1. You’re not Marx or Engles.

1. You’re not Marx or Engles. I don’t think they’d class themselves as working class either. I just find the language of talking about our class as off-putting the same as when career politicians keep on referring to the ‘ordinary people’ like they are below them, unmentionables. 2. The goal of socialsim is expressed in concrete terms alread, and perfectly understandable – the total eradication of the capitalist system and its replacement with a wageless, moneyless socialist society based on mutual respect, co-operation and free access. It does not need ‘transitional demands’ or flowering up or dumbing down. Its a very basic aim: the system sucks, change it to socialism! I DON’T WANT a living wage, I don’t want any damn wages!! I want a Socialist society free from money. Why is that so hard for you to get? Why do you think those you talk to won’t undertsand it either and need to be led via a series of unattanable tinkerings with the current system? The last line you state “Otherwise such demands are merely reformist proposals, which could not be achieved under capitalism.” – well, er,  exactly. 3. I really don’t understand your line of argument here. You acknowledge that the Liverpool council under Militant was a failure and yet you accuse me of being reformist and careerist based on what evidence I just don’t know – I have not to my knowledge even met you.  I am not repeating anything, these are merely the conclusions I have drawn for myself. Arrogant? I think the assumption that I am unable to read, discover and form an opinion of my own without being that being disregarded as following the media as perhaps a little arrogant. As for it being a beacon to the working classes to fight back – was it? If it was, it didn’t last long so maybe this vanguard party thing isn’t the right idea? The masses did not follow did they? I still say the Militant experiment , granted in hindsight, was a mistake and hasn’t really pushed the ideas of socialism forward. In fact, and again something argued as I understand, by the SPGB (correct me if I am wrong!), that this kind of action can actually be more damaging as those involved go away with the wrong understanding and impression of socialism and socialists in particular. 4. I think this has been answered but I don’t see how being a pacifist is being unrealistic nor do I see any problem with not recruiting amongst the armed forces for the reasons stated previously. And there is a world of difference between a civil servant in the Job Centre and a trained, armed soldier.In summary I am not sure where else this discussion can go. You seem adamant that you are correct, that the views of other parties, notably Militant, are more in line with your own than ours, and it seems clear that you do not accept the counter arguments put forward to you. Nor have you taken time to fully digest the information given it would appear (and further available on our website) which covers many of the topics you have raised.