Socialist Studies 25 years
- This topic has 138 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:Whatever happened to Richard Cummings, BTW? Does anybody know?
He's rumoured to have converted to Anglicanism
Actually, it's worse. He's actually become an Anglican priest, joining two other ex-members, the Rev Toby Crowe and the Rev Andrew Wilkes. If we are to be an Anglican seminary who's next? Mind you, as churches go, that's the best as in it anything goes and you don't even have to believe in god. The Rev Wilkes voted for us in the 2014 European elections and actually applied to rejoin (hope Robbo isn't following this thread).
Quote:The Rev Wilkes voted for us in the 2014 European elections and actually applied to rejoinNice to have his blessing.
ALB wrote:ALB wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:Whatever happened to Richard Cummings, BTW? Does anybody know?He's rumoured to have converted to Anglicanism
Actually, it's worse. He's actually become an Anglican priest, joining two other ex-members, the Rev Toby Crowe and the Rev Andrew Wilkes. If we are to be an Anglican seminary who's next? Mind you, as churches go, that's the best as in it anything goes and you don't even have to believe in god. The Rev Wilkes voted for us in the 2014 European elections and actually applied to rejoin (hope Robbo isn't following this thread).
We did get one back the other way, the Late Comrade Kevin Lennon, used to relate how he left a catholic seminary when he was on the verge of taking holy orders after he had come into contact with the party and joined us soon afterwards,
Special mention for the late J. Force of the SPGB Bristol Group who mentions in an obituary for another Bristol comrade that he was studying for holy orders before joining the SPGB:Link: August 1980 obituaryThat makes it 3-2. We're making a comeback!
alanjjohnstone wrote:I was out of the party at the time but i did hear that those members that went on to form Socialist Studies expressed homophobic sentiments. Not sure if this is supported or not? Maybe some can reply.From Socialist Studies 8 my emphasis added
Quote:We suspect that these Clapham members would be very happy to see the S.P.G.B. and its history disappear altogether, so that they can get on with, to them, more pressing or fashionable issues, such as homosexuality, women’s liberation, moralising about the market, abolishing the State, encouraging workers to confront the armed forces of the state in the name of democracy; anything but putting a clear case for Socialism.http://www.socialiststudies.org.uk/socstudy08.shtmlSo homosexuality is a 'fashionable issue'. Notice this was not 'homosexual rights', 'queer liberation' 'pride' or even 'opposition to homophobic discrimination' but homosexuality itself.
At about the time of the Socialist Studies split, there was an acrimonious debate at either Conference or at ADM re homophobia. Terry Lawlor made a contribution which relied on an outdated copy of the DSM to back up his argument the homosexuality was a mental illness! (he was a retired psychiarist). I think it is fair to say that his contribution and point of view were shot down in flames.
As a reminder;Socialist Studies are holding a summer school lecture at Marchmont Street Community Centre on Sunday June 12 at 2:30pm this year which is 25 years since they formed. The lecture is titled 'Socialism: Politics and Principles.'I'm intending to attend.
Their hundredth issue is now available for £1.50 (I think) from;Socialist Studies PO Box 70259 London N4 9DS
jondwhite wrote:Their hundredth issue is now available for £1.50 (I think) from;Socialist Studies PO Box 70259 London N4 9DSI just checked it out online. It's really just a regular issue of Socialist Studies.
jondwhite wrote:Their hundredth issue is now available for £1.50 (I think) from;Socialist Studies PO Box 70259 London N4 9DSCorrection – it is £2.
Yep, I attended their summer school. The talk started a little late, there were eight in attendance, one lady, seven men including the speaker. Room was unmarked, no signs, no banner, not even the lectern they've previously used at speakers corner but there was a literature table. There were a number of pamphlets, some I think were SPGB ones, only the current issue of Socialist Studies was available – no back issues. The talk didn't really rehash the split, but members expressed the feeling the split was necessary.I asked two questions then a follow up one.Other than trade unions and organised labour waging an economic struggle, what class struggle from the political side, happens outside the party? They replied the political struggle is waged by forming a party to seek election for socialism. My second question of the three was to quote Comm. Manifesto Chapter 2 'The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. ' They replied that they didn't agree with Marx who was advocating a broad church approach to a party before he failed in the First International. Hmm? I'm not sure the key word isn't 'separate' rather than party. A little later I asked what socialism happened or organised socialists existed before 1904. They replied there was various groups the SDF and the Socialist League but all dallied with reforms. After the talk, I asked if Marx and Morris were socialists or would have been admitted as members, but I think they drew a distinction between the conditions in the 19th Century and now.What was mentioned of interest, was of those forming the Socialist Studies group in 1991 was only five (out of sixteen according to Wikipedia) founder members remained. I presume this means 'still living' as no founding members resigned as far as I know. I was able to identify four at the meeting. It must also mean three or four talk attendees who I didn't speak to, were either non-members or post-1991 joinees. What had changed in years gone by was attendance at Marchmont St had dropped from 30-40 as greater opportunities for socialising and entertainment outside of meetings exist. While the internet may have affected attendance, it had also opened up new opportunities for socialists. Outdoor speaking had disappeared and even speakers corner was now merely a tourist attraction.A recording was said to have been made by them to upload to their website.
jondwhite wrote:My second question of the three was to quote Comm. Manifesto Chapter 2 'The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. ' They replied that they didn't agree with Marx who was advocating a broad church approach to a party before he failed in the First International. Hmm? I'm not sure the key word isn't 'separate' rather than party.I think here they are using the word "party" in the old-fashioned sense meaning "group" rather than "political party". What working-class political parties would there have been when the manifesto was written? But either way Marx was just a man, what is written in the manifesto and elsewhere is not some kind of scripture to be slavishly followed.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:an outdated copy of the DSM to back up his argument the homosexuality was a mental illness!What does DSM stand for?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.