Hi Shaun,
I agree that a word more dictionary accurate  than 'socialist' would be hard
to find, but my point is that few people check their understanding of a word
against a dictionary definition. I have had a few ideas run through my head
for a replacement, but none very good (Historical Materialist Party etc).
'Common Wealth' would have been good but this would suffer the same problems
as 'socialism'. I feel sure though, that once the issue was seriously faced,
enough of the 600 heads that we have would come up with something.

As for the party name, a change in this has been knocking about for years.
Though 'SPGB' (I don't know the story of the SPC etc) has been constant (and
could remain so), we have used variations on this to refer to us when useful
eg Socialist Party, WSM. This is purely my view on how we could work the
change & again is something for the party(ies) at a later date, when we
realise how the S-word is making life hard for us. The business world has a
great many name changes behind it when such seemed necessary.

Regarding consistency, are we to be consistent to a word that has changed
its meaning, or to the idea behind it? The two have moved down different
paths in the past 95 years. My point is that we need to place ourselves back
on the path of the idea. In 1990s English when I say that I am a socialist I
am stating that I'm a sacharine capitalist to the listener, no matter what
the word means in my head. Nobody uses 1900 English any more except us.

I would be nice to make the word 'socialism' work, but to do so would mean
reworking the English language. If we had enough mass media access to do
this, we would have far more than enough to achieve the revolution.


Also, Is this a party forum or can others join in? I ask after having recvd
a mail from an 'outsider' (I assume he's a worker, so is he really an
outsider (lol)). Have you recvd an e-mail from a Benjamin Fallenstein?

Kevin

Lieber Benjamin

Du schreibst: Socialists who want to work together would found
a group independent from the big companies.

Das ist möglich - in meinem VirGlob-SP-Projekt!
http://www.virglob-sp.org

Why not join NOW and support the worldwide Virglob-SP project?
http://www.virglob-sp.org/pages/12c_e_member.htm

Rolf


----------
>Von: "Benjamin Fallenstein" <b.fallenstein@...>
>An: <WSM_Socialism_Forum@onelist.com>
>Betreff: [WSM_Socialism_Forum] General question by an 'outsider'
>Datum: Son, 30. Mai 1999 19:44 Uhr
>

> Socialists who want to work together would found
> a group independent from the big companies (that is not possible everywhere,

Hi!

Let me first point out that I'm on this list because of interest in World
Socialism, not because of being member of some socialist party, so I can
hardly participate in your discussion. :-) I would like to ask a more
fundamental question about the way World Socialism has to go. I agree that
political work is good and very important, but should we wait until a vast
majority of the workers feels socialistic? Be clear about that: Should we
work under capitalism, be it right-winged or left-winged, until (and this
possibility seems to be in the dim dust of the farer future to me) a vast
majority of world's population is with us? Wouldn't it be better for
ourselves and our course if we'd live socialistic as much as we can at the
moment? Of course, there is no chance that socialism could be independent
from capitalism soon. But it could be _a bit more_ independent than we are
at the moment.

Just imagine for a moment: Socialists who want to work together would found
a group independent from the big companies (that is not possible everywhere,
I know, but there are enough fields where it is). To capitalists, they would
sell their products just as they would do now, and anything they need and
can't get from socialists, they would buy from the capitalistic world as
they do now. But they would give away their products for free to other
socialists who do the same -- and anything they need that other socialists
around the world produce they would get from them, for free again.

That would be true to the idea behind World Socialism: We wouldn't work for
making a living (well, we would work *less* for that), we would work because
someone needs to do the work and (not to forget) because we enjoy the work.
(By the way: Something I didn't found opinions about on
www.worldsocialism.org is the idea that people who do not have to do their
work because elsewise they'd starve would be happier with it, more able to
enjoy it.)

It would also help to show people what we mean when we're speaking about
socialism. If we'd reach some greater scale, the project would attract
public interest. It would be a way of making politics.

However, there is a catch. We can't start with a community with no trade
tomorrow -- because if we'd give our products away to everyone who asks, a
lot of people would take it without giving anything back, and we would
starve. We can't entirely stop looking at how much the others work. What we
*can* do is a moneyless form of asymetric trade, that is, trade where
something is giving back for giving away something, but not by the same guy
who got what was given away. Er, that is a quite complex way of explaining
the concept... Well, in symetric trade, you give some fellow a bread and get
some butter back (i.e. something you 'desire'). In asymetric trade, someone
asks you for a bread and you give it to him/her -- you get some butter for
that, but by third guy! (Capitalism works like this too, but it uses money
to express the value of the bread you gave away.)

So, what I'm thinking of is a system where you enter who you are and what
you can give away. Someone asks you to give you something of that -- a bread
in the example above. You look at the 'profile' of that guy: Oh, he makes
brick walls, and he has already given away a lot of them to other
socialists, a good friend of you among them. Okay, you send him your bread.
Now, you need some butter; before you go into the capitalistic supermarket
and buy it, you look in the system if there's some butter available. Yes,
there are some people in Bulgaria who have butter. You ask them to give you
some of it.

Someone of them finds your message and looks in your profile. Oh, you bake
bread, and you have given away some of it, for example to the guy who made
the brick wall for her relative (you don't need to know the people every
time, but it helps you to trust them), so OK, she'll send you the butter.

I imagine a system on the internet that would connect socialists world-wide.
That would broaden the range of available goods, and we would be better off
and 'more independent' from capitalism.

What do you think about all this? Would it help socialism? Or would it give
people new bad misconceptions about it? Please, let me know.

Thanks,
- Benjamin Fallenstein

Kevin,

I'm interested in what other words you have thought of
that could be used to replace our use of the word "socialism."
I haven't really formed an opinion to answer with in response
to your question, and the first concern that pops into mind
is that SPGB is the Socialist Party, so if the word socialism
is replaced as our main descriptor, then what about the Party's
title?

I used to work for a major international corporation called
Amway, and this company has distributors of its products who
set up a multi-level marketing marketing business to sell the
products. Now, this company's name conjures many negative
feelings in people who think of cults, scams, door to door sales.
What the distributors have learned to do is to get their
prospective recruits interested in the company, to get their
imaginations dreaming about the kind of fabulous lifestyle they
could have as movers and shakers, baby! They do this BEFORE
they mention the Amway's name. The company isn't going to change
its name, because there is too much investment and history
behind it.

I think that replacing the word socialism will necessitate
a change in the name of the Party, for if "socialism" is an
inadequate word, then so must be the name of Socialist Party
of Great Britain. If the word "socialism" is to be dropped
the past 95 years will soon be forgotten, and all that has
been gained by staying consistent all these years will be
lost. The SPGB, SPC, etc needs to make the word "socialism"
work.

Shaun Le Conte

What do people think on dropping the word socialism as our main descriptor.
I know I am attacking a sacred cow, but have found a very negative initial
reaction turn positive on full consideration in discussion with other
members of the Bournemouth group. I have given a great deal of thought to
the matter and I am convinced that we are shooting ourselves in the foot by
the use of the word 'socialist'. I could fill pages with my reasons but I'll
just list a couple here.

I have found in conversations with non-socialists that on the mention of the
word socialism most will immediately switch off. Should I manage to get past
this stage the vast majority of the time is then spent trying to explain
that socialism is not what they have been taught. I may eventually reach the
point where useful discussion can be carried out, but on coming back to them
there is always another fight to convince them that socialism is not Labour,
SWP etc.  You must all know the feeling, it is because we are fighting
decades of indoctrination as to the meaning of the word.

What does a word really mean? Does it hold the meaning applied when the word
was first coined, or is the meaning that which is understood by the vast
majority of its users? If the second case is true the socialism does stand
for saccharin capitalism.

The English language has spent the last hundred years continuing its process
of evolution. Our use of it needs to change,  we need to use 1990's English,
not relics from the turn of the century.

In any event we need to remember that our aim is to promote Marx's
successive stage to capitalism. To do this we need to communicate with
people, and though this may be obvious it is often forgotten that this is
best done by using the same language as the people you are talking to. When
a person understands a word to have a different meaning than that in the
dictionary, the dictionary definition will mean little to them, they will
apply their own meaning. In 99% of peoples understanding socialism means
left-wing capitalism.

Any comments?
Kevin Giles
PS It's great to see a discussion forum that overcomes the physical distance
between us. Thanks

Lo Comrades,

Does anyone know what the criteria for qualifying for a Party Election
Broadcast are?  Its just that it hit me that the SNP and Plaid Cymru
(only standing on one list each) will get PEB's, but will we?  Or is
there a 'votes last time' limit as well?

Bill

Lo Comrades,

Well, I just attended a Campus Anti-War meeting (Lancaster Students
Against the War), at which a gentleman from the Peacestudies department
spoke very dully (and if he was any woolier I'd steal him and knit him
into a nice fluffy jumper), another Gentleman from CND (who regalled us
with discussions he had all around the world with senior diplomatic
types), and a Gentleman from The SWP (Whose Front Organisation LSAW is,
obviously).

What it suggested to me was what an utter travesty such single issue
reform front movements are- the SWP speaker informed us that we don't
need to join their organisation, we can just help stop the war:
prsuemably this was equally addressed to the Cypriot Nationalist who
turned up, and the generally apolitical.  In fact the whole meeting was
dominated by either nationalistic strains, or presumptions of 'but what
should we do?' or questions about what the government should do.

I spoke a little (there weren't many speakers from the audience, I felt
guilty about speaking twice, second time on a point of information).  I
raised the point that the Euro elections are coming, and ujrged people
to spoil their ballots to be able to vote against the war (a unique
possibility this, a chance to have a national election against the war)-
P{artisans for the greens said they opposed it, and the SWP hacks
attacked the idea, saying we should build a huge movement instead (ten
to one the buiggrs 'll go off and vote Labour at the Euro's).

Turn out was low- less than a hundred, but more than they usually get-
incompetant chairing meant that the speakers overran really, and the
meeting dragged on for two hours.

Oh well..

Bill

> Please translate ROFLMAOism.

Rolling On Floor Luaghing My Arse Off.

> I'm not quite sure what your trying to say.
> The political system does enforce norms but we used it to our advantage to
> stop Militant using our name - surely we should be pleased with this
> outcome.

I was pointing out that assumedly, the forms included a slot for
'Leader' on the assumption athat every party has a leader, making
leadership a normalised/naturalised function of political parties.

Also, reading from the Same page, I discovered that on our Local
councill (lancaster) the Morecombe Bay Independants are a registered
political party (v. parochial I know, but the idea of a Party of
Independants amuses...).

Just thought it was an interesting point was all.

Bill

Please translate ROFLMAOism.  I'm not quite sure what your trying to say.
The political system does enforce norms but we used it to our advantage to
stop Militant using our name - surely we should be pleased with this
outcome.
I know they say "leader" but we and anyone who knows us knows its not the
case.

> ----------
> From:  WILLIAM MARTIN[SMTP:w.martin@...]
> Reply To:  WSM_Socialism_Forum@onelist.com
> Sent:  26 May 1999 13:13
> To:  WSM_Socialism_Forum@onelist.com
> Subject:  [WSM_Socialism_Forum] Register...
>
> From: WILLIAM MARTIN <w.martin@...>
>
> Quick Glimpse at how the political system enforces norms...
>
>
> The Register of Political Parties
>
> <Picture: Separator Bar Image>
>
>
> This is the entry in the Register of Political Parties for "The
> Socialist Party of Great Britain".
>
> Registered Name The Socialist Party of Great Britain
> Headquarters Address 52 Clapham High Street, London, SW4 7UN
> Headquarters Telephone 0171 622 3811
> Headquarters Fax 0171 720 3665
> Leader Brian Johnson
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Nominating Officer Adam Buick
> Date of Registration 25 February 1999
>
> Marxism ROFLMAOism strikes again.....
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Having difficulty getting "in synch" with list members?
> http://www.onelist.com
> Try ONElist's Shared Calendar to organize events, meetings and more!
>

I think these sort of arguments rather admitting defeat.  Firstly, if we
agree there should be a WSM we should find a way to do it. The comrades back
in 1904 didn't not bother because of this or that excuse.  We are are
organised according to nation states because that is the way capitalism
chooses to function - a WSM is a way of combatting this.  I myself am in
favour of having a WSM with merely branches in countries (as with First
Int.) but that is in the future - we've got to make a start.
As for advertising - you say that capitalist parties have  a huge headstart
- they do and we can't even begin to think of ourselves as trying to
challenge that.  We are only effectively (due paying) about 150 members.  We
need more and advertising is the only way that is relatively cost effective
- elections are useless for responses (but I think essential for
credibility) and we are at a dead end at the moment with regards expanding
the circulation of the Standard.  We have to decide what we immediately need
to do and do it.  It seems the party is always one step ahead of itself with
potential problems - I wish these problems would become a reality - we would
be doing something right.

Colin Skelly

> ----------
> From:  WILLIAM MARTIN[SMTP:w.martin@...]
> Reply To:  WSM_Socialism_Forum@onelist.com
> Sent:  21 May 1999 16:08
> To:  WSM_Socialism_Forum@onelist.com
> Subject:  Re: [WSM_Socialism_Forum] World Socialist Movement
>
> From: WILLIAM MARTIN <w.martin@...>
>
> Lo Collin,
> >
> > What do comrades think out there of the proposal for a formal WSM.  I
> think
> > it is about time and 20 or so years late but at least we're getting
> there in
> > the end.
>
> Hmmm, a few minor details:
> 1:Cost- we can't feasibly maintain anything like a proper governing body
> much less close enough links to justify a constituted WSM.
> 2:Our general pribciple is towards organising within the Political states
> our masters choose- for good reason, I don't really think I would be
> qualified to comment on, much less decide/vote upon political conditions
> in another country.
>
> Personally, I think the arrangement by which EC's write one another,
> coupled with our shared statement of purpose and values, should be
> enough to keep the WSM in being as a thing in itself, without needing to
> properly constitute it.
>
> > the election as a method of getting responses - advertising is cearly
> > infinately better and should be our major effort but fighting elections
> > properly could put us in the public eye and give us a credibility which
> we
> > presently lack among most members of our class.
>
> Advertising could be one way to go- but we have to remember that the
> other parties get massive free advertising every day, and thats hard to
> counteract.
>
> Bill
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> What was YOUR favorite part?!
> http://www.onelist.com
> Tell other Star Wars fans at ONElist!
>

Quick Glimpse at how the political system enforces norms...


The Register of Political Parties

<Picture: Separator Bar Image>


This is the entry in the Register of Political Parties for "The
Socialist Party of Great Britain".

Registered Name The Socialist Party of Great Britain
Headquarters Address 52 Clapham High Street, London, SW4 7UN
Headquarters Telephone 0171 622 3811
Headquarters Fax 0171 720 3665
Leader Brian Johnson
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nominating Officer Adam Buick
Date of Registration 25 February 1999

Marxism ROFLMAOism strikes again.....

Lo Collin,
>
> What do comrades think out there of the proposal for a formal WSM.  I think
> it is about time and 20 or so years late but at least we're getting there in
> the end.

Hmmm, a few minor details:
1:Cost- we can't feasibly maintain anything like a proper governing body
much less close enough links to justify a constituted WSM.
2:Our general pribciple is towards organising within the Political states
our masters choose- for good reason, I don't really think I would be
qualified to comment on, much less decide/vote upon political conditions
in another country.

Personally, I think the arrangement by which EC's write one another,
coupled with our shared statement of purpose and values, should be
enough to keep the WSM in being as a thing in itself, without needing to
properly constitute it.

> the election as a method of getting responses - advertising is cearly
> infinately better and should be our major effort but fighting elections
> properly could put us in the public eye and give us a credibility which we
> presently lack among most members of our class.

Advertising could be one way to go- but we have to remember that the
other parties get massive free advertising every day, and thats hard to
counteract.

Bill

Forwarding a message:

What do comrades think out there of the proposal for a formal WSM.  I think
it is about time and 20 or so years late but at least we're getting there in
the end.  We can talk about election strategies all we like but the only
place we are growing is overseas...and we need a formal organisation.  On
the election as a method of getting responses - advertising is cearly
infinately better and should be our major effort but fighting elections
properly could put us in the public eye and give us a credibility which we
presently lack among most members of our class.

Colin Skelly

Lo COmrades,

Yay, a fight on the Forum...!!! ;)
>
>
> >1:Well, thts what the party is there for, to win at elections.
>
> That's highly contentious IMO. Elections are peripheral, not essential.
>
Well, AFAIK thats all teh aprty exists for, else we could be the
autonomous socialist Campaign group.
>
> Eventual being the key word.


Towards which we are working and building now....

> We've got plenty of other things to do instead

Which could be done, and structured, with Electoral work in mind.
>
> True. Doesn't persuading non-voters to register an opinion count?

Yes, indeed, it does, but I suspect its an uphill struggle to persuade
people who aren't going to bvote, to spoil instead.
>
> So, having joined in their debate, would you then support the bypass or
> oppose it? because you are required to give an opinion one way or the other.
> You can't muscle in on local politics and then sit on the fence. You'd be a
> laughing stock.

Neither, simply point out that its a false choice, and we're better off
having a socialist revolution, and delivering real power to the people-
we have to undermine their debates from within.
> >
> No, that's just it, we couldn't, for the reasons above. Socialists know
> perfectly well that if we were elected we wouldn't be able to do anything
> except be argumentative and cause trouble and delay. We'd never take sides
> in a vote, we'd be virtually useless in constituency or council politics and
> we'd lecture everyone about revolution irrespective of the issue. Those who
> want to contest elections don't ask themselves what we would do if we won a
> seat. After the novelty wore off, we would look even more stupid than the
> other politicians, who at least are trying to do something in the here and
> now. But we say, don't worry, we'll never win a seat anyway, that's why
> we're after responses not votes (except you keep talking about votes). So we
> blithely accept the futility and failure of the election strategy and carry
> on regardless.


Altyernatively, and this was a thought that came after I finished my
last post (epsirit de l'escalier and all that) is that our cadidates
would in effect be a spoiler candidate- so out council level where there
are no deposits it makes no odds costs wise whether we run a candidate
or campaign for a spoil- and recognitionwise I'd reckon we're better off
with a candidate.  It would be a vote *for* something, rather than
against.
>
> That's just it - we are NOT relevant to local politics. We would be obliged
> to admit ourselves that we would be no use on the Council, or in Parliament,
> until there was a socialist majority (and even then, it would need to be
> global). My view is, we don't bother with contesting elections at all -
> there is only one election which is relevant to us, and it's over the issue
> of abolishing parliament and establishing world socialism - the revolution.
> Until that agenda is established, we've got no role to play. The idea of
> invading the corridors of power in ones and twos is a non-starter.


No, I think there are a number of reasons why its not utterly pointless;
1:Media access- we can use Parliament as a platform to braodcast our
ideas further.
2;We are relevent, and must show that our case stands up and is
relevent, at a local level, but we also have to show that revolution is
the only real alternative.
3:We have to challenge them on their home turf, and beat them, take
their arguments and ideas apart- so long as we refuse to engage with
mainstream politicians we will be easilly marginalised.
>
> You may be right about that, but you're guessing too. From our present
> standpoint, everybody looks unreachable. You may agree with me that we
> should be going about this systematically and testing to see whether we get
> more responses from voters or non-voters. At present nobody knows.

Indeed, its very hard to tell, although we probably know most of our
votes personally- a slight advantage over other parties </looking on teh
bright side>
>
> There now, you have no evidence at all for that. You're just repeating an
> article of faith.

We can count votes for us, we can't count spoilt papers- since teh state
provides a way of testing people's opinions, we might as well use it for
ourselves...
>
> That's interesting. I'd like to know where they're getting it printed.

Thought you would be, I'll ask- problem being you'd need regular bulk
orders, but still, 2,000 or so a quarter could be within our pockets...
>
> True, you're right, there are problems with a Spoiler campaign. People get
> very shirty about the idea of spoiling your ballot on purpose - it seems a
> bit radical and anarchistic. Shame.
>
*lol*

> My answer to that would be: fine, you put up the 5 grand then, and I'll
> stand tomorrow. I don't mind wasting someone else's money. Seriously, you
> can't criticise a strategy just because some people won't like it - we'll
> have to forget revolution in that case.
> (snip bit on Spoiler campaigns)
>

Nope, that was their point 'If yer not prpared to lose the money...'
whining gits. My point wasn't that folk don't like it, just that  its
arguing against teh grain where I think we don't need to be doing so.
It'd heklp for us to have our campaign put forward in a way that most
folk'd accept.
>
> Hmm, you're just repeating your first assertion.  Elections are highly
> expensive, Spoilers are cheap. The response is unclear in both cases, and
> the arguments we could use for Spoiling are more down to earth and relevant
> than those we would have to employ to contest, because the target audience
> is already, like us, disenchanted with conventional politics. Logically this
> idee fixe about elections just doesn't stand up on any grounds that I can
> think of.


Well, I've allready mentioned wanting a vote for, rather than a vote
against.  And I've also pointed out that at local levels a spoiler
campiagn is almost the same cost wise as standing a cadnidate.

But this is my point, really, either way, we need something sustained,
and locally based, rather than one off jobs.

> I suspect, you know, the real reason why members like the election idea so
> much is because it makes us look respectable, and if we abandoned the
> practice we'd look just like a bunch of anarchists. Yeeeeaaaaaaargh!
>

Possibly, but, with myself, its that I believe we have to fight the
political struggle on the enemies turf, in the public spaces they
already occupy.  However, until we have, say fifty members in teh
branch.....</rick>

Fraternally,

Bill.

>From: WILLIAM MARTIN <w.martin@...>



>1:Well, thts what the party is there for, to win at elections.

That's highly contentious IMO. Elections are peripheral, not essential.

(solely,
>of course, to act as a the tail wagged by a much larger socialist
>working class movement).  Thus our activities have to bear that eventual
>goal in mind.


Eventual being the key word.

>2:It gives us something to do, some focus

We've got plenty of other things to do instead

>3:Democracy and elections are imoportant, and we have to defend the
>little democracy thats left these days.

True. Doesn't persuading non-voters to register an opinion count?


>Well, no, I think we have a case that could cut across them- listening
>to debates up here for the council elections it ran:
>
>Green:The bypass is evil, will harm our town.
>Labourite: But we need to attract jobs.
>
>To which a socialist candidate could say 'no its a false choice, we
>shouldn't haave to choose between our environment and our jobs, this is
>because of our local powerlessness...our need to pleaad to teh welthy,
>and the interests of...


So, having joined in their debate, would you then support the bypass or
oppose it? because you are required to give an opinion one way or the other.
You can't muscle in on local politics and then sit on the fence. You'd be a
laughing stock.
>
>Likewise our take on corruption a la 'Blobbygate' would be that no
>matter who is to blame, such a thing only came about because of the
>limitted nature of local democracy offered to us now- we could put
>radical counter case.
>
No, that's just it, we couldn't, for the reasons above. Socialists know
perfectly well that if we were elected we wouldn't be able to do anything
except be argumentative and cause trouble and delay. We'd never take sides
in a vote, we'd be virtually useless in constituency or council politics and
we'd lecture everyone about revolution irrespective of the issue. Those who
want to contest elections don't ask themselves what we would do if we won a
seat. After the novelty wore off, we would look even more stupid than the
other politicians, who at least are trying to do something in the here and
now. But we say, don't worry, we'll never win a seat anyway, that's why
we're after responses not votes (except you keep talking about votes). So we
blithely accept the futility and failure of the election strategy and carry
on regardless.

>Basaically we can show how a socialist case is *relevent* and break the
>possiblist hegemony.


That's just it - we are NOT relevant to local politics. We would be obliged
to admit ourselves that we would be no use on the Council, or in Parliament,
until there was a socialist majority (and even then, it would need to be
global). My view is, we don't bother with contesting elections at all -
there is only one election which is relevant to us, and it's over the issue
of abolishing parliament and establishing world socialism - the revolution.
Until that agenda is established, we've got no role to play. The idea of
invading the corridors of power in ones and twos is a non-starter.

>Not certain about that, I think its more like they've bought into the
>possiblist agenda, and thats what we have to fight, at least people who
>are voting, often enough, are thinking and active in such matters, them
>as are turned off by politics may be even more unreachable.


You may be right about that, but you're guessing too. From our present
standpoint, everybody looks unreachable. You may agree with me that we
should be going about this systematically and testing to see whether we get
more responses from voters or non-voters. At present nobody knows.

>Except votes are the best way of getting responses.

There now, you have no evidence at all for that. You're just repeating an
article of faith.

>Exactly, decent literature doesn't cost much- the Students Union Paper
>is printed on broadsheet spreads, which come out at roughly 1p a sheet,
>£500 could get us a few thousand single sheet papers to hawk about.


That's interesting. I'd like to know where they're getting it printed.

>Again, I think the important part is the build up to any election, not
>just showing up on the day itself, it'd take a sustained campaign
>before we could stand, and thats where our resources 'ld better off be.


Of course you're right, in so far as anything we do should be done properly.
I'm not arguing about that.

>Problem being, after campaigning for a spoil this local elections, is
>that we get cornered by the electoral ideology-
>
>'Well, if you don't like whats on offer, why not stand a candidate
>yourselves?' which, is a tricky one to get out of IMHO- plus people kept
>objecting thaat your spoilt vote would be counted with all the 'idiots'
>who filled in too many boxes.  and again- the ideology of the possble
>gets us- spoiling doesn't achieve anything people said, better to vote
>for the choice between spinach and cabbage that best fits your
>views..etc.


True, you're right, there are problems with a Spoiler campaign. People get
very shirty about the idea of spoiling your ballot on purpose - it seems a
bit radical and anarchistic. Shame.

>People think that elections are open free and fair, and if we disagree
>we should just stand ourselves...


My answer to that would be: fine, you put up the 5 grand then, and I'll
stand tomorrow. I don't mind wasting someone else's money. Seriously, you
can't criticise a strategy just because some people won't like it - we'll
have to forget revolution in that case.
(snip bit on Spoiler campaigns)

>We could do the same thing with a caandidate, being able to get a
>clearer response, and having an easier case to make.


Hmm, you're just repeating your first assertion.  Elections are highly
expensive, Spoilers are cheap. The response is unclear in both cases, and
the arguments we could use for Spoiling are more down to earth and relevant
than those we would have to employ to contest, because the target audience
is already, like us, disenchanted with conventional politics. Logically this
idee fixe about elections just doesn't stand up on any grounds that I can
think of.

>I think it all comes down to, whatever we do, being orgnised, and
>*sustained* about it, we have to build.  I think we're better off
>spending that money on long terms campaigning, rather than one off
>elections.


Well, you won't find anybody in the Party disagreeing with that. But
elections are one-off creatures, and NE Branch is the only branch with the
gumption to sustain a five year election campaign, and AFAIK they're not
getting any better results (votewise, or response-wise) now than five years
ago. They don't have a single extra member out of it (compare the results of
their brilliant overseas work, for example). It seems they're going to have
to work themselves half to death for years more before other members are
finally prepared to sacrifice this electoral sacred cow.

I suspect, you know, the real reason why members like the election idea so
much is because it makes us look respectable, and if we abandoned the
practice we'd look just like a bunch of anarchists. Yeeeeaaaaaaargh!

Fraternally

Paddy

A properly conducted election campaign is definately what's needed.  Just
contesting for the sake of it is throwing away resources.  I'm all for
contesting elections but not like we have been doing.  Perhaps we shoul
target one constituency/ region and focus on it for five years or so but
working out what we want to achieve beforehane.  Just contesting without
objectives leads to disillusion because we don't see anything come from it.
At least if we don't meet set objectives we could decide to try something
else based on that.

We can't say that elections don't work as a campaigning tool as we have yet
to try and contest one properly.  Concentrating on a limited area would
allow us to compete propaganda wise with the capitalist parties rather than
producing a mediocre campaign that makes us look like political cowboys.



> ----------
> From:  WILLIAM MARTIN[SMTP:w.martin@...]
> Reply To:  WSM_Socialism_Forum@onelist.com
> Sent:  14 May 1999 02:39
> To:  WSM_Socialism_Forum@onelist.com
> Subject:  Re: [WSM_Socialism_Forum] Wilting Elections
>
> From: WILLIAM MARTIN <w.martin@...>
>
> Lo All
> >
> > Sorry, Bill, I'm feeling truculent where elections are concerned.
>
> S'allright man, its a big issue for us, and worth aa bit of decent
> debate...
>
> > >I think whatever our activities, electoral campaigning should be our
> > goal/focus, and >any leafletting, door-to-dooring should be aimed at
> > buiolding for an eventual fielding >of candidates.
>
> > Why???
>
> 1:Well, thts what the party is there for, to win at elections. (solely,
> of course, to act as a the tail wagged by a much larger socialist
> working class movement).  Thus our activities have to bear that eventual
> goal in mind.
> 2:It gives us something to do, some focus- the experience of the
> Socialist league was  sense of drift and aimlessness from mere
> propgandising.
> 3:Democracy and elections are imoportant, and we have to defend the
> little democracy thats left these days.
> >
> > And just come across like the rest of the politicians? It's not just
> about
> > money. You know the turnout for the council elections was about 25%. Why
> > don't we target the 75% who think councillors are a waste of space,
> instead
> > of playing the same game as the Town Hall apparatchiks? No wonder the
> > anarchists don't take us seriously.
>
> Well, no, I think we have a case that could cut across them- listening
> to debates up here for the council elections it ran:
>
> Green:The bypass is evil, will harm our town.
> Labourite: But we need to attract jobs.
>
> To which a socialist candidate could say 'no its a false choice, we
> shouldn't haave to choose between our environment and our jobs, this is
> because of our local powerlessness...our need to pleaad to teh welthy,
> and the interests of...
>
> Likewise our take on corruption a la 'Blobbygate' would be that no
> matter who is to blame, such a thing only came about because of the
> limitted nature of local democracy offered to us now- we could put
> radical counter case.
>
> Basaically we can show how a socialist case is *relevent* and break the
> possiblist hegemony.
> >
> > If if if. This theory has been touted for years and it hasn't worked, in
> any
> > kind of election. Those who already vote do so because they've bought
> into
> > the capitalist agenda, and they won't vote for us.
>
> Not certain about that, I think its more like they've bought into the
> possiblist agenda, and thats what we have to fight, at least people who
> are voting, often enough, are thinking and active in such matters, them
> as are turned off by politics may be even more unreachable.
>
> > And those who don't vote,
> > well, they don't vote. We lose either way. Anyway, it's not even
> supposed to
> > be about votes, but about responses, and my guess is the responses don't
> > justify contesting elections. It's only a guess, because the Election
> > Department has no performance figures so that we could really see for
> > ourselves whether it works or not - hardly a very scientific approach.
>
> Except votes are the best way of getting responses.  I think up till
> now, it seems, we've either spred ourselves too far, or just stood
> random pot shot candidates, I think it'd need a sustained five year
> campaign before any candidates could reasonably be stood...
> >
> > Agreed. But that doesn't have to mean contesting elections.
> >
> > We're not even in the market to begin with. The only reason we blew 16
> grand
> > on these elections was that we had the money and it was burning a big
> hole.
> > But was it a systematic campaign? No. Was it properly prepared? No. Was
> > there first-rate literature ready to print? No (it was crap - I should
> know,
> > I produced it, at the last minute).
>
> Exactly, decent literature doesn't cost much- the Students Union Paper
> is printed on broadsheet spreads, which come out at roughly 1p a sheet,
> £500 could get us a few thousand single sheet papers to hawk about.
> Again, I think the important part is the build up to any election, not
> just showing up on the day itself, it'd take a sustained campaign
> before we could stand, and thats where our resources 'ld better off be.
>
> >
> > Now THAT I agree with. If you're looking for credibility for the Party,
> you
> > should avoid contesting elections like the plague. What credibility is
> there
> > in getting fewer votes than Mr Blobby? But if you run Spoiler campaigns,
> you
> > could even cheekily claim that all spoilt papers are down to your
> subversive
> > activities, and who could prove different?
>
> Problem being, after campaigning for a spoil this local elections, is
> that we get cornered by the electoral ideology-
>
> 'Well, if you don't like whats on offer, why not stand a candidate
> yourselves?' which, is a tricky one to get out of IMHO- plus people kept
> objecting thaat your spoilt vote would be counted with all the 'idiots'
> who filled in too many boxes.  and again- the ideology of the possble
> gets us- spoiling doesn't achieve anything people said, better to vote
> for the choice between spinach and cabbage that best fits your
> views..etc.
>
>
> People think that elections are open free and fair, and if we disagree
> we should just stand ourselves...
>
> > I maintain that we should be
> > talking to the non-voters, not the voters. They have the same attitude
> to
> > politicians that we have, in the council elections they were the vast
> > majority, and are usually 35 to 40% in any election. That's where our
> future
> > supporters are lurking. What we have to do is persuade them, not to
> vote,
> > but to register their disgust and in so doing exercise the power of
> their
> > franchise. This establishes us as being more committed to the democratic
> > principle than anyone else, without associating us with grubby
> mainstream
> > politics and politicians. Imagine if all those non-voters had in fact
> spoilt
> > their papers instead. There might now, I believe, have to be a judicial
> > review by law and the entire council election possibly declared null.
> Now
> > that's what I would call a result.
>
>
> We could do the same thing with a caandidate, being able to get a
> clearer response, and having an easier case to make.
>
> I think it all comes down to, whatever we do, being orgnised, and
> *sustained* about it, we have to build.  I think we're better off
> spending that money on long terms campaigning, rather than one off
> elections.
>
>
> for Socialism,
>
> Bill.

Lo All
>
> Sorry, Bill, I'm feeling truculent where elections are concerned.

S'allright man, its a big issue for us, and worth aa bit of decent
debate...

> >I think whatever our activities, electoral campaigning should be our
> goal/focus, and >any leafletting, door-to-dooring should be aimed at
> buiolding for an eventual fielding >of candidates.

> Why???

1:Well, thts what the party is there for, to win at elections. (solely,
of course, to act as a the tail wagged by a much larger socialist
working class movement).  Thus our activities have to bear that eventual
goal in mind.
2:It gives us something to do, some focus- the experience of the
Socialist league was  sense of drift and aimlessness from mere
propgandising.
3:Democracy and elections are imoportant, and we have to defend the
little democracy thats left these days.
>
> And just come across like the rest of the politicians? It's not just about
> money. You know the turnout for the council elections was about 25%. Why
> don't we target the 75% who think councillors are a waste of space, instead
> of playing the same game as the Town Hall apparatchiks? No wonder the
> anarchists don't take us seriously.

Well, no, I think we have a case that could cut across them- listening
to debates up here for the council elections it ran:

Green:The bypass is evil, will harm our town.
Labourite: But we need to attract jobs.

To which a socialist candidate could say 'no its a false choice, we
shouldn't haave to choose between our environment and our jobs, this is
because of our local powerlessness...our need to pleaad to teh welthy,
and the interests of...

Likewise our take on corruption a la 'Blobbygate' would be that no
matter who is to blame, such a thing only came about because of the
limitted nature of local democracy offered to us now- we could put
radical counter case.

Basaically we can show how a socialist case is *relevent* and break the
possiblist hegemony.
>
> If if if. This theory has been touted for years and it hasn't worked, in any
> kind of election. Those who already vote do so because they've bought into
> the capitalist agenda, and they won't vote for us.

Not certain about that, I think its more like they've bought into the
possiblist agenda, and thats what we have to fight, at least people who
are voting, often enough, are thinking and active in such matters, them
as are turned off by politics may be even more unreachable.

> And those who don't vote,
> well, they don't vote. We lose either way. Anyway, it's not even supposed to
> be about votes, but about responses, and my guess is the responses don't
> justify contesting elections. It's only a guess, because the Election
> Department has no performance figures so that we could really see for
> ourselves whether it works or not - hardly a very scientific approach.

Except votes are the best way of getting responses.  I think up till
now, it seems, we've either spred ourselves too far, or just stood
random pot shot candidates, I think it'd need a sustained five year
campaign before any candidates could reasonably be stood...
>
> Agreed. But that doesn't have to mean contesting elections.
>
> We're not even in the market to begin with. The only reason we blew 16 grand
> on these elections was that we had the money and it was burning a big hole.
> But was it a systematic campaign? No. Was it properly prepared? No. Was
> there first-rate literature ready to print? No (it was crap - I should know,
> I produced it, at the last minute).

Exactly, decent literature doesn't cost much- the Students Union Paper
is printed on broadsheet spreads, which come out at roughly 1p a sheet,
£500 could get us a few thousand single sheet papers to hawk about.
Again, I think the important part is the build up to any election, not
just showing up on the day itself, it'd take a sustained campaign
before we could stand, and thats where our resources 'ld better off be.

>
> Now THAT I agree with. If you're looking for credibility for the Party, you
> should avoid contesting elections like the plague. What credibility is there
> in getting fewer votes than Mr Blobby? But if you run Spoiler campaigns, you
> could even cheekily claim that all spoilt papers are down to your subversive
> activities, and who could prove different?

Problem being, after campaigning for a spoil this local elections, is
that we get cornered by the electoral ideology-

'Well, if you don't like whats on offer, why not stand a candidate
yourselves?' which, is a tricky one to get out of IMHO- plus people kept
objecting thaat your spoilt vote would be counted with all the 'idiots'
who filled in too many boxes.  and again- the ideology of the possble
gets us- spoiling doesn't achieve anything people said, better to vote
for the choice between spinach and cabbage that best fits your
views..etc.


People think that elections are open free and fair, and if we disagree
we should just stand ourselves...

> I maintain that we should be
> talking to the non-voters, not the voters. They have the same attitude to
> politicians that we have, in the council elections they were the vast
> majority, and are usually 35 to 40% in any election. That's where our future
> supporters are lurking. What we have to do is persuade them, not to vote,
> but to register their disgust and in so doing exercise the power of their
> franchise. This establishes us as being more committed to the democratic
> principle than anyone else, without associating us with grubby mainstream
> politics and politicians. Imagine if all those non-voters had in fact spoilt
> their papers instead. There might now, I believe, have to be a judicial
> review by law and the entire council election possibly declared null. Now
> that's what I would call a result.


We could do the same thing with a caandidate, being able to get a
clearer response, and having an easier case to make.

I think it all comes down to, whatever we do, being orgnised, and
*sustained* about it, we have to build.  I think we're better off
spending that money on long terms campaigning, rather than one off
elections.


for Socialism,

Bill.

Sorry, Bill, I'm feeling truculent where elections are concerned.

>I think whatever our activities, electoral campaigning should be our
goal/focus, and >any leafletting, door-to-dooring should be aimed at
buiolding for an eventual fielding >of candidates.


Why???

>Thats why I reckon that standing many more local council seats perhaps
>might be a better idea- for the cost of a single deposit for a
>Parliamentary seat, we could stand Across Five wards, and campaign
>damned well.


And just come across like the rest of the politicians? It's not just about
money. You know the turnout for the council elections was about 25%. Why
don't we target the 75% who think councillors are a waste of space, instead
of playing the same game as the Town Hall apparatchiks? No wonder the
anarchists don't take us seriously.

>If we could get a half way respectable number of votes that way, we
>could get a foot in the media door, and present ourselves as credible
>for more serious elections.


If if if. This theory has been touted for years and it hasn't worked, in any
kind of election. Those who already vote do so because they've bought into
the capitalist agenda, and they won't vote for us. And those who don't vote,
well, they don't vote. We lose either way. Anyway, it's not even supposed to
be about votes, but about responses, and my guess is the responses don't
justify contesting elections. It's only a guess, because the Election
Department has no performance figures so that we could really see for
ourselves whether it works or not - hardly a very scientific approach.

>
>Our best shot lies in the direct face-to-face features of local
>politics,

Agreed. But that doesn't have to mean contesting elections.

rather than spreading ourselves so thinly- especially as the
>number of elections we couold stand is going to shoot up, local
>elections, assembly elections, national elections (second chamber
>elections?  nah, doubt it), pretty soon we'll be bled out of the market
>moneywise.

We're not even in the market to begin with. The only reason we blew 16 grand
on these elections was that we had the money and it was burning a big hole.
But was it a systematic campaign? No. Was it properly prepared? No. Was
there first-rate literature ready to print? No (it was crap - I should know,
I produced it, at the last minute).


Even a large and effective spoiling campiagn may be better than
>standing, really.


Now THAT I agree with. If you're looking for credibility for the Party, you
should avoid contesting elections like the plague. What credibility is there
in getting fewer votes than Mr Blobby? But if you run Spoiler campaigns, you
could even cheekily claim that all spoilt papers are down to your subversive
activities, and who could prove different? I maintain that we should be
talking to the non-voters, not the voters. They have the same attitude to
politicians that we have, in the council elections they were the vast
majority, and are usually 35 to 40% in any election. That's where our future
supporters are lurking. What we have to do is persuade them, not to vote,
but to register their disgust and in so doing exercise the power of their
franchise. This establishes us as being more committed to the democratic
principle than anyone else, without associating us with grubby mainstream
politics and politicians. Imagine if all those non-voters had in fact spoilt
their papers instead. There might now, I believe, have to be a judicial
review by law and the entire council election possibly declared null. Now
that's what I would call a result.

Paddy

Lo Paddy,

> Course it's a waste of money! But if we got 692 enquiries it wouldn't =
> be. What's the betting we'll get about 3 though? I think we should put =
> our collective foot down about this election 'strategy', which by any =
> scientific standard is pisspoor. Did you know that the Party never =
> contested an election until 1945? Contrary to what we keep being told, =
> there are alternatives.

Of coruse there are, however, I think whatever our activities, electoral
campaigning should be our goal/focus, and any leafletting,
door-to-dooring should be aimed at buiolding for an eventual fielding of
candidates.

Thats why I reckon that standing many more local council seats perhaps
might be a better idea- for the cost of a single deposit for a
Parliamentary seat, we could stand Across Five wards, and campaign
damned well.

If we could get a half way respectable number of votes that way, we
could get a foot in the media door, and present ourselves as credible
for more serious elections.

Our best shot lies in the direct face-to-face features of local
politics, rather than spreading ourselves so thinly- especially as the
number of elections we couold stand is going to shoot up, local
elections, assembly elections, national elections (second chamber
elections?  nah, doubt it), pretty soon we'll be bled out of the market
moneywise.

Even a large and effective spoiling campiagn may be better than
standing, really.

Bill

[This message contained attachments]

Lo Shaun,
>
> How many votes are required in order that the $5000 deposit is returned?

10% of the constituency, at least thats the normal margin, so we're off
into quite high figures really.

Lo Bill,

How many votes are required in order that the $5000 deposit is returned?

-----Original Message-----
From: WILLIAM MARTIN [mailto:w.martin@...]
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 1999 8:54 AM
To: WSM_Socialism_Forum@onelist.com
Subject: [WSM_Socialism_Forum] Election Strategy.


From: WILLIAM MARTIN <w.martin@...>
...
Well,  I've just read the results for the Scottish Elections in
Saturday's Gruaniad, and i have to admit, that I'm very disappointed
with our result there- 303 & 389.  This is especically so, since IIRC we
got over a thousand votes in one FPTP seat in Glasgow at the last
election, indeed, all the FTPT seats we stood for at the last election
got us more than 600 in and of themselves- which leads me to suspect
that standing candidates on regional lists, at a cost of £5,000
desposit, is something of a waste of money.
...

OOps, sorry...
>
> Can you clarify for me some of the abbreviations you have used:
> FTPT, FPTP, and IIRC?

FTPT is a cock-up and should be FPTP- 'First past the post'- the method
of electing people wherein people cast a single ballot for a candidate
in a single constituency, and the one with the most wins, as opposed to
the top-up lists in the scottish elections, wherein people won on the
basis of votes for the party, and were drawn from the list in bnumbers
proportionate to the size of the vote.  Or indeed, any other form of
propertional representation.

IIRC is an internet abbreviation of the sort used for common phrases-
'If I Recall Correctly'

Likwise you might have:
AFAIK ' 'As far as I know'
ATM- 'At the Moment'
BRB- 'Be Right Back'

Etc.  Sorry, just me being lazy...


Bill

Hi Bill.

Can you clarify for me some of the abbreviations you have used:
FTPT, FPTP, and IIRC?

Thanks
Shaun Le Conte (SPC)

Lo All,

Well,  I've just read the results for the Scottish Elections in
Saturday's Gruaniad, and i have to admit, that I'm very disappointed
with our result there- 303 & 389.  This is especically so, since IIRC we
got over a thousand votes in one FPTP seat in Glasgow at the last
election, indeed, all the FTPT seats we stood for at the last election
got us more than 600 in and of themselves- which leads me to suspect
that standing candidates on regional lists, at a cost of £5,000
desposit, is something of a waste of money.

Although we seem to be able to reach more people, its clear that the
message is too diffuse across a big region- it might have been better
costs wise to have all those candidates standing for the FPTP seats,
rather than on the list.

Clearly, we can't go on this way, perhaps its time to stop the
broadsweep approach, and try focussing more, say, on council and local
elections, build something of a votes base there, where its certainly
cheaper, and when we are sure we have a chance of a respectable vote,
begin standing at westminster seats level.

Thoughts?

Bill.

Hi Comrades,
	 pleased to be on the list, look forward to interacting with other WSM
members.
Yours for socialism,
Bob Malone.

This little boy goes to his dad and asks, "What is politics?" Dad says,
"Well son, let me try to explain it this way. I'm the breadwinner of the
family, so let's call me Capitalism. Your mom, she's the administrator
of the money, so we'll call her the Government.  We're here to take care
of your needs, so we'll call you Human Needs. The nanny, we'll consider
her the Working Class. And your baby brother, we'll call him the Future.
Now, think about that and see if that makes sense." So the little boy
goes off to bed thinking about what Dad has said. Later that night he
hears his baby brother crying, so he gets up to check on him.  He finds
that the baby has severely soiled his diaper. So the little boy goes to
his parents' room and finds his mother sound asleep.  Not wanting to
wake her, he goes to the nanny's room. Finding the door locked, he peeks
in the keyhole and sees his father in bed with the nanny.  He gives up
and goes back to bed. The next morning, the little boy says to his
father, "Dad, I think I understand the concept of politics now." The
father says, "Good, son, tell me in your own words what you think
politics is about." The little boy replies, "Well, while Capitalism is
screwing the Working Class, the Government is sound asleep, Human Needs
are being ignored and the Future is in deep shit."
--
Lew

Lo Comrades,

Just thought I'd test this thing, ahving signed up to it, and see how
many of you are out there.

Also, just to kick things off, I need a wee bit of help, there's this
guy I'm debating with, right?, so, I put to him a proposition which I'd
seen someone else make in a different debate, to see if he subscribed to
it, teh proposition being 'Slavery exists in America, its called Jury
Service', he agreed with taht proposition.

How?  i can't actually wrap my head round it, its a conceptual blank, I
just can't understand it to even begin atacking it...

Just thunked I' d trya nd kick off a thread...

Bill

Thank you.
I wanna give and take much help for my thoughts and activities.


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Testing

-------------------------------------
Shaun Le Conte
mailto:sleconte@...
http://pages.hotbot.com/edu/sleconte/
-------------------------------------