imposs1904
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
You're right. It'll be interesting to see if there is a spike in visits to the website in the next few days. Btw, for a brief moment the article was trending on the BBC website . . . at number 9. I have the screenshoot to prove it. http://invereskstreet.blogspot.com/2015/07/do-they-mean-us-22.html
If only the Party website address was on that Party sign in the picture. Think of the spike in visits to the website.
Just noticed the following from the text:"Private Secretary to the Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of Works, George Hicks, from 1942 to 1945"Hicks was also a founder member of the SPGB.
'Are we armchair socialists?'Great article from the September 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard by 'Ivan'.http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2015/07/are-we-armchair-socialists-1966.htmlOne of those articles every socialist should print out, laminate and wear around their neck on a chain for easy accessibility.
A brief unsigned piece in the December 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard about the Chesterfiled Conference:http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2015/07/here-we-go-again-1987.htmlThe writer's style suggests the piece was penned by Steve Coleman, but I can't be 100% sure.
A review of Orwell's 1984 from 1949. More intriguing than insightful:http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2015/07/into-crystal-ball-1949.html
Another one from the series that appeared in the Socialist Standard in the mid-seventies. This one is interesting – for me, at least – because the author, J. C. Gormley, was involved in Trotskyist politics in the 30s:http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2015/07/why-i-joined-spgb-1975.html
From the archives:What Marx Should Have Said To Kropotkinhttp://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2006/06/what-marx-should-have-said-to-kropotkin.html
DJP wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:Would this be any use to ourselves i wonder?Not unless we or they have a change of politics…
Any chance of introducing a Like button on the Forum? It would make things a lot easier.ETA: Simply because I would like to like this post . . . to save time and waffle at my end.
1) I'm sure one of its main purposes of such an event was to raise funds for the branch/party.2) The main SPGB page on Facebook does have over 750 friends. (Over a thousand, I think.) You get the Party hats and I'll get the punch. Will two litres suffice?
Mike Foster wrote:Here's an introduction to Johnny Mercer's talk:Revolutionary ActivityAs socialists we do not believe that using the ballot to wrest state power from the capitalist class is by any means the sole revolutionary activity – although we do advocate use of the ballot box, it is widely held in the SPGB that most revolutionary action will be extra-parliamentary, in workplaces and communities. However, we rarely take the time to consider what these extra-parliamentary means might be. For example, do we support workers councils, class-wide unions like the IWW, or something else? Consideration of extra-parliamentary action raises again the question of reformism. It has long been argued that a socialist party must aim solely for socialism or risk being bogged down in reformism. But just because the SPGB needs to maintain purity in the political sphere does that mean that individual members ought not to engage in direct action outside of this sphere? Marx said “When communist workmen gather together, their immediate aim is instruction, propaganda, etc. But at the same time, they acquire a new need – the need for society – and what appears as a means had become an end … The brotherhood of man is not a hollow phrase, it is a reality, and the nobility of man shines forth upon us from their work-worn figures”. Can direct, collective action raise class-consciousness and give us a glimpse of unalienated social activity?"maintain purity in the political sphere" I don't mean to be rude but that's just embarrassing to come from a party member. That wording is just echoing the worst sort of caricature that has been flung against us by our political enemies for over a century. If it was meant to be provocative I'm certainly provoked. And the first part I've bolded is just empty phrasemongering.
