Skip to Content

Socialist Studies 25 years

135 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tim Kilgallon
Tim Kilgallon's picture
Offline
Joined: 17/11/2015

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 Terry Lawlor made a contribution which relied on an outdated copy of the DSM to back up his argument the homosexuality was a mental illness!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.


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

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.

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

Their hundredth issue is now available for £1.50 (I think) from;

Socialist Studies
PO Box 70259
London
N4 9DS

imposs1904
imposs1904's picture
Offline
Joined: 18/10/2011

jondwhite wrote:

Their hundredth issue is now available for £1.50 (I think) from;

Socialist Studies
PO Box 70259
London
N4 9DS

 

I just checked it out online. It's really just a regular issue of Socialist Studies.

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

jondwhite wrote:

Their hundredth issue is now available for £1.50 (I think) from;

Socialist Studies
PO Box 70259
London
N4 9DS

Correction - it is £2.

ALB
Offline
Joined: 22/06/2011

jondwhite wrote:

I'm intending to attend.

Was there anybody else there?

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

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.

DJP
DJP's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/04/2010

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.

Twford John
Offline
Joined: 03/09/2016

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?

gnome
gnome's picture
Offline
Joined: 14/10/2011

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_Menta...

Login or register to post comments