ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
robbo203 wrote:Only a small minority in the Party appears to do anything at all.
You make some valid points which you would have more chance of them being acted on if you were a member (there is a tiny minority of members who hold the view that you give as your reason for not joining — we are not that "monolithic").And you could have a go at herding cats or, rather, at getting cats to herd themselves. But the above needs challenging. I don't know what your definition is of "small minority" and "do anything" but, using participation in internal votes as a measure, which has been suggested elsewhere. about one-third of the membership are "active". Hardly a "tiny" minority. Quite high, actually, for voluntary organisations, higher in fact than in my trade union.
A realisation that single issue pressure groups don't get anywhere and that to get something done you need to aim at controlling political power? That's a bit of an illusion too if it's to work within capitalism but a different one.
One big reason will be that to join us you need do more than sign a piece of paper (and make out a direct debit). But the general trend to join political parties must be a good development, even for us, as it means more people interested in general politics and so who we can talk to. Could represent a welcome trend away from participation in single issue charities and campaigning groups.
I don't see any problem with distributing our leaflets outside rugby or soccer stadiums. Our TUSC opponent in Oxford did so during the general election earlier this year, as the following extract from their facebook page shows (click on 27 March):
Quote:27 MarchStall tomorrow outside Nelson pub, Cowley Centre 11.00am followed by leafleting at Kassam Stadium, please help if you can.According to the Guardian, he reads and recommends reading Marx:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/15/mcdonnells-economics-milibandism-liberated-from-new-labour-concernsIf he really did, or really understood, then he would know that Marx wasn't into proposing policies for governments to pursue under capitalism, but with replacing capitalism with a system of common ownership, democratic control, production for use not profit, and distribution on the principle of "from each their ability, to each their needs".
Here's Peter Taaffe, the Leader of SPEW, abandoning their policy of up to now of trying to form a Labour Party Mark 2 in favour of a renewed Labour Party Mark 1. He even calls for SPEW to be affiliated to it (fat chance of that), but still suggests that SPEW will be putting up candidates against Labour through its front organisation TUSC. But how long will that inconsistent position last?http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/videosAnd here's (7 minutes) Nick Wrack, of the ISN (a minor constituent of TUSC), putting a case for not going overboard about Corbyn and into the Labour Party:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2jH3kCeIQkSome of the points he makes are what we do.
This is becoming a thread not just for Private Fraser, but for Jeremiah, Cassandra and Moaning Minnie. I'll leave youse to it.
I must say I was surprised at the result. You would have thought that workers in Greece would punish Syriza for breaking its promise to end austerity but I suppose that, given the choice, they prefer to have austerity imposed by a government reluctant to do so rather than one keen to. Workers have been browbeaten into accepting capitalism and that's all capitalism has to offer. And where parties that claim to be able to protect or improve conditions for workers within capitalism end up.
robbo203 wrote:So why then do you suggest that Vin and I "get together to work out a protocol for deciding which one of you is right"? Is it not possible that both of us could be right? Come to think of it this may be yet another reason for the SPGBs poor performance to date – the tendency for members to think simplistically in only black-or-white termsPrecisely my point , there can be any number of reasons why our membership and support is only progressing slowly. But that's a criticism of Vin's analysis (or, rather, assertion) than of what I've been arguing.
I wasn't talking about our particular collective activity at the moment, but about political activity in general (meetings, rallies, election with a chance of winning). You are probably right about Brand and, before him, Zeitgeist . They are/were essentially internet phenomena. But I think "Corbynmania" is different. and is more like what I'd expect the take-off of socialism to be like: overflowing meetings, etc.
Vin wrote:The fact that we have attracted so few during this period of Austerity is overwhelming evidence that we are wasting time and resources and heading in the wrong direction.This isn't a logical argument. Merely an assertion on a par with Robbo's that it's because we are opposed to religious people joining. You might be right but what you say does not follow from the fact in question. There could be any number of other reasons for the fact in question including our anti-religious stance …. Not sure how you'd prove either. Perhaps the two of you could get together to work out a protocol for deciding which one of you is right,
Vin wrote:So members are not wasting their time sitting on their arse on the internet.I didn't say they were. What you think I'm doing now?
Vin wrote:I think Corbyn Mania was also the result of the Internet yet we persist with the old pre digital methodsReally, just an internet phenomenon? Do you really think that his campaign would have taken off without the well-attended public meetings he held up and down the country (even if they were advertised via the internet). The internet is a tool, which we do and should use, but is not a substitute for collective political activity of one kind or another.
imposs1904 wrote:Anyway, I call bullshit on this latest story. It feeds into the paranoia of the capitalist left. They want to believe it.Where's the like button when you need it.
If you re-read the supporting statements for the two items you'll see that the problem for 2 branches is that new members allocated to them who join this way don't participate in any organised socialist activity, eg come to meetings, help out at stalls, distribute or sell literature at demonstrations. They seem to be just keyboard socialists.
An Americanism, then?http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/62859/origin-of-the-word-shill-shillaber
Quote:was used for anyone who lured the target into any sort of crooked game (as well as into brothels, strip-clubs and other places where they were likely to come out substantially poorer).Strong stuff. But we never used the word.
