Skip to Content

Socialist Studies 25 years

135 posts / 0 new
Last post
gnome
gnome's picture
Offline
Joined: 14/10/2011

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.

Bijou Drains
Bijou Drains's picture
Offline
Joined: 17/11/2015

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.


Bob Andrews
Bob Andrews's picture
Offline
Joined: 18/11/2016

With hindsight would you say Islington's support for the future capitalist government of Poland was a smart move?

Vin
Offline
Joined: 03/12/2011

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. 

 

jondwhite
jondwhite's picture
Offline
Joined: 19/12/2011

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?

Bob Andrews
Bob Andrews's picture
Offline
Joined: 18/11/2016

Vin wrote:

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 Troll

Two good points well made.

Bob Andrews
Bob Andrews's picture
Offline
Joined: 18/11/2016

jondwhite wrote:

 

 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?

Democratic decisions are there to be defied, undermined and frustrated.

I'm baffled why you have quoted a statement from a 1911 Provisional Committee. What has that fantasy figure, " the Socialist member of Parliament" got to do

Bob Andrews
Bob Andrews's picture
Offline
Joined: 18/11/2016

with anything?

jondwhite
jondwhite's picture
Offline
Joined: 19/12/2011

Are you in favour of socialism?

Should those in favour of socialism join a socialist party?

Are you in favour of democracy as a means to achieving socialism?

Are you of the view that socialists elected to legislatures ought not to vote on any legislation?

Bijou Drains
Bijou Drains's picture
Offline
Joined: 17/11/2015

Bob Andrews wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

 

 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?

Democratic decisions are there to be defied, undermined and frustrated.

I'm baffled why you have quoted a statement from a 1911 Provisional Committee. What has that fantasy figure, " the Socialist member of Parliament" got to do

Bob, I've printed off your contribution, so I could read it whilst on the toilet. It's in front of me now. Very soon it will be behind me.


Login or register to post comments