DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I don’t think the word is as repellent as you think. The Corbyn era so-called “socialist” Labour party got over 40% of the popular vote in both of its general elections… It’s just that people don’t mean the same thing by it than us.
“The question we have to ask ourselves and try to identify is why we have not succeeded to communicate with and convince our fellow workers.”
FWIW The SPGB is virtually invisible online, as well as off. Nobody knows who you are. No regularly updated presence on things like YouTube and Instagram for example. Not that there are any silver bullets, but you could do something about that. Or you could just sit about here moaning and moping. It’s up to you..
Here’s the full relevant part of the other letter from MECW volume 45, page 212.
To Mrs Wollmann (19 March 1877) Marx wrote:
“Should you wish to leaf through some of Capital, it would be best to start with the last section, p. 314. In the scientific exposition the arrangement is prescribed for the author, although some other arrangement might often be more convenient and more appropriate for the reader.”
“There is no such letter by or from Marx.”
Strange thing to say, especially seeing as the link to the letter that was published in MECW is above.
Marx says that “the most immediately readable” sections of Capital are “the chapters on the ‘Working Day’, ‘Co-operation, Division of Labour and Machinery’ and finally on ‘Primitive Accumulation’”. But that’s different to saying that *everyone* should read those chapters first or that this is “the best” way to read the book.
The letter mentioned in the review can be read online here:
https://marxists.architexturez.net/archive/marx/works/1867/letters/67_11_30b.htmA thumbs up to that.
At a minimum, can I suggest that the pdf for each new issue is always posted online.
I used to subscribe to the paper version, and yes it is very cheap, but I – like a lot of people – stopped taking paper versions of most newspapers and magazines a few years back; too much paper to put in the recycling!
The SPGB has money, it should pay someone to make the website look easier on the eye – you will be losing views if not…
Bright white background, san-serif font, and a cluttered side-bar all make for an unpleasant view.
For something easy on the eye look at FT.com or economist for example.
Changes to make it more like this could be done relatively easily and quickly… I could even do it if needed.
There’s also a rather very good series from Radio 4 about this; how oil companies used the same techniques and PR firms as those used by the tobacco industry to spread doubt about the realities of man-made climate change.
Fair play for trying but not too sure about the last lot of videos, not really inspiring and look tacky. But no harm in trying.
Why not try something more like this, which has half a million views on YouTube:
Let’s face it, these days “influencers” have more of a following than political parties and their periodicals.
