jondwhite
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Natalie Bennett has issued a statement, part of which reads (my emphasis)
Quote:*Up to 2,000 members expected in BournemouthThe Green Party will be holding its biggest-ever Conference on 25-28 September in Bournemouth (1).Following the Greens’ best-ever performance in a General Election (2), in which the Party achieved one million votes for the first time, up to 2,000 Green Party members from across the UK will congregate for four days of policy-making, learning and networking.- See more at: https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2015/08/06/greens-to-hold-biggest-ever-party-conference/#sthash.oa8bex2l.dpuf*Up to 2,000 members expected in Bournemouth The Green Party will be holding its biggest-ever Conference on 25-28 September in Bournemouth (1). Following the Greens’ best-ever performance in a General Election (2), in which the Party achieved one million votes for the first time, up to 2,000 Green Party members from across the UK will congregate for four days of policy-making, learning and networking….Green Party members attending Conference for the first time will be able to experience – and get involved in – the Party's uniquely democratic policy-making process, and make important decisions about our democratic structures.https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2015/08/06/greens-to-hold-biggest-ever-party-conference/
Elections of members to executive committee take place every year, can they be done by open primary? As YMS states, this is not a policy issue, so this would not be an argument against open primaries.As for the statements 'we are not a mass party', and 'we'd be swamped', they would seem to be getting at two different things. 'We are not a mass party and cannot claim to be a party of the working class'. So many parties claim to be party of the working class, even Ukip and the Tories realise universal suffrage means the working class are in the majority, so its refreshing to hear claims not to be.Possibly due to overuse, the phrase is a bit meaningless (most parties are composed of a majority of workers) and as AJ recognises, 'the party [genuinely] seeking working-class emancipation' is a better descriptive phrase and also one used in Clause 7 of our principles. We may not be 'mass' but we are 'the party seeking working-class emancipation'.As 'the emancipation of the working-class will be the act of the working-class themselves' therefore we conduct ourselves democratically. Members control policy and currently elect other members to committees. As the party seeking working-class emancipation it is too important not to be parochial and regarding it as 'our' party and not for non-members. This is the sort of separation of socialists from the working-class we should avoid. Although Trots interpret it as 'vote labour!' I think parochialism may be what Marx was getting at in the Communist Manifesto Chapter 2.Workers need a socialist political party, not a socialist propangadist group. Why shouldn't workers be trusted with selecting which Socialist party members (who have all passed the membership test and nominated by branches) should serve on the executive committee of the party seeking working-class emancipation hostile to all other parties? Why is this being 'swamped'? Have workers chosen the worst candidate for the Labour party?The opposition to the erosion of the property qualification in the Reform Acts in the 19th Century was on the basis that the country belonged to those that owned it and could be better trusted to look after it with a stake in it. Nobody but fringe Ukipers argue for a return to the property qualification. Lets extend the franchise in the Socialist Party.Either we are the party seeking the emancipation of the working-class or we're not, either way we need the membership and democratic structures (not the policy) 'swamped' with the working-class in order to become a mass party.
Expressive vs instrumentalist is an interesting distinction but negative versus positive is still a factor because you could have negative instrumentalist campaigning (here's why our opponents are bad), and positive expressive campaigning (simply waving a banner for socialism). Perhaps both are needed.
lanz the joiner wrote:gnome wrote:Among all the political parties in Great Britain, only the Socialist Party is dedicated to socialism as an immediate goal. It is this objective that makes the Socialist Party revolutionary – our dedication to peaceful, democratic and immediate change.Sorry if I'm bringing up an old tired issue here… but why isn't the Socialist Equality Party thought of by the SPGB as having socialism as an immediate goal? Is it because their definition of socialism differs from that of the SPGB?
yes but also Gerry Healy and David North
jondwhite wrote:Is the Marmite image different in context from the Leninism: 57 varieties all unfit for human consumption, a Solidarity cartoon in their pamphlet As we see it? Wasn't this used in the Standard once or even on the cover?http://theoryandpractice.org.uk/library/more-lenin-or-less-lenin-socialist-standard-2004Not saying I agree with either image but I've found the Socialist Standard from October 1979 front cover used the Leninism: 57 varieties image (the Solidarity pamphlet is possibly dated 1972 and I'm not certain uses it anyway)
Is the Marmite image different in context from the Leninism: 57 varieties all unfit for human consumption, a Solidarity cartoon in their pamphlet As we see it? Wasn't this used in the Standard once or even on the cover?http://theoryandpractice.org.uk/library/more-lenin-or-less-lenin-socialist-standard-2004
Jeb Bush has released his campaign advert attacking Trumphttp://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/jeb-bush-releases-campaign-video-attacking-donald-trump-33463170Particularly interesting in light of Socialist Punk's comments on political advertising in the UK in the Corbyn topic and generally negative attack campaigning which American politics has down to a fine art.
Would it be something like this?http://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/taiwanese-animators-have-made-an-absolutely-bizarr
They are copies of the official book from 2004 being resold. Like DJP says, there are many available in head office. Seems fair enough.
SocialistPunk wrote:The only problem with using tactics seen in some of the Facebook images and the Sept' Socialist Standard, is they don't work.Who are they aimed at? Those who already dislike Corbyn and his politics or supporters of his politics? Or perhaps some hazey middle ground of "don't knows"?Using attack tactics actually turns people off and has no effect on believers.If the SPGB are serious at recruiting supporters of "lost causes" it's time to quit the negative attack policy and use more creative and clever tactics/campaigns etc. You'd think that after one hundred and eleven years, lessons would by now be learnt.Officially the covers are aimed at everyone, but in practice I suspect they appeal more to a particular section of membership reinforcing that particular approach of 'wage war against all other political parties, whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist' under Clause 8 as cocking a snook or blowing raspberries at Labour leaders which can be effective for the standards of debate on facebook or twitter.
Fair enough but it sounds like letters or comments on facebook (for example) from members are not leaflets nor party statements let alone political literature. Likewise, letter writing members or facebook commenting members are not 'party speakers', 'party speakers' are members who have passed the speakers test delivering a talk or address.If you can dig out the resolution it would help.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Speaking of which, do you think it's reasonable, Jon, to sign off letters with your party affiliation when advocating something tht isn't the party platform (open primaries)?I didn't join a 'democratic centralist' party so I believe members are free to express their views including on open primaries online or in print just as in the Labour party for example. Weekly Worker in fact claim this isn't even the view of all 'democratic centralists' and their party's members publicly expressing their views not shared by the majority is encouraged. Whether this is true or not, I did not join a closed secretive cult when I joined the SPGB.The Socialist party was quite strict on members publicly expressing their own opinions in the 1930s and 1940s but this was redundant by the 1950s when Forum Journal (something some members still want to quietly forget about) went to print. Quite possibly Hardy's new theories on economic crises in the 1930s and the party's volte-face had something to do with it too. With an online public forum since the early 2000s, such strictness is even more redundant since what are members to do, trot out the party line?Anyway, by 1973, conference was stating 'This Conference reaffirms that nothing in the Party Rules should be so understood as to prevent any member or members from expressing criticism of the Party verbally or in writing" (1973)'
