steve colborn
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi Socialist Punk, tried to bring to the attention of whomsoever, the attempted obfuscation of this thread, no go. Apparently it's oh fe to be off topic and inflammatory!I'll get a warning or ban but who cares. What I have called attention to, is allowed. Trying ti wind up non-members!!! Way to go for a spirit of fraternity there. Anyway, at least it would give me time to spread the message to fellow workers, it's no use on here.
That's how voting for conference is carried out now. Conference votes ARE party polls even if they are not called that.It is an individual interpretation that conference votes Are party polls. If, in "my" view, they were indeed to be percieved in this way, then they would be so deemed and it would have been specifically stated, if for no other reason than to prevent this type of confusion. They were not, nor are. The "interpretation" of an individual or individuals, notwithstanding!!!
DJP would you point out the "exact" passage in the rulebook which states that a conference vote is the same thing as a party poll?Cheers.
No other Party acts in such an Open way. No other Party allows non-members as much access to "all" meetings and even allows, with the permission of the Chair and members present, to actually "address" said meeting! This is a historical aspect, we are and should be, rightly proud of.
"It's odd, isn't it, that 130 years after Marx's death, there isn't a single political organisation that puts workers' democracy at its heart."So L Bird informs us!The Socialist Party, refuse to countenance leaders. We do not recognise "representative democracy" as democracy. Parliamentary democracy is a ruse to gull the uninformed and ignorant.The Socialist Party, in every part of it's existence is a Party based on the ethos of "Direct participatory Democracy". We advocate it now, we envisage that it will be one of the overarching principles of a new society, based on production for use, not profit. Where the Earth and everything in and on it will belong to "all of mankind" equally, without distinction of Race, Sex, Colour, Gender, or indeed any of the other straw men, used to divide the majority within the minority owned and controlled Capitalist system.To call such a Party a "Religious Sect", to doubt its "Democratic credentials", to misconstrue the "Administration of things" as a drive towards "elitism", is perhaps the most profoundly disreputable argument I have heard. And in a 33 year association with The Socialist Party, I have heard a few.JW, you ask; "What specific organisational features would a party in favour of proletarian democracy that was not a sect look like? How would it treat non-members?".Admit them into every meeting the Party organises, from Branch to EC. Let them peruse each and every Party document. Give them the ability to ask inumerable questions. At public meetings, answer each question individually, not as other parties do, collect 6 or 7, then "forget" to answer the "uncomfortable" ones.Defer Branch Standing orders, when a non member attends, so that the attendee can ask questions and satisfy him/herself as to the response.I could go on, but anyone with 1 functioning brain cell can see the pattern and appreciate the meaning and intent!!!Steve ColbornMember of The ("Democratic") Socialist Party.
I fully agree that non members have much to contribute. A wide range of perspectives and knowledge, if nothing else. I think it is asking to much for non-members to become members before they have "any posting rights" at all on Party sites!As for "voting", that for me, is a step to far. As I only want "Socialists" in the Party, I only want Socialists voting on issues, within the Party!
I'll not only tell you what I think, I'll point directly to proof of my viewpoint. The NERB, recently had a Special Branch meeting. In that meeting we discussed, amonst other things, the Party Image/Logo. Non members contributed to the discussion and were very welcome to do so. I was Chair of that meeting and thought it was an interesting meeting, in which the "non-members" contributed some interesting points.I was Chair of the meeting but am also one of the Moderators of the NERB site. My view, which is shared by Branch members, is that we welcome not only non members attendance but their input as well, however uncomfortable they may be!The only thing non-members are not allowed to do, is vote. I cannot see any circumstance, other than personal abuse where I, as Moderator, would censure discussion or comment.That is my viewpoint as a free thinking, democratic, Socialist, who prizes Free speech and free discourse highly.The proof of the pudding, so on and so forth!!!
2008 Conference resolution wrote:"It is encouraged to use the abbreviated form 'The Socialist Party' in any other context where confusion with other similarly named organisations is unlikely. This resolution supersedes the 1986 and 1988 Conference resolutions respecting the use of the Party's names."Nothing is said about there always being confusion, so we will not use the abbreviated version!Since 2008, there has been a consistent disregard to the above conference resolution. Members have just done what they "feel" like.If the Party had been consistent in implementing the 2008 Conference resolution, it is my considered opinion that much of the heat may have been taken out of the call for a "name change"! It wasn't and ergo, there is.Those who deem a "name change" unimportant, unnecessary and/or irrelevant, consistently push the following;1986 Party Poll wrote:Are you in favour of changing the name of the Party to World Socialist Party (Britain)? Lost 72-2292014 Conference resolution wrote:In furtherance of the resolution of Conference 2008 this Conference resolves that the full name of the Party be included on the HO fascia. Carried 61-38However there is never as much stress put on, as already stated above, "It is encouraged to use the abbreviated form 'The Socialist Party' in any other context where confusion with other similarly named organisations is unlikely. This resolution supersedes the 1986 and 1988 Conference resolutions respecting the use of the Party's names." Wonder why?
Entirely agree YMS and that fits in nicely with Adam mentioning the use of the Party abridged version of our name. I could be wrong but the Party Poll requiring the use of the shortened version of the Party name, unless confusion were to occur and the full name on legal documents ETC, has never been overturned! So why are some still using the full Party name?
