Talk:Socialist Party of Great Britain (Reconstituted)

Expulsion
Trying to end revert war - NPOV, they were expelled. Their case was that conference did not have the power to alter the party name - though this was only, really, a battle ground selected out of a variety of disputes, regarding the orientation of the party. Their account as published in Socialist Studies as well as those published in Socialist Standard should form the verifiable basis for this section.--Red Deathy 09:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Expansion
I'd suggest mentioning that Hardy et al. were older members, some of whom had been at the centre of party activity for many years would be worth a mention - although it wasn't entirely an old/new guard fight it's often perceived as one. Further detailing could provide a useful study in micropolitics...--Red Deathy 09:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

By 1991 and at the time of the expulsions, the Socialist Party of Great Britain had, de facto, changed its name to The Socialist Party, a name which it still uses to carry out political activity. It was from this de facto party that the two branches were expelled for the "undemocratic" crime of insisting that they had joined the SPGB, agreeing with its Principles and case, and wanting to carry on political activity in that name. Those expelled included the above mentioned Hardy who worked his whole adult life for the furtherance of socialist ideas and went to prison during the first world war for refusing to join the armed forces as a conscientious objector because of his socialist ideas. Such was the calibre of member expelled from The Socialist Party in 1991, in its haste to shake off its past and make the party more accommodating to those who disagreed with its hostility clause and stance on the use of Parliament and the state. The only reason The Socialist Party appears to want to have a monopoly over the name "Socialist Party of Great Britain" is that it seems to give it legitimacy in the field of bequests and property ownership. It doesn't use the name for political activity.

Those members expelled from The Socialist Party, decided that they would carry on the work of the SPGB in propagating socilist ideas and principles in the name of the party they had joined.


 * Cheers anon. It wasn't a de facto name change, it was a change in the use of name.  The argument centred, IIRC on the fact that the two branches maintained that the name couldn't be changed without altering the DoP (and subordinate to that, that the DoP couldn't be changed), they were expelled, with what seems extreme reluctance on the part of the then EC, after repeated attempts to resolve the issue.  Are you proposing to use your paragraph above to alter the article, it seems  a bit POV, but could form the basis of something useful.--Red Deathy 07:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the interesting question is, for me, why anyone would make their stand over the use of the party name, I know the battles had been running for sometime, but it's always struck me as an odd isue when more decisively principled battles could have been used.--Red Deathy 12:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"It wasn't a de facto name change, it was a change of in the use of name". So says Red Deathy above. What is the purpose of a name if it is not to identify someone or something? Methinks Red Deathy makes a distinction without a difference. The whole point of the Conference Resolutions under which the two branches were expelled for "undemocratic" behaviour was to do away with the old fashioned (? and nationalistic) name "Socialist Party of Great Britain", which was effectively banned from political use by the 1988 Conference Resolution, and therefore, with the name its history and D. of P. Without them, the Socialist Party could be more "flexible" about who it allowed to join. The most important thing was to get rid of those that stuck to the original SPGB position of 1904, and who had no time for compromise with reforms, feminism, capitalist democracy movements, unions and the multitude of other issues that could fog the minds of workers from the real issue at stake, the establishment of socialism.

The Socialist Party claims the name of the Socialist Party of Great Britain only for legal reasons i.e. property reasons. Red Deathy asks "what's in a name" like Juliet, or was it Romeo? Well nothing really as long as the SPGB's Object and Principles are kept alive and put in front of the world's workers. It seems that the Socialist Party would rather hide these principles in a cupboard and bring them out to be dusted every christmas, than shout them from the roof tops. (Spectre Marx 7th September 2006)


 * Well, it wasn't banned from use, just propaganda use, it was explicitly retained by the same resolution for legal purposes, just like the Conservative and Unionist Party is usually referred to as the conservative party, and some people shorten their given names by preference. You're incorrect to say teh DoP was to be abanndoned, if I recall they are still in use.  I note you put scare quotes round undemocratic - are you disputing that, if so, what do you think happened? Anyway, we need to discuss how we're going to consensually get this into the article, any suggestions?--Red Deathy 07:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Red Deathy, how many members has the Tory Party expelled for calling themselves Conservative and Unionist or Conservative? How many Liberal Democrats have been expelled for calling themselves Liberals? How many has the Labour Party expelled for members carrying out political activity in the name of "socialism"? I suggest less than were expelled from the Socialist Party in 1991. You say the "Socialist Party of Great Britain" was retained for "legal purposes" ; if so why doesn't the Socialist Party use that name for its electoral activity which is surely a legal purpose. Was the "Socialist Party" only to be used for illegal purposes? You say the name was only banned from propaganda use. Why? And what about clause 8 of the D. of P? And why expel members for using that name? Please don't plead the great God "Democracy", when even the capitalist parties don't carry on in that way. The use/misuse of the name of the party was the nominal reason for the expulsions. The real reason was that there was a vast difference of views about the path to socialism, and the active majority, but not the majority of the party, decided to expel a minority who were determined to keep putting out propaganda representing the 1904 SPGB point of view. In their view the SPGB point of view can never be modernised whilst capitalism exists, because for all the changes in the world since 1904, capitalism remains intact and securely supported by the working class.

You say we need to discuss this to get something consensual into the article. Well I'm new to this, so you explain to me how to go about it. I am just expressing a point of view.

(Spectre Marx, 10th September 2006)

Right, Spectre - well, Wikip[edia articles are supposed to be Non-POint of View (NPOV) and not partisan to a particular side of an argument. They are also supposed to be veriifiable, usually meaning mentioned in reliable printed documents -although I'd argue that party journals count for this case. So, we need an NPOV way of describing events here, based on verifiable sources. The most reliable, since it has been through academic procedures and independently published is Perrin's book, which mentions the matter, followed by Socialist Studies and Socialist Standard and their view of events. Now, SPGB is used for electoral purposes, since that is the name the party is registered under with the electoral registrar. I'm sure otehr parties have expelled members for much lesser offences that disobeying conference resolutions. I agree, whole heartedly, though, that the name issue was just a convenient causus belli for a deaper political difference, quite what that was is open to debate, and probably isn't accesible without breeching the policy on Original Research (OR) which is not allowed under the verifiability policy.--Red Deathy 07:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)