We should correct the party statement on our website
- This topic has 10 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 5 months, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Our latest position is that “ A moneyless, non-market, democratically run society of common ownership and collective production would eliminate war and poverty, and allow us to concentrate on limiting the environmental damage caused by modern industry.”
After the last comma we should replace the words (about the environment) and say instead “and avoid the deaths of thousands of women men and children and babies.”
Who are these overly simplistic messages supposed to be for?
Obviously, I don’t think the conclusion is wrong, but this just looks like a description of war with the standard stock response “and the solution: socialism” pasted at the end.
It’s not going to convince anyone that isn’t already on board, and looks like lazy thinking to anyone on the outside.
I appreciate that it’s hard to get detailed messages across in a few words and sorry to sound like a grump. But I probably am!
…. but this just looks like a description of war with the standard stock response “and the solution: socialism” pasted at the end.
It’s not going to convince anyone that isn’t already on board….
But that’s the SPGB’s standard stock response, not only on war, but on every single issue, surely. And that’s why you haven’t been able to convince more than a relatively tiny handful of people in 120 years.
But keep plugging it! 🙂
“And that’s why you haven’t been able to convince more than a relatively tiny handful of people in 120 years.”
And it’s also why millions of people are still dying from war, starvation and neglect needlessly over the last 120 years.
Anyway, I thought you had pissed off up to deepest Peru hunting for Paddington’s wellies and traces of marmalade sandwiches.
And it’s also why millions of people are still dying from war, starvation and neglect needlessly over the last 120 years.
Yep, and despite capitalism having been around for several centuries it still hasn’t produced its own gravediggers. So much for Historical Materialism.
“And that’s why you haven’t been able to convince more than a relatively tiny handful of people in 120 years.”
FWIW, I think the vast majority of people who think that socialism is possible and necessary haven’t even heard of the SPGB. This isn’t something that was invented in a vacuum by some people in 1904.
My previous, backseat driver style, comment was just a suggestion that statements should be written more with an “imaginary objector” in mind.
And “historical materialism” just means that to understand something you need to take account of its historical context. But that’s a topic for another thread.
@Lizzie: please stop derailing threads with posts about the success or otherwise of the SPGB. Please stick to the topic of the thread. Feel free to start a thread on that topic if you wish. The topic of this thread is the content of an SPGB statement, please stick to that.
Who are these overly simplistic messages supposed to be for?
This was one of the 120-word short pieces posted on the home page of our website that are changed every few days so that people can see it changes (as has been called for).
Our statement hasn’t been updated since October 30 which is a long time ago now given the pace of events.
no (i likes a nice rhetorical statement that really didn’t call for an answer, especially not from a schmoo like me). the attraction of the spugub is its universal and timeless appeal. it’s not supposed to issue statements every time a warlord or plutocrat takes a dump on the workers. bloody hell! you’d be at it all the bleeding time. that’s every trots calling in life innit.
anyway. why do you let these embittered exs on your blatherskittery thing anyhow? first thing the aycog does is chuck em off. “why aincho achieved socialism after 119 years, four months and 29 days?” “fark off mate, you have a go.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.