alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
In case not everybody has read the link, here are some extracts:"In every conflict, both sides believe they are right. The mechanical approach says that if I am logical and rational and explain my position well enough, then the other person will accept my perspective, the conflict will be resolved, and everyone will be clearer. This approach can work only when discussion remains relaxed and friendly. However, when people feel strongly about their positions, as they usually do, emotions are aroused and conflict becomes heated. Strong emotions inflate differences and eclipse common interests so that nothing can be resolved, and everything gets muddier." The article goes on: “The longer a conflict persists, the more likely it will be registered in long-term memory and resurrected during the next conflict…Once the social connection has been re-established, the threat diminishes. As combatants cool down, the thinking parts of their brains come back on line. At that point, they are commonly surprised at how manageable their disagreements actually are. But as long as they feel disconnected, the threat response will remain active, no one will be listening, and the conflict will continue.”Then says:"We all have been in conflicts where we denied hurting someone or the other person denied hurting us. We deny behaving in a hurtful manner or minimize the hurt in order to make a complaint go away and to maintain position (save face) at the other person’s expense. This is the equivalent of saying, “I don’t care about your pain. I am right (blameless), and you are wrong.” This tactic always backfires. Nothing enrages people more than being told they were not treated badly, when that was what they experienced, or being told that they only imagined being treated badly, implying that they are ‘too sensitive,’ delusional, or crazy."It advises:1. If even one person has a problem, there is a problem.2. If anyone has a problem, then everyone has a problem.3. Do whatever it takes to solve the problem.Pre-class societies lived by these principles because they understood that pulling together was more important than any social structure. If we want to build a classless society, then we must do what we can to promote these principles."It suggests:"When quarrelling members have the same basic goals, then effective apology is the best way to repair a relationship rupture and restore a good working relationship." An example of an effective apology being:“I apologize for treating you as though you were a threat. I was mistaken not to value what you were saying. You deserve better than that, and I am truly sorry for the pain I caused you.”“I apologize for not recognizing how threatened you were by my disagreements. I was mistaken not to reassure you that my goal was not to diminish you in any way. You deserve better than that, and I am truly sorry for the pain I caused you.” As the article says::"It is extremely difficult… to think beyond who is right and who is wrong to see that the purpose of apology is to repair a relationship, not to establish blame…Most people mistakenly begin an apology by explaining, justifying, and defending, which is perceived by the other as a way to minimize the harm done. Ineffective ‘apologies’ usually launch another round of conflict. It is also a mistake to expect conflicting parties to ever agree on who said and did what, and in what order. Stress hormones disrupt the ability of our brains to create coherent memories, so that we can’t remember stressful events in logical sequence. However, once a relationship is repaired, this no longer matters. What matters is preventing conflict from becoming so prolonged that it feels impossible to set aside the bitterness…"Yes, no doubt saying the obvious will lead to accusation of Agony Aunt Analysis but i am sure many (or perhaps just a few) will recognise parts of the above. I was no innocent party in the discussion list dispute just in case anybody has forgotten. Unless anyone has claims to infallibility , lets just say sorry and move on. The first step is ensuring it is not repeated by hopefully implementing changes in the way we interact as individual members and how the Party operates as an organisation.i disagree with ALB that it is not possible to create a comradely climate. The difference in view doesn't mean i won't buy him a pint the next time we meet…(but really, i'm hoping he will go to the bar )
The real disrespect being showed has been to myself, has it not?The use of foul language issue is a complete irrelevance but failing to discuss my point but instead preferring to attack another poster was the real massive mistake and betrayed another agenda for the poster, which does not acknowledge my right to expect a serious engagement of the ideas in my post, even if some may consider it not of much merit. That is an opinion they are entitled to, just as i am entitled to post my observations, which granted i tend to do so a lot. The wisdom of declaring certain subjects in my original post off-limits ,(despite the caveats i used), in itself raises an issue that is part of the situation i feel still has to be addressed by the party. Toleration of expression on this thread has been addressed by the moderator and that should be the end of it. Full Stop. No More. It was, IIRC, not bad language that sparked off previous animousity but the failure to abide by the moderator's decisions. Let us accept whatever he decides and give him his due respect.
Well, i don't think it is self-indulgent navel gazing. I risked the topic being side-tracked by offering a current example of the issue we face. And to their credit, Vin did restrict himself to a passing comment, and Steve only responded to another posters inflammatory remark. Hopefully it is kept on track.Perhaps it is because i am a couple of continents away that i share Vin's feelings of isolation and compensate for individual impotence in party decision making by numerous posts here.Take a look at the LU website and the thing you are struck by from the personal reports of the conference is the subjective descriptions of the friendly attitudes of the participants. Of course, i am not fooled by the optimism and believe such good-will will continue within LU but it does demonstrate the importance of the need for comrade-ship within an organisation. Anyone who attends conference or ADM or Summer School will observe that it is the socialising which makes the long trips for some worth while. It is through the informal conversations outside conference procedure that differences are reconciled or receive fuller explanations and harsh words or sentiments are apologised for. ALB, i think, is sceptical because as he more or less asks, how does an organisation place such sentiments in the rule-book and knows well enough that camaraderie cannot be imposed. There either is or there isn't! Some members of the Party have bitter memories of the feuding that has gone on in the past. I think steps can be taken. An open and transparent disputes procedure to resolve political and personal disputes between members can be developed for starters. More non-adversorial forms of debate and discussion used. We already acknowledge this by now describing debates as forums and prepared to offer a platform to non-party members such as writers and authors. We are experimenting with different methods of explorations of ideas such as the work-shops on propaganda and activity held last year. SC and VM should also note that the EC actually reached out for a party opinion and have not simply usurped responsibility. The web and internet offers a channel for those out of touch either because of geography or family/job commitment that is still not being completely utilised. But we are making advances with baby-steps such as Skype EC meetings but surely that is just the beginning.So it is not idle navel-gazing. It is about challenging current practice and proposing alternatives and we should not rest upon our laurels but carry on. The experience of other organisations and activists such as in the article i linked to offers insights that may or may not be relevant to ourselves but they do help to define the problem for us.
I'm pleased to see ex-member Stuart has not dropped all his principles when on the thread he comments that the resolution on Syria was "lefty windbaggery and posturing." It is just a pity he didn't go further in his condemnation of his new comrades.But it is perhaps the first signs of the lack of unity in the unity party. We can expect many more divides in the coming months as party political positions are established . Nor was it only the Workers Power faction supporting the resolution. According to the thread the other factions in LU, the International Socialist Network and Socialist Resistance agreed with it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10477858/Object-to-mass-immigration-from-the-EU-Join-the-Romaphobe-club.htmlWe had Jack Straw "apologising" for letting in too many Poles. We had Blunkett criticising the Roma in Sheffield and now to the delight of the Telegraph, that not well read newspaper in Glasgow that Tom Harris a Labour MP decided to add his tuppence-worth in about the Roma with all the usual stereotypes,,,aggressive begging…even though laws exist presently to stop that and plenty of other laws exist to stop other anti-social behaviour from happening…and of course as a Labour MP he never asks why there is begging, he seems to think its a comfortable desirable occupation to walk cold windy wet Scottish streets looking for hand-outs…It is because Romanians and Bulgarians are stopped from working and refused benefits that many beg as an alternative to starving."my constituents become angrier and more resentful, because the lives they have worked so hard to build for themselves and their families are being impinged upon by people whose culture, way of life and attitude to authority and those around them are utterly alien" [my emphasis] Then he goes on to associate accepting different cultures with female genital mutilation. He then implies that Labour also should consider cutting benefits fro migrant workers as policy too because "[Cameron] is speaking to a lot more people than just his own party’s Right wing." So let us not challenge attitudes and try to change them, ratrher let us make sure we agree with the racists because it is not nice to call them prejudiced…especially if they are voters!!Harris tries a mealy mouthed get out but he forgets it was not too long ago that the Church of Scotland was calling for the deportation of the Irish because they were an alien culture too!! A more reasonable depiction of Roma life in the UK can be found herehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-25101956 ""The visual stereotypes associated with photography of Roma all come from somewhere of course – these stories exist. But I believe the regurgitation of the same tired old images reflects and reinforces the prejudices many people still hold about Gypsies: that they are different and somehow "other". What people don't understand they tend to fear. If the only images we are shown are of caravans, beggars, poverty and gaudy mansions, we'll fail to see the nuance and normality that are the experience of huge swathes of Romani society who are happily integrating – not to mention the common threads that bind us all."
"I can understand pessimism, but I don't believe in it. It's not simply a matter of faith, but of historical evidence. Not overwhelming evidence, just enough to give hope, because for hope we don't need certainty, only possibility." – Howard Zinn
General Ludd’s Triumph: The guilty may fear, but no vengeance he aimsAt the honest man’s life or estateHis wrath is entirely confined to wide framesAnd to those that old prices abate.These Engines of mischief were sentenced to dieBy unanimous vote of the Trade;And Ludd who can all opposition defyWas the grand Executioner made. Let the wise and the great lend their aid and adviceNor e’er their assistance withdrawTill full fashioned work at the old fashioned priceIs established by Custom and Law.Then the Trade when this arduous contest is o’erShall raise in full splendour its head,And colting and cutting and squaring * no moreShall deprive honest workmen of bread. *Squaring referred to all forms of what was considered unfair practice by the masters.
""people in some parts of the US are no longer afraid of the mere word socialism" I may be wrong but Seattle and Portland appear to certainly be more politically active than other cities…perhaps a part of their history…Seattle general strike 1919, the Seattle anti-globalisation riots in 1999, and Portland has an active IWW group , and isn't it also home of one of our stalwart members of the WSPUS
Nothing wrong with having such as an aspiration and in the future who can tell what will be possible or not when we reach a stage in human development of generations born and raised in socialism, with all manner of technological innovations to assist and enhance human abilities. We already reached the stage where no-one will require the skill of driving a car since it can be done using sensors and computers. But i agree with both you and Brian that socialism it is not a matter of carte blanche to do anything and everything but little harm in saying that there exists within us all, the poet and painter, even if right now most of us cannot honestly say we possess such talents.
A true democracy can exist if the population has free access to all goods and services because it is the power to give or deprive people of the necessities and luxuries of life that allows dictators and bureaucracies to impose their power. If we have free access then we do not need to obey them and they cannot enforce their control.
Interview with the new CWI councillor as she outlines her views and beliefs. http://www.salon.com/2013/11/18/capitalism_is_a_dirty_word_meet_the_nations_new_socialist_councilmember/ Q. Are there countries that you look to as good examples of socialism?A. There is no real full example … but there are elements of what we are talking about in our vision for a future society …In the United States, the creation of the welfare program in the first place. The creation of Social Security. All the advances that have been made in women’s rights and LGBT rights — a lot of this is well within the vision of what I would consider a really humane society in the future, and what I consider socialism … The gains that we have today are very consistent with our vision for a socialist society, and also they came about because a lot of these movements were headed by socialists. And there are elements of socialism or socialist society in many other countries as well. So if you look at Finland and the funding for public education, how strong the teachers’ unions are, the full funding for healthcare in Cuba, also education. These are all elements that we would want to see put in place in a future society. But at the end of the day, it’s not possible to have socialism in one country … If resources are organized globally along capitalist lines, it’s just not possible to provide that really high standard of living that some people have to everybody else …..you can’t stop at social democracy. You can’t stop at having reforms … We have to have a fundamental shift." …
You might find his latest article quite good reading…if a bit pessimistic. https://www.adbusters.org/magazine/90/hedges-american-psychosis.html "The goal will no longer be the possibility of reforming the system but of protecting truth, civility and culture from mass contamination…The goal will become the ability to endure." Well, the SPGB certainly should have an advantage here since we have already demonstrated our longevity and commitment to our principles.
Ukraine heating up http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/01/ukraine-largest-street-protests-orange-revolutionAs Ukip leads the rush to the exit door, Ukraine fights to get a foot in the door…strange contradictions .No doubt if Ukraine does join , there will be a whole new population to direct nationalist venom against…the "flood" of new migrants and also another 400,000 new Roma for racists to vent their spleen against.
As ALB has pointed out the CPGB are quite adept at riding two horses at same time vis a vis the Labour Party front. I don't envisage mass resignations until at least after the election of party officers and editoral control of whatever journal and website they decide to produce …then perhaps the defections (and rancour) will begin. A principled stance is scarcely something of importance to many who engaged in LU . The outcome of the platforms may have been decided but control of the party is still up for grabs.
