Ship of Fools: Taking the S out of CSM

Thread: Taking the S out of CSM Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023999

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The Christian Socialist Movement wants to change its name.

Basically, it wants to ditch the word 'Socialism'. They say that the word hinders our mission and that it means little to the younger generation, that it would attract more Christians on the left with a more up to date name.

I am outraged but am I out of touch?

Though right-wingers are welcome to participate, I am particularly interested in the views of my comrades on the left.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The Christian Socialist Movement wants to change its name.

Basically, it wants to ditch the word 'Socialism'. They say that the word hinders our mission and that it means little to the younger generation, that it would attract more Christians on the left with a more up to date name.

I am outraged but am I out of touch?

Though right-wingers are welcome to participate, I am particularly interested in the views of my comrades on the left.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

Link?

And as a comrade on the left I am really unhappy about this. I was going to join CSM once my student loan came through but no more. My socialism is borne out of my Christianity, and CSM should be educating Christians on what it means to be a leftwing Christian, not pandering to the right. There are few spaces for leftie Christians as it is, we don't need to lose another. Oh how I loathe the influence of US evangelicalism on UK churches. [/QB][/QUOTE]
No link as yet - I got something through the post yesterday and read it today.

I am going to do some more thinking and then look at CSM's website - they gave me a paper response form but i prefer to type my answers so will look for an online version. When i find it, i will let you know.

As for evangelical influence, Christian Socialist groups traditionally sprang out of anglo-catholicism - that is where i come from - but many of our younger members come from the evangelical tendency and I think it is important that we support them.

Posted by recklessrat (# 17243) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The Christian Socialist Movement wants to change its name.

Basically, it wants to ditch the word 'Socialism'. They say that the word hinders our mission and that it means little to the younger generation, that it would attract more Christians on the left with a more up to date name.

I am outraged but am I out of touch?

Though right-wingers are welcome to participate, I am particularly interested in the views of my comrades on the left.

As a leftie member of said younger generation , I am similarly outraged. 'Socialist' would encourage me to join, not hinder me. I would be a member if I had the spare cash.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

Really? I'm a member and I haven't heard anything yet. It strikes me as very surprising, not least because I can't think what the alternative might be.

'Christian Progressive Movement'? Bit woolly, no?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

Link?

And as a comrade on the left I am really unhappy about this. I was going to join CSM once my student loan came through but no more. My socialism is borne out of my Christianity, and CSM should be educating Christians on what it means to be a leftwing Christian, not pandering to the right. There are few spaces for leftie Christians as it is, we don't need to lose another. Oh how I loathe the influence of US evangelicalism on UK churches.

No link as yet - I got something through the post yesterday and read it today.

I am going to do some more thinking and then look at CSM's website - they gave me a paper response form but i prefer to type my answers so will look for an online version. When i find it, i will let you know.

As for evangelical influence, Christian Socialist groups traditionally sprang out of anglo-catholicism - that is where i come from - but many of our younger members come from the evangelical tendency and I think it is important that we support them. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Sorry, I am talking about the influence of American evangelicalism on the idea that leftwing = un-Christian, not that evangelicals are inherently less leftwing. Going by the progressive causes of many UK evangelicals (eg fair trade) I do not think this is true.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

No, I haven't heard anything yet, and I'm a member too. I have found some discussions on the website but nothing more.
Bloody awful idea, anyway. If people don't understand what Socialist - and more particularly Christian Socialist, which is a term with a good pedigree going back 150 years and perhaps more- means, it's our job to educate (as well as agitate and organise).

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Got mentioned in an update sent through facebook a couple of weeks ago. Not a firm decision yet I think, but a plan. I wrote back objecting.

Bloody stupid idea if you ask me.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

PS I suppose at a push I could accept something like 'The Tawney Society', but I think that'd be even more prone to misunderstanding: people might just think that we were people who don't like ruby port.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

I may have to join just to vote against this nonsense.

Christian Socialist Alien and proud of it.

AFZ

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I first read this as "taking the S out of BDSM" and was looking for Chastmastr. [Ultra confused]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I'm not a socialist. So I would not be likely to join. Which of these is the problem for the organisation?

1. Is it that the 's' word is like clause 4, keeping an organisation which wants to be more broadly left wing, stuck with an out of date shibboleth? Are there people seriously on the left who would say that 'socialism' is an out-of-date prescription? Or

2. Is it that some people think that removing the 's' word would be a desirable change of image, like changing a red flag to a red rose?

(US shipmates won't be able to follow the references to clause 4 or red rose, but don't worry, members of CSM will).

3. At root though, is CSM the Labour Party at prayer, and if so, is it that it is at root happy with that? Alternatively, does it want to attract in a few Christian Greens, left-leaning Lib Dems, right-leaning Anarchists or even Christian Respectists if such is an imaginable concept? Or perhaps even me, as I don't see myself as on the right either?

I can also see that one problem CSM would have looking for a new name, is that most the other options would be theologically ambiguous. Presumably, what a person believes about the authority of scripture, the nature of atonement etc etc are not relevant self-selectors. Yet titles like Christian Progressive Movement would sound more like the territory of Modern Churchman's Union - or whatever that calls itself this week.

I would have thought that apart from CSM's current name, unless you called it 'Christians on the left' most other changes would look like concealment.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

I would be against such a name change, primarily because shifting to "Christian Movement" without any change to the actual policies advocated would be implying that no true Christian could possibly support any other policies.

The "Christian Socialist Movement" name makes the aims and policies of the society clear without suggesting that non-Socialists aren't Christian.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Spot on, Marvin.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
PS I suppose at a push I could accept something like 'The Tawney Society', but I think that'd be even more prone to misunderstanding: people might just think that we were people who don't like ruby port.

Given spelling standards, most people would probably think you were fans of yellowish browns.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I first read this as "taking the S out of BDSM" and was looking for Chastmastr.

I thought you'd say that.

I pondered, before writing the title for this thread and thought it would be fun to leave it as it is.

For my fellow members: I only got my consultation thingy through the mail on Wednesday so yours is probably on its way, currently caught up in backlog that our comrade postal workers, who are shabbily treated, have to sort, now that they have to work longer hours for less pay.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

1. Is it that the 's' word is like clause 4, keeping an organisation which wants to be more broadly left wing, stuck with an out of date shibboleth?

After the events of the last few years any socialist in the Labour Pary who still thinks Clause 4 was out of date probably ought to seriously consider whether or not they've been morphed into a conservative while they weren't looking!

The language is a bit flowery and Victorian, but the sentiment is a lot more relevant to the 21st century than the vacuous PRspeak drivel it was replaced with, and which now seems so out of touch. As well as being irredeemably tainted and bloodstainedby contact with Blair and the dead and oh-so-dated "New Labour" project.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is it that the 's' word is like clause 4, keeping an organisation which wants to be more broadly left wing, stuck with an out of date shibboleth? Are there people seriously on the left who would say that 'socialism' is an out-of-date prescription? ...... At root though, is CSM the Labour Party at prayer, and if so, is it that it is at root happy with that? Alternatively, does it want to attract in a few Christian Greens, left-leaning Lib Dems, right-leaning Anarchists or even Christian Respectists if such is an imaginable concept? Or perhaps even me, as I don't see myself as on the right either?

CSM tried to change part of its constitution that read like Clause 4. Many of us campaigned against that and we won.

I resigned from Labour when they got rid of clause 4.

CSM affiliated to the Labour Party only within the past two decades. I believe this was a mistake because:

a) many of Blair's cabinet e.g. Straw, boasted of their being CSM members and then did many right wing things. Some of my friends poured scorn on the whole of CSM because it appeared to be a vehicle for promotion for aspiring politicians. I doubt whether many of those cabinet members knew of the contents of our publications any more than Ian Duncan-Smith knows much about Catholic Social teaching.

b) There are socialists in the Green party, sympathisers among the LibDems and I would like to see the more sensible members (liker Salma Yacoub) of Respect become members. There is also the Fellowship Party (pacifist).

Not sure about the SWP - they tend to give demonstrations a bad image.

[ 26. October 2012, 14:09: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I would have thought Salma Yacoub as a Moslem would not meet the 'C' part of the name, and wouldn't want to join.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Anyone apart from me read it as 'SCM' and wondered what the Student Christian Movement had to do with it?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I'm under 30, does that still count as young? I see no reason to stop calling yourself socialist unless you plan to stop being socialist. That said, when you've got Tony Blair and the like as members, the name doesn't mean much. SCM should be keeping the name and being a bit more emphatic about what they mean by it.

Posted by Clavus (# 9427) on :

quote:
PS I suppose at a push I could accept something like 'The Tawney Society', but I think that'd be even more prone to misunderstanding: people might just think that we were people who don't like ruby port.

Or a trade union for Assistant Brownie Guiders?

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I suppose you could make the Stand for social justice - but I don't see the point.

You are only going to attract politicised young Christian people anyway - and by the time you have pre-selected down to that level they are going to know what socialist means.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'm under 30, does that still count as young? I see no reason to stop calling yourself socialist unless you plan to stop being socialist. That said, when you've got Tony Blair and the like as members, the name doesn't mean much. SCM should be keeping the name and being a bit more emphatic about what they mean by it.

I totally agree.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I would have thought Salma Yacoub as a Moslem would not meet the 'C' part of the name, and wouldn't want to join.

True - I was thinking of 'Respect' party people generally and she is a good example, in my opinion, of a socialist.

I was trying to distance it from George Galloway (who, admittedly, has a worse press than he deserves.)

[ 27. October 2012, 14:30: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

To be honest, the fact that Blair, Straw etc are/were members is the reason I never even thought of joining. I used to be in the Jubilee Group before it morphed into a quasi religious order.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I would have thought Salma Yacoub as a Moslem would not meet the 'C' part of the name, and wouldn't want to join.
True - I was thinking of 'Respect' party people generally and she is a good example, in my opinion, of a socialist.

I was trying to distance it from George Galloway (who, admittedly, has a worse press than he deserves.)

Is it really possible for Galloway to have a worse anything than he deserves?

Posted by St. Stephen the Stoned (# 9841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
PS I suppose at a push I could accept something like 'The Tawney Society', but I think that'd be even more prone to misunderstanding: people might just think that we were people who don't like ruby port.

I'd join that.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Is it really possible for Galloway to have a worse anything than he deserves?

Yes. I was wondering that.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I think there is a problem with the word "Socialist", not because it is wrong, but because it is not clearly understood. It tends to imply a more strident version of left-wing politics than they may wish to position themselves these days. It may be that they want to find a way to support radically Christian left-wing policies with wider support than they can currently claim. As long as they are remaining distinctly left-wing, and not New Labour Left-Wing, I think it may prove a positive move.

This is not to say it is a good idea or not, just to try to understand why they might be thinking of doing this. I would consider myself left-wing, but, while a student, not entirely within their remit.

I am reminded of the Fabian Society, an organisation with a long and distinguished history, but I am not sure that most people really understand where they stand, what they are about. It is not that the name is wrong, just that the name does not clearly speak to people today about what they do.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
To be honest, the fact that Blair, Straw etc are/were members is the reason I never even thought of joining. I used to be in the Jubilee Group before it morphed into a quasi religious order.

So did I.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

I may have mis-read this, but the consultation document (on the CSM's website) seems a bit confused.

In the middle of page 5, two names are suggested:

"Communion - The Movement for Christians on the Left"; and
"Christians in the Labour Movement"

But the explanation for the proposed names refers to three different names (beginning on page 5):

Communion
The Christian Left
The Common Good

These are the names referred to in Question 10.

I don't know whether that's bad editing or symptomatic of confused thought on the CSM's part.

As a Tory, I don't really have a dog in this fight but 'Christian Socialist Movement' seems clear enough to me. It doesn't seem to be broke so why bother fixing it?

Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :

quote:
PS I suppose at a push I could accept something like 'The Tawney Society', but I think that'd be even more prone to misunderstanding: people might just think that we were people who don't like ruby port.

Or remarkably big fans of Owls.

Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I think there is a problem with the word "Socialist", not because it is wrong, but because it is not clearly understood.

There has been a long running habit by Tory politicians and the right wing press of saying "socialism" and "socialist" with a sneer which makes it seem like something dirty. They then use the word against anyone they happen to be fighting at the time whether it applies or not.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
...As a Tory, I don't really have a dog in this fight but 'Christian Socialist Movement' seems clear enough to me. It doesn't seem to be broke so why bother fixing it?

Exactly. We know who's on our side: you know who the opposition is. Everyone's happy, no?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I think there is a problem with the word "Socialist", not because it is wrong, but because it is not clearly understood.
There has been a long running habit by Tory politicians and the right wing press of saying "socialism" and "socialist" with a sneer which makes it seem like something dirty. They then use the word against anyone they happen to be fighting at the time whether it applies or not.

I seem to think that the Yorkshire Post (as Tory as they come) in its lists of election results used to, and maybe still does, refer to Labour candidates as 'Socialist'. Which is laughable in the case of New Labour but it does make you realise where they are coming from.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I seem to think that the Yorkshire Post (as Tory as they come) in its lists of election results used to, and maybe still does, refer to Labour candidates as 'Socialist'. Which is laughable in the case of New Labour but it does make you realise where they are coming from.

Isn't this just old-fashioned? I thought it was once commonplace to refer to Labour candidates as 'Socialist candidates'?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
It may be that they want to find a way to support radically Christian left-wing policies with wider support than they can currently claim.

Are you saying that labelling 'radical left wing policies' accurately wouldn't be popular, so they're renaming themselves in order to sucker in people who wouldn't have signed up had they known what the society stood for in advance?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I seem to think that the Yorkshire Post (as Tory as they come) in its lists of election results used to, and maybe still does, refer to Labour candidates as 'Socialist'. Which is laughable in the case of New Labour but it does make you realise where they are coming from.
Isn't this just old-fashioned? I thought it was once commonplace to refer to Labour candidates as 'Socialist candidates'?

Well, the Daily Express used to, for some years after the war, for propaganda purposes.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

So 'socialist' has gone the way of 'asylum' and 'refugee' and 'correct' as in PC and had its meaning trashed. (Came across another yesterday but can't recall it at the moment.) I'm not a member, but I think it should keep it and make sure it makes its meaning clear.

There was an interview with Roy Hattersley in the Guardian some time back when he said that both he and Tony Blair had been in it, he without being a Christian, and Blair without being a ...... (complete this quote in the obvious way).

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
they gave me a paper response form but i prefer to type my answers so will look for an online version. When i find it, i will let you know.

Online version now available. Any MEMBER having problems finding it, PM me.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Isn't this just old-fashioned? I thought it was once commonplace to refer to Labour candidates as 'Socialist candidates'?
Well, the Daily Express used to, for some years after the war, for propaganda purposes.

In my sixth-form days when I was a rabid Tory (ah, the delusions of youth - some rebelled by piercing their noses and getting addicted to drugs; I bought a pipe and campaigned for the local Conservative), I referred to "the Socialists" in all my British History essays.

If only one could still do the same when referring to the Labour Party.

Thurible

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
To be honest, the fact that Blair, Straw etc are/were members is the reason I never even thought of joining. I used to be in the Jubilee Group before it morphed into a quasi religious order.

Do you mean the Society of Sacramental Socialists?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
In my sixth-form days ... I was a rabid Tory

Me too.

So now I have finally come out on The Ship.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

I don't live in the UK and the Christian Socialist Movement is a British organization. But, as someone who resides in the U.S., my view is that the term "socialist" still has a worthy meaning that ought to be retained.

My background is that my political/economic views would probably best be described as democratic socialist. I came to these views because I was a Christian first. Very important caveat: I do NOT think that a Christian has to be socialist nor that a socialist has to be a Christian -- i'm just telling how I arrived at my views. As one who resides in the U.S. of A., I am fully aware that socialism is a dirty word in this political entity, even democratic socialism. This is, as I understand it, because people in the U.S. tend to equate capitalism with democracy and tend to feel that capitalism is the essential unquestioned economic foundation of the U.S. -- even the robber mega-corporate capitalism that has nearly totally bought this country. This, to me, is illustrated by the fact that U.S. Americans are quick to pour contempt on politicians as corrupt, yet fail to pour the even greater contempt, so richly deserved, on the capitalists who corrupted them and thus have the primary causative guilt.

And since U.S. Americans tend to express in an especially enthusiastic way their devotion to what they call "Christianity" I think it is would be a wonderful witness to those of that mindset that Christianity and Socialism are indeed compatible. I think it would be great if there were a viable Christian Socialist movement in the U.S.

But of course the CSM is in the UK -- however, it is my understanding that socialism is a dirty word among certain segments of the British public, particularly in this time of Cameron, so perhaps also in Britain there still may be a place for such a witness.

[ 30. October 2012, 18:32: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0