Socialist Studies 25 years
- This topic has 138 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
[/quote] I had somehow imagined you were a member or sympathiser of the Socialist Studies group , Bob Andrews, but it seems now that you are either a non-socialist, or even anti-socialist, cynic. Thats OK but why dont you just come out and say it so we all know where you stand?[/quote]No.
The SPGB have dropped Marx and Engels and the muscular proletarians from their masthead and replaced them with an image of (yawn) "the planet" and "World Socialism" , and seem to be moving toward acceptance of the global warming myth. Environmentalism is proving to be as big a nuisance as reformism. For writing that approximates to a Marxian class analysis of what capitalism may, but probably isn't, doing to the natural setting, read the Weakly Worker.If one can't believe what is written in Socialist Studies one might as well become an Existentialist.
For clarity, the masthead you are talking about is not the SPGB one, but the one athttp://www.socialiststudies.org.uk/It may be a bad replacement logo (reminiscent of 'One World, One People') but anthropogenic global warming is real, its what environmentalists do about it is where Marxists might disagree.
jondwhite wrote:For clarity, the masthead you are talking about is not the SPGB one, but the one athttp://www.socialiststudies.org.uk/It may be a bad replacement logo (reminiscent of 'One World, One People') but anthropogenic global warming is real, its what environmentalists do about it is where Marxists might disagree.I hear he's thinking of changing his name to Bob "wrong again" Andrews
jondwhite wrote:For clarity, the masthead you are talking about is not the SPGB one, but the one athttp://www.socialiststudies.org.uk/Yes, I know. And Socialist Studies is produced by the SPGB. Over on the Local Election Campaign 2017 thread, the sinister "Alan Johnstone" asks, quite reasonably, "What name are we contesting all these elections under?" The Anarcho-Socialist party of Clapham in a nutshell.
Bob Andrews wrote:jondwhite wrote:For clarity, the masthead you are talking about is not the SPGB one, but the one athttp://www.socialiststudies.org.uk/Yes, I know. And Socialist Studies is produced by the SPGB. Over on the Local Election Campaign 2017 thread, the sinister "Alan Johnstone" asks, quite reasonably, "What name are we contesting all these elections under?" The Anarcho-Socialist party of Clapham in a nutshell.
Are you trolling us, them or both parties?
alanjjohnstone wrote:Goodness me … the sinister "Alan Johnstone" … i'll take that as a complimentWe I am VINdictive Maratty.
I fail to see why a question about Islington Branch takes us off-thread. Members of the branch were prominent in the unpleasantness that led to the eventual reconstitution of the SPGB, publishers of Socialist Studies ( unavailable in all good newsagents ).What Islington Branch really was is open to conjecture. There are people who happen to enjoy naming names and airing wild allegations. I am not one of them.
If Camden and North West London had remained, do you think membership would have increased, decreased or stayed the same?
jondwhite wrote:If Camden and North West London had remained, do you think membership would have increased, decreased or stayed the same?That's hardly the issue, is it. The two branches were expelled for repeatedly flouting democratic decisions of this party. Any "unpleasantness" was entirely of their making.Now can we please stop feeding this knucklehead.
Bob Andrews wrote:I fail to see why a question about Islington Branch takes us off-thread. Members of the branch were prominent in the unpleasantness that led to the eventual reconstitution of the SPGB, publishers of Socialist Studies ( unavailable in all good newsagents ).What Islington Branch really was is open to conjecture. There are people who happen to enjoy naming names and airing wild allegations. I am not one of them.Looking on the whole situation with hindsight and also from the perspective of not being directly part of it, I think there were a number of factors.Looking back now, the late 70s and early 80s saw an influx of new younger members into the party, of which I was one. I can understand to some extent the culture clash between these new younger members and the older members of the party. Lets face it the majority of the Socialist Studies group were older members. I think if the same thing happened now, god knows we all hope it will, I think some of us older long standing members might struggle to manage that any better than was the case in the 80s.I also think there was a feeling amongst the older members that there should be some degree of deferrence to them, that the newer members should doff their caps to the wisdom of those who had been in the party longer. Well that was never going to happen, but again, would those of us who joined at that time, who are now the older, wiser members, not have similar feelings?I think another factor at that time was the growth of the Party at that time away from being London based. Groups and Branches were being started all over the place, 3 in the greater Manchester Area, 2 in the North East, there was socialist activity in Dundee, Belfast, etc. etc. It has often been said that the SPGB should have really called themselves the Socialist Party of London, hisorically we didnt have a huge base outside London. As the Party grew from being London based there were branches in the Party that embraced the new branches outside of London and those, including the ones that became Socialist Studies, who didn't really engage with these branches. I think again this can be explained by age. The members of branches like Islington were young and able to travel to other parts of the UK, whereas some of the older members were, understandably, less willing to leave the capital. Again this led to distance and mistrust between branches in the rest of the country and some of the founders of Socialist Studies.I agree there were personality clashes, that the branches that became Socialist Studies did indulge in undemocratic practices, but the diffferences were, in my opinion, more about age and personality, than political diferences. I think the fact that the invective from Socialist Studies was aimed at London based SPGB members, rather than those in provincial branches, indicates that the matter for them was not one of politics. I cannot remember any of that group criticising the likes of Dick Donnelly or Vic Vanni.
With hindsight would you say Islington's support for the future capitalist government of Poland was a smart move?
Bob Andrews wrote:With hindsight would you say Islington's support for the future capitalist government of Poland was a smart move?No branch of the party ever supported any government, but socialist studies were well known for lying about the SPGB and you are following suit, now fuck off Trolling.
Bob Andrews wrote:With hindsight would you say Islington's support for the future capitalist government of Poland was a smart move?Probably not but was it ever a branch resolution? With hindsight would you say Camden and North West London branches defiance of a democratic decision was a smart move? With hindsight would you say the statement of the Provisional Committee in 1911 that 'We deny altogether that a member of our Party is elected to Parliament for the purpose of taking party in any kind of legislation whether by voting for it or against it' was a smart move?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.