Alex Callinicos/SWP vs Laurie Penny/New Statesman Facebook handbags

[DrRingDing]

If loads of people have all put their hands up at once, sort of thing? I suppose whoever's running the meeting would just make sure that everyone got to have their say before moving on to the next point. Some hands would go down as people start making their points as sometimes what they want to say gets covered by a person before them.

What I meant was what if someone had a point that was really appropriate and directly concerns what the current speaker is saying? There's already 5 people in the stack and by the time they've had their tuppence worth it'll be too long.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

What is a progressive stack? I think I missed that one?

A system in which people who are visibly disabled, or women, or brown skinned speak first at activist meetings. Or crass and occasionally offensive tokenism of an inward looking small group variety.

 

[sihhi]

The Women's Caucus is all in AF Scotland?

No it was written by a single woman in AF Scotland proper link here http://scotlandaf.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/sexism-power-and-the-left

 

[Nigel Irritable]

No it was written by a single woman in AF Scotland proper link here http://scotlandaf.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/sexism-power-and-the-left

You are talking past each other a bit. Cesare was pointing out that while that particular piece was by an AF Scotland member, the original document was by the women's caucus. So, particularly taken in combination with the bookfair workshops, it's clearly not something particular to AF Scotland.

 

[DrRingDing]

If every new speaker wants to bring up a new topic your meeting probably has bigger problems than a meager repertoire of hand gestures.

Hey?

 

[Casually Red]

Poor agenda making - common mistake in meetings.

thats it, agenda, chair and a reasonable calibre of activist in attendance , active discouragement of mountebankery . Common sense tends to prevail. No need to infantilise everyone because of a fear of telling a mouthpiece to shut the fuck up .

 

[cesare]

its only a minority of people who even want to say things at meetings anyway, most just want to listen . If your attracting the right calibre of participant then a lot of problems dont even arise to begin with . And if your not then wanky hand gestures arent going to solve your internal problems, theyre a lot more deep rooted .

I suppose it depends on what the meeting's for. If it's a series of speakers they usually ask for questions after they've spoken. If the meeting's got a specific purpose eg what's the next direct action and where, it'd be more participatory if they're deciding in something.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Ive no idea what the human gramaphone thing is..what is it

 

[DrRingDing]

I see. Confused trots.

 

[cesare]

What I meant was what if someone had a point that was really appropriate and directly concerns what the current speaker is saying? There's already 5 people in the stack and by the time they've had their tuppence worth it'll be too long.

Then as Sihhi said, there's a problem with the agenda if whoever put it together underestimated how much time it would take to get through each point. I suppose. The person chairing it would have to take a view on whether to let it run over or not.

 

[DrRingDing]

Then as Sihhi said, there's a problem with the agenda if whoever put it together underestimated how much time it would take to get through each point. I suppose. The person chairing it would have to take a view on whether to let it run over or not.

I'm not being offensive but are you a trot?

 

[cesare]

I'm not being offensive but are you a trot?

Christ no.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

To be fair, in that second video it seems to actually serve a practical function in making the speaker audible to those at the back of the crowd. Why on earth they need to do it when there are half a dozen standing around like in the first video, is beyond me.

Reminds me of this.

 

[butchersapron]

To be fair, in that second video it seems to actually serve a practical function in making the speaker audible to those at the back of the crowd. Why on earth they need to do it when there are half a dozen standing around like in the first video, is beyond me.

Maybe some sort of system that amplified sound would be in order

 

[DrRingDing]

Christ no.

It just seems very normal to have a horizontal participatory meeting. I've no interest in hierarchical, chaired meetings. I've got work for that.

If you do have hierarchical meetings then you would have a small group talking at the rest. Like trot groups and bosses at work. If you want active participation in meetings, giving everyone a real opportunity to talk then you need to be organised. It ain't perfect but hand signals are better than nowt.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

What is this 'amplifies' you speak of? Sounds like the devil's work.

 

[DrRingDing]

Maybe some sort of system that amplified sound would be in order

That was banned. That's why they engaged in this Tomfoolery.

 

[Random]

What I meant was what if someone had a point that was really appropriate and directly concerns what the current speaker is saying? There's already 5 people in the stack and by the time they've had their tuppence worth it'll be too long.

Just wait your turn. Your fantastic amazing urgent point isn't probably all that important. And letting people have their say and build up trust is one of the main real functions of meetings, allowing decisions to be made later on much faster.

 

[Casually Red]

I suppose it depends on what the meeting's for. If it's a series of speakers they usually ask for questions after they've spoken. If the meeting's got a specific purpose eg what's the next direct action and where, it'd be more participatory if they're deciding in something.

just in my experience the direction and planning bit tends to be focussed on more by an executive tier, people delegated to go forward with ideas and then report back to their areas . Although thats not set in stone,adaptibility is crucial . A good focussed chair is essential for that . The agenda has to be tight or nothing gets done .

As regards the set piece speaking with q and a its a bit looser . But insisting all points are put through the chair, with the chair stepping in on tangents or abusive statements , solves the majority of problems that might arise. Again no need to infantilise the whole room because of an organisations inability to maintain order or attract a decent calibre of activist .

 

[cesare]

That was banned. That's why they engaged in this Tomfoolery.

Yeah the American ones had to get permission first from the state (or whatever authority) to use microphones, loudspeakers etc, didn't they?

 

[butchersapron]

That was banned. That's why they engaged in this Tomfoolery.

Ah, they damn well better comply then i suppose.

 

[sihhi]

You are talking past each other a bit. Cesare was pointing out that while that particular piece was by an AF Scotland member, the original document was by the women's caucus. So, particularly taken in combination with the bookfair workshops, it's clearly not something particular to AF Scotland.

I wasn't saying it was particular to AF Scotland, but that post was by someone in AF Scotland.

I don't think every woman in the AF is part of the Women's Caucus. AFAIK, the Caucuses don't make official policy on their own terrain without a majority vote for the whole thing. Its constitution means each group (as small as 3 in theory) is responsible for its own affairs - think what they like as long as it doesn't conflict with its 10 aims:

GROUPS: A group shall consist of at least three members. Each group is autonomous in that it is responsible for its own internal affairs. The group shall hold regular meetings in the locality and keep in touch with isolated members in their area.

REGIONAL ORGANISATION: Groups shall federate regionally and shall organise regular meetings attended by group delegates from the region. Regional organisations will require a secretary. All groups and individual members in the region will be sent all minutes of regional meetings.

 

[Random]

It just seems very normal to have a horizontal participatory meeting. I've no interest in hierarchical, chaired meetings. I've got work for that.

If you do have hierarchical meetings then you would have a small group talking at the rest. Like trot groups and bosses at work. If you want active participation in meetings, giving everyone a real opportunity to talk then you need to be organised. It ain't perfect but hand signals are better than nowt.

Your skilled facilitators and cadre of skilled meeting goers are only "horizontal" for those already in the know. A chair who is elected by the meeting and who can be dismissed and replaced by the meeting is just as "horizontal", even if you are allergic to the term and think it's "trot" like.

 

[Casually Red]

sweet mother of fuck

 

[DrRingDing]

just in my experience the direction and planning bit tends to be focussed on more by an executive tier, people delegated to go forward with ideas and then report back to their areas . Although thats not set in stone,adaptibility is crucial . A good focussed chair is essential for that . The agenda has to be tight or nothing gets done .

As regards the set piece speaking with q and a its a bit looser . But insisting all points are put through the chair, with the chair stepping in on tangents or abusive statements , solves the majority of problems that might arise. Again no need to infantilise the whole room because of an organisations inability to maintain order or attract a decent calibre of activist .

"decent calibre of activist" "executive tier"

 

[cesare]

It just seems very normal to have a horizontal participatory meeting. I've no interest in hierarchical, chaired meetings. I've got work for that.

If you do have hierarchical meetings then you would have a small group talking at the rest. Like trot groups and bosses at work. If you want active participation in meetings, giving everyone a real opportunity to talk then you need to be organised. It ain't perfect but hand signals are better than nowt.

Who decides what the meeting's going to be about though, and what's going to be covered?

I'm not a fan of top down information giving only type meetings, but I've also got fairly pissed off and frustrated by interminable Swedish style consensus meetings where it takes months to get the simplest thing decided on.

 

[Random]

I've also got fairly pissed off and frustrated by interminable Swedish style consensus meetings where it takes months to get the simplest thing decided on.

Rascist

edit: the Swedes will have long tacitly decided something they're just hanging around waiting for you to get the message, and are too scared of conflict to point this out

 

[sihhi]

Ah, they damn well better comply then i suppose.

The ethos was non-violent direct action NVDA - attempting to limit the amount of opportunity for police action as far as possible since 'cops stand with/are part of the 99%' 'cops are one lay off away from the 99%'.

Another possibility was smaller sub-meetings up to less frequent larger meetings of delegates - which was used a lot.

 

[Casually Red]

"decent calibre of activist" "executive tier"

would you prefer undesirables

 

[DrRingDing]

Who decides what the meeting's going to be about though, and what's going to be covered?

I'm not a fan of top down information giving only type meetings, but I've also got fairly pissed off and frustrated by interminable Swedish style consensus meetings where it takes months to get the simplest thing decided on.

Well if you're at the meeting it's been called for a reason. Then if an agenda has already been knocked up pass it around for additions.