Well, perhaps Mohammed should have gone to the mountain with his video, rather than expect members of the EC to come to Mohammed but some members do visit here and place posts and some who shun participation on the forum and consequently are not fully aware of Party activity. Both reflected a failing, in my opinion….Then on another threadA member posted "Looking at face value at the minutes of the WSP (india), I think the EC of the SPGB owe them and the members of the SPGB a full explanation."Another member added, "I'm a little curious about the matter as detailed at face value in these minutes too."Neither comrade was bullying nor uncivil in their posts. This elicited this response"May I suggest that you satisfy your curiosity by raising your concerns directly with the EC – rather than call for its members to jump through your proffered hoop… EC has not received a request for explanation from the EC of the WSP(I). "It may not have received a request from the WSP(I) but it certainly did from two members of this party. An individual EC member is quite capable of summarising the discussion and revealing the reason for a decision made by the EC. As i said in my original post, we can fill up the agenda of the EC with queries, losing valuable time and this thread was to explore why certain members are so defensive to using this forum to circumvent this.Your own defence is that we should use branches to rectify any shortcomings but many are not in a branch (even if a branch accepts an individual's complaint and acts upon it) and, of course, some branches themselves can find themselves ignored by either the EC or committee. My original post argues that we possess the tech know-all to change our traditional method of practicing Party democracy yet we shy away even though we happily discuss amending branch standing orders to accommodate new styles of holding branch meetings, which you, yourself have contributed to…so not all is lost…I am minded of that saying you won't find a cure until you recognise you have a problem…at times, i think some of us are still in denial and we can't move forward to remedies until we understand the health of our Party fully. And i've said to you and others i will continue stating unwelcome and unpleasant truths. I don't consider it as disruption…just a wee bit repetitious and if it is an empty room i'm in…sometimes it does feel it's an empty audience i seem to be addressing
Quote:After all, we have companion parties and branches using it to relay information about their business.Just a correction, the companion parties do not post here. It is HO that does that once it receives those companion party minutes. It is a shame that we do not have more international participation on this discussion list.
Quote:No I can't find them from over a decade ago.my emphasis "The poster you quoted at the start is one such member, who has far reaching proposals for changing Party procedures"Umm… very telling that those "far-reaching proposals for changing Party procedures" were from a decade ago, so, i suppose it is little wonder that they have gotten lost in the mists of time. As i think someone once said of the Party (was it Gnome?), we act and change at a speed of a glacier…Maybe another decade will transpire before these far-reaching proposals come into effect …but, meanwhile, the world moves on and we fall further behind it. "Your conclusion is loaded"Umm…bit of a pot calling kettle, isn't that? Once more your own post has its own loaded assumptions. "acrimonious accusations can be hurled at individual members …"…"No one should feel compelled to work with a bully …"You seem to be continually conflating other issues with this thread which is about Party officer accountability and the means and methods to achieve that. You are correct about this section of our forum – that it is not designed to function fully to conduct Party business and i did concede that it was not .But i still suggest it can be put to better use rather than to be relegated to the status of "gossip chatroom." After all, we have companion parties and branches using it to relay information about their business.I think if a branch posts its minutes here then any member should be permitted to comment and expect to receive a reply, if one is required.Likewise, i expect the EC and its members to respond to questions put to them, regardless of whether it is at a formal EC meeting, face-to-face or through a Party-authorised discussion forums that is described as for conducting SPGB business. As well you and others know, i always push for full and proper consultation of the party as a whole calling repeatedly for a special conference to examine the Party's positions and practice to combat what i perceive is a growing malaise within our organisation.I don't have the patience to wait another decade or two for meaningful far-reaching change and i doubt the Party has that luxury of time, either.
Quote:You can dig oot Lancaster branch previous your self.So, Matt, it i not as i thought that it just might be the case of confusion of identity.No, Matt, you don't escape that easy. It is for you, who declared that the person who took issue with my opinion has provided some alternative solutions, to give me the link. I have not a scooby where it is. I have already admitted my ignorance. You, because you are fully aware of it, can tell me where to look and then i can see for myself how much Lancaster Br. ideas resolves the problems i judge that we have in decision-making and in the responsibilities of Party officers.
Quote:You are not on Alan.I will confess we have issues that you seem to be insistent upon trying to connect to this thread. But they are utterly unrelated. Myself, referred to the fact that the production of the video was not underhand, it was not presenting an alleged "fait accomplis" to the EC but it was a work in process reported on this forum that any member pf the EC could, if wished, contribute opinion and comments toward. They chose not to either because they disdain visiting this forum or they didn't consider it not worth their while to assist a comrade creating a propaganda tool for all of us to use. Another member on an entirely and completely different topic wondered why the EC made a decision that he considered contrary to Party rules and sought an explanation and was, for the want of a better word, fobbed off with – ask the EC officially – you aren't getting any answer here on the forum.Just what is the purpose of this WSM part of the forum if it i not to engage in serious discussion and debate about the business of the SPGB and WSM which expects party officers to treat it with the respect it is due. If not, simply delete it and return to Spintcom as the sole medium of internal exchanges and be done with false pretences. As i said in an earlier post we can expand our minutes. Conference proceedings was recorded, i believe, and minutes will be made from that. Why not post as an audio file?I have often said that EC meeting (and conference/ADM) can be "Skyped" so that we can see the proceedings even if we are blocked from participating in them. These are vital questions we need to address to involve more in the participation of the Party's interaction.
Thanks for your views, Matt. If i approach a EC member and ask face-to-face why did you vote this or that way, is he entitled to say "i'm not telling you" or to say it is "none of your business how i vote at EC meetings" ? Is he able to dismiss any question about his or her reasons for a particular vote? Do i have to resort to a convoluted process to expect an answer from why an EC member made a decision in a particular way? Again, it seems you are adding certain prejudiced attitudes in your answer that arise from where i know not. Certainly not from my post, and definitely nor from my intentions upon raising this matter on this forum. "disruptive manipulative behaviour "… "EC member(s) be subjected to bullying intimidation."…"conduct guerilla attacks online seeking to harrass their decisions"…"seeking to gazump"…"using the discussions fora to disrupt them and sowing seeds of distrust in our procedures…"
Quote:It is perfectly legitimate to question and seek to change methods of accountability within the party via bona fide methods. The poster you quoted at the start is one such member, who has far reaching proposals for changing Party proceduresIs this part of the forum not a bona fide method to question and discuss our procedures? Is it not a bona fide place to ask the EC or individuals on the EC questions and expect answers? Perhaps, there should be a disclaimer added to qualify the content of "World Socialist Movement Discussion directly related to the business of the SPGB and its companion parties."[my emphasis]The poster i quoted declines to participate on this forum and only sporadically posts on Spintcom and rarely on Spopen therefore i am rather puzzled that he has put forward any far-reaching proposals for changing procedures that anyone is aware of. Perhaps it is through conference and his branch but i never noticed any such proposals. It is possible you can direct me to a link where he explains those? (or perhaps, it is simply that you misidentified the source of the quote?)So in conclusion i comradely disagree with the essence of your post, Matt.
Iceland's Pirate Party is no flash in the pan, it seemshttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/icelands-pirate-party-secures-more-election-funding-than-all-its-rivals-as-it-continues-to-top-polls-a7027606.htmlThe Pirate Party were polling at up to 43% and calls for a 35-hour working week, direct democracy and total drug decriminalisation, has the lead in eight out of the last ten polls. They look set to form a crucial part of a coalition government in this autumn's general election.
Quote:The Pirates do not have a formal leader, but poet and activist Birgitta Jónsdóttir MP is the chair of the Pirate parliamentary group and their de facto spokesperson.She said: “We did not expect this. We don’t care. Democracy doesn’t revolve around getting loads of money from the government. We funded our campaign at a flea market before the last elections and that was fine. We feel we need to be able to pay the salary of our employees. Anything more than that is too much."Fraser, there is a PM facility to this forum that you can use for personal and confidential exchanges with its members.
I have to add my voice to the criticism of the EC on this issue, made by Gnome. He is quite correct in his observations. We have an enthusiastic member who wishes to contribute to the case for socialism by creating videos which the Party very much requires to improve its presence on the web but which the Party over the years has very much failed to accomplish. This legalistic argument that the EC was not consulted prior seems to me illegitimate since it ignores the fact that the whole process of producing the videos were posted on our forum over months by Vin for individual members to comment and contribute to. But just how many on the EC are regular visitors to our forum so to raise their worries in advance and avert this situation?This was no behind the back, covert production, comrades. Vin was fully transparent in what he was doing and he asked for and, indeed, heeded advice from other members. Rather than offer their own input and suggest tweaking the video to make it better, the EC has acted rather punitively. "Other concerns were also expressed."Well, let's hear those if they impacted upon the EC's decision and attitude. I'm sure if the EC expected perfection in the videos, we'd all like to hear about the short-comings they found in the content. As two members have already resigned from the A/V committee, and now that Cde. Vin is dismissed from it, if memory serves me right, we have one existing member who was co-opted to it with now even more of a burden to carry on behalf of the Party. For the sake of disclosure, i have previously posted the videos on our official blogs and so can be seen as also complicit in Vin's supposed transgression against Party rules. Can i now expect to receive an instruction from the EC to take them down?If so, you will be receiving my resignation from the blog sub-committee.
Followers of this thread might find this article of interesthttp://www.filmsforaction.org/news/how_huntergatherers_maintained_their_egalitarian_ways_three_complementary_theories/
When (not if) Sanders loses the nomination for president, many of his supporters are pledging to continue the "political revolution" he inspired.http://www.thepeoplessummit.org/https://thepeoplesrevolution.org/are just two initiatives that intend to take advantage of the Sanders legacy. Another unrelated group of a thousand Sanders supporters signed an open letter calling upon Sanders to use his resources to build a permanent organisation, not just what's left of his cash but his data-base on voters.http://inthesetimes.com/features/political-revolution-after-bernie-sanders.html
If this exhibition is mobile, would it be a good idea to later move it across the country with all our local branches organising public meetings on the topic?I first joined the Party in the 70 during the '7 Days For Socialism' campaign, a series of public meetings held by branches. I wonder if we could do the same. '7 Days for Money-Free World' Just a thought
Norman Finkelstein's interview on the Naz Shah/Livingstone controversy. As i said in a previous post, his viewpoint is commendable https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/jamie-stern-weiner-norman-finkelstein/american-jewish-scholar-behind-labour-s-antisemitism-scanda
