Why our approach fails to appeal.

[Lizzie45]

Discussion of this topic continues at the link below but those who are not Party members are excluded from participating.

https://tinyurl.com/2se583bc

[J Surman]

the link above does not connect.

[sshenfield]

I remember in my teens going to a family wedding where they played the Israeli anthem Hatikvah. Everyone stood except me. The two people sitting to my right and left attempted to lift me into a standing position but after about half a minute it got too much for them and they let go and I slumped back onto my chair.

[Lizzie45]

“the link above does not connect.”

Connects on all my devices.

Try this:
https://groups.io/g/spopen/topic/why_our_approach_fails_to/93543234

[sshenfield]

All true enough, Alan. However, I do object to our using the term ‘impossibilist.’ It was invented by some of the few academics who have deigned to notice us and reflects the common view of our opponents that the strategy we advocate is impossible. But we don’t think it’s impossible. Or do we?

[alanjjohnstone]

You have mentioned your doubts about the term impossiblist before, SS, and maybe you a right.

But I think the origin was that in France the reformists called themselves the possiblists and the opposition took up the name impossiblist to distinguish that they were not going to compromise or make concessions.

Perhaps the term has had its day like others we have discarded. Communism is rarely used. The dictatorship of the proletariat never.

But you bring up an important point. Our use of language.

You and I plus others thought our aim could be better expressed in the statement “Where we stand” from 1973.

https://mailstrom.blogspot.com/2016/08/where-we-stand.html

And former comrade Paul Freeze thought we should drop particular words

https://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2017/10/world-of-free-access.html

And even our main video kids stuff refrains from jargon and the word socialism

Were they successful? I honestly can’t say.

[Author]

Posts