Socialist Studies 25 years
- This topic has 138 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Twford John wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:an outdated copy of the DSM to back up his argument the homosexuality was a mental illness!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?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders
From Socialist Studies 8 my emphasis addedWe 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.Thank you for the link. It's quite an extraordinary read. Were any of observations made in this issue of Socialist Studies met and refuted by yourselves?
Twford John wrote:Thank you for the link. It's quite an extraordinary read. Were any of observations made in this issue of Socialist Studies met and refuted by yourselves?Since there are those who evidently remain fascinated by this group it may be useful to make some salient observations:Much of the material published by 'Socialist' Studies is highly critical, and often outright contemptuous, of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, which it refers to as the "Clapham-based Socialist Party" or the "Socialist Party of Clapham". The group variously claims that the SPGB is anarchist, reformist, capitalist, fascist, Stalinist, Trotskyist, undemocratic, and democracy fetishist. According to 'Socialist' Studies, the Socialist Party of Great Britain colludes with the Electoral Commission to "prevent Socialists [from] carrying out political propaganda on the web", and does this because its own propaganda is not being read as widely as that of 'Socialist' Studies. ' It also claims that the SPGB has a secret de facto leadership of "godfathers", who conspire to suppress socialist ideas and to destroy 'Socialist' Studies.'Socialist' Studies has repeatedly called on the SPGB to respond to some of these accusations and to engage in debates on the ideological differences. However, as these calls were made at the time 'Socialist' Studies was still claiming to be the Socialist Party of Great Britain, the SPGB refused to recognise their legitimacy.The only official published comment the SPGB has made on the 'Socialist' Studies group has been in an article devoted to the history of breakaway groups in the centenary issue of the Socialist Standard, which described them as "a small group of rather disgruntled ex-members".Sources of the references made in paragraph two above.'anarchist' "Reconstituted Socialist Party of Great Britain". Socialist Studies [then publishing as "The Socialist Party of Great Britain"]. 11 June 1991"Democracy and Principle". Socialist Studies. Socialist Studies [then publishing as "The Socialist Party of Great Britain"] (51). Spring 2003.'reformist'"Democracy and Principle". Socialist Studies. Socialist Studies [then publishing as "The Socialist Party of Great Britain"] (51). Spring 2003.'capitalist' "Democracy and Principle". Socialist Studies. Socialist Studies [then publishing as "The Socialist Party of Great Britain"] (51). Spring 2003."The Clapham-based Socialist Party – Just Another Capitalist Party". Socialist Studies [then publishing as "The Socialist Party of Great Britain"]. 1 August 2006.'fascist'"The Bourgeois Revolutionaries with the Judas Touch". Socialist Studies. Socialist Studies [then publishing as "The Socialist Party of Great Britain"] (14): 5–11. 1994.'Stalinist'; 'Trotskyist'"Desperate Spoiling Tactics". Socialist Studies. Socialist Studies [then publishing as "The Socialist Party of Great Britain"] (60). Summer 2006.'undemocratic; democracy fetishist'"Democracy and Principle". Socialist Studies. Socialist Studies [then publishing as "The Socialist Party of Great Britain"] (51). Spring 2003.
But all you have done is provide a list of further withering denunciations of your organisation made by the SPGB, and the refutation appears to be nothing more than that they are merely “a small group of rather disgruntled ex-members”. That must have sent them reeling.
Twford John wrote:But all you have done is provide a list of further withering denunciations of your organisation made by the SPGB….."The so-called "withering denunciations" were made by the undemocratic and therefore anti-socialist outfit masquerading as the SPGB. In 1991, the Camden and North West London branches of this Party were expelled after a party-wide poll found them to be engaged in persistent undemocratic behaviour. Some of these ex-members, comprising sixteen individuals out of the 24 expelled, refused to recognise the expulsions and attempted to continue operating as the Socialist Party of Great Britain, which they claimed to have "reconstituted". The group's activity consisted primarily of holding occasional propaganda meetings and publishing their journal Socialist Studies, which largely served as a polemical vehicle against this party, the original and only SPGB.
Quote:…..and the refutation appears to be nothing more than that they are merely "a small group of rather disgruntled ex-members". That must have sent them reeling.They were of little consequence when that reference to them was made (June 2004 Socialist Standard) and with four or five members remaining now, even less so. Not only then did it send "them reeling" but it very much contributed to their demise…
I think the only other response is an EC minute referring to them as the Ashbourne Courtesans, and the fall out so that that shouldn't happen again: oh, and a resolution somewhere that members of the Socialist Studies are welcome to apply for membership of the party, but they can't re-enter as a bloc. This is around 2001.
The SPGB were also insulted by another group as 'renegades, liars, murderers or assassins. The SPGB, which associates itself with followers of Trotsky, the friend of Hess'.Presumably the wording chosen by the Standard and ECs to address Socialist Studies represented a reluctance to judge socialist understanding on the basis of insults.In any case, haven't the Studies group produced more original pamphlets than us over the same period?
It's not so much how many pamphlets they have published, but how many they have circulated and how many fellow-workers have read them.
Damn…left that moderator account on again…curses but the post is from alanjjohnstone…my apologies once more
If there were originally twenty four of them and now there are only five remaining, by my calculations, it means they should have nineteen tin foil hats going spare.
jondwhite wrote:The SPGB were also insulted by another group as 'renegades, liars, murderers or assassins. The SPGB, which associates itself with followers of Trotsky, the friend of Hess'.Presumably the wording chosen by the Standard and ECs to address Socialist Studies represented a reluctance to judge socialist understanding on the basis of insults.The essential difference being is that the insults referred to above were levied at the SPGB by die-hard Stalinists of the Communist Party and not by former members of this party. I don't recall any "reluctance to judge socialist understanding" of the ''Socialist' Studies cabal. After all, that is why those members were expelled. The judgment made though was not on the basis of their facile insults but on the irreconcilability between socialist understanding and anti-democratic actions which, incidentally, has persisted to this day within the group.
Quote:In any case, haven't the Studies group produced more original pamphlets than us over the same period?Many of their publications were either a rehash of SPGB pamphlets or Socialist Standard articles, while at least one, 'Setting the record straight', which you personally helped to promote on Libcom and quite possibly elsewhere, was an unmitigated attack on the SPGB.
My recollection of the time may be slightly different, being outside of London I wasn't aware of all of the nuances, however distance sometimes gives perspective. From what I observed many members of the two branches who formed Socialist Studies, had a view of themselves as in some way "The real SPGB". At the time there was the growth of several large and very active branches. The Islington branch was very active and growing, as was the branch (later two branches in the North East) there was a lot going on in Manchester, Glasgow, and other places. Coming down to conference or ADM I have to say the welcome from the bulk of comrades was in sharp contrast to the scowls and disdain that came from the likes of Jim, D'arcy, (Jim D'Arcy had a mate, whose name I cannot for the life of me recall, he kind of played Muttley to D'Arcy's Dick Dastardly) Harry Young, Ken? Knight, Joe Bell, Lily Lestor etc. Sadly Hardy seemed in thrall to Jim D'arcy, however I must say he was never anything but warm, polite and encouraging to younger members like myself.In my view the events that culminated in those two branches leaving wasn't really the issue at hand. The real issue, to my mind was the view of some of these members that there were members of the party who were somehow lesser party members than the genuine members in their branches. The implication was often that we didn't understand the case for Socialism, the form F process in other branches was less than in theirs and that the Party was being taken over by trendy lefties. The fact that some of these younger members questioned some of their attitudes to issues like sexism and racism provided an irritant. Who were we to question their use of sexist remarks, etc. The issue of homophobic views held by some older members of these branches at the time was also something that needed to be addressed. (This was even more ironic, considering their views on a Party Poll about expelling a member of one of these 2 branches who had been elected to the EC and who it turned out actually held views that were diametrically opposed to the SPGB!, I think his name was Martin, some of the London Comrades may recall better than I can,)The level of personal insult from these members and intolerance of any view other than their own was noticeable. Harry Young in particular I recall used the phrase Jewish Anarchists to describe some Party members he disagreed with. Another example was of a member of one of the Branches concerned who took issue with a comrade from Liverpool who had recently joined after having been a member of the Militant Tendency. The member of Camden Branch(I can't use the word comrade) took it upon herself to ring the employers of this new member from Liverpool, in order to check that he "wasn't infiltrating the SPGB!The lesson of that time cannot afford to be lost. New comrades will join the Party, some will have ideas from their generation which those of us may find odd, however it is vital that we recognise that we are a truly democratic party, there is no elite who know better than others, yes there is experience and knowledge. What the members of these two branches didn't understand was that you gain respect and influence, you don't demand it.
I think your recollection of the time is broadly correct; in particular the observations in the first three sentences of your second paragraph.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:In my view the events that culminated in those two branches leaving wasn't really the issue at hand. The real issue, to my mind was the view of some of these members that there were members of the party who were somehow lesser party members than the genuine members in their branches. The implication was often that we didn't understand the case for Socialism, the form F process in other branches was less than in theirs and that the Party was being taken over by trendy lefties.Now consider the revealing 2002 preface to 'Socialist' Studies polemic against the SPGB.
Setting the record straight wrote:This pamphlet is different from our usual ones. It addresses some of the key political and theoretical issues which lay behind the long-running internal disputes in the Socialist Party of Great Britain, disputes which in 1991 culminated in the ‘split’ between what we refer to as the Clapham-based Socialist Party and ourselves, the reconstituted Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB).After 20 or more years of endless disputes against factions to take over the Party, the 1991 ‘split’ with the contrived expulsion of two committed and active branches (Camden and North West London) meant we were now free to concentrate on the real work of the SPGB.A recent book by one of the Clapham-based Socialist party’s members was published: THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN – POLITICS, ECONOMICS AND BRITAIN'S OLDEST SOCIALIST PARTY by David A Perrin (2000). Rather than simply review this book in SOCIALIST STUDIES, we decided to answer it, treating it as the Clapham-based Socialist Party’s unofficial manifesto.This pamphlet will, we hope, help you and others have a better understanding of why the ‘split’ came about, the real issues which lay behind it in terms of serious differences of policy and theory between us and those who wanted us out of “their” party.Moreover, we think the political and theoretical issues that were involved, including issues of fundamental principle, are relevant for all Socialists, both now and in the future. For instance, should Socialists argue that worsening crises will lead to the collapse of capitalism? Should the Party abandon the Parliamentary road to Socialism, rejecting its principles in favour of industrial unionism? Are the Clapham-based Socialist Party right to seek to ally themselves with organisations that reject the necessity for class-consciousness, democratic, political action for Socialism and only for Socialism?On all these issues and others, the SPGB’s case is rejected by Perrin and the Clapham-based Socialist Party. From 1904 onwards, generations of Socialists worked hard to establish the SPGB as a party with a clear, consistent case, argued honestly and from principle. This pamphlet is our attempt to set the record straight.Tim Kilgallon wrote:(This was even more ironic, considering their views on a Party Poll about expelling a member of one of these 2 branches who had been elected to the EC and who it turned out actually held views that were diametrically opposed to the SPGB!, I think his name was Martin, some of the London Comrades may recall better than I can).You're probably thinking of Ray Martinez, who anglicised his surname by shortening it. He vehemently and quite openly advocated the violent overthrow of the state while at the same time eschewing the use of the ballot box. Probably not that surprising considering those two branches contempt for democracy.
From what I remember Martinez was extremely honest, honourable and straight about his views and argued in support of them, this was in sharp contrast with the future members of Socialist Studies, who tried to keep him quiet and then argued that we shouldn't make a fuss and that he should resign from the EC and that would be the end of the matter. So much for Socialist principles. I still can't remember the name of D'Arcy's miserable mate. He had a face like a well smacked arse when the heathens of NE branch turned up, with our "strong regional accents".i suppose the proof of the pudding is how their predictions worked out. Regarding what they said in their pamphlet, I may be mistaken but I don't recall the party rejecting the parliamentary route, embracing Industrial Unionism, etc. I always found their obsession with homosexuality a little strange, perhaps a case of "thou protest too much"?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.