[robbo203]

Size matters apparently  http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/12/why-human-society-isn-t-more-or-less-violent-past?utm_campaign=news_daily_2017-12-15&et_rid=17774313&et_cid=1735251

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

 You have to admit, tho Tim,  it is amusing to observe such a fiasco.  Everyone in the organisation takes part in the interview of the prospective candidates!!  Should be sorted by 2025 and that would be really fast for the SPGB.And Robbo's call for 'let's be daring' is priceless. Surely he shouldn't have to make such a plea to the only revolutionaries in the village.As for candidates, are there any?? You would have to be insane. Not just one Hunter breathing down your neck but a hundred

Indeed, Vin.  You would expect an organisation with an incredibly bold objective to be at least a little bold in its behaviour. I really cannot understand how any member can object to the idea of a full time paid officer, given the huge benefits it could potentially deliver.  The project is completely do-able as Tim has pointed out and the Party has more than enough money to fund it.  It’s really just a case of tweaking the terms of employent in such a way as to put to rest any nagging doubts that members might entertain. Of course the remit of the officer needs to be carefully considered beforehand and put down in writing.   I think it is very important that it should include, not just some of the basic administrative work of the Party but serious proactive political work too so the candidate for this post would need to be an effective propagandist as well, with good verbal and writing skills.  In my view, yet another very important aspect of the job should be to initiate ways and means of encouraging the currently inactive membership of the Party to become more active and I have already put forward a number of proposals as to how this could be done. I think the post should definitely be a temporary contract – partly because I believe this will provide a strong incentive for the person concerned to make a good impression if he or she wants the contract to be renewed at the end of its term and partly because it gives the Party greater flexibility in the event that its financial circumstances change.  However, I take Brian's point about the need for continuity.  Perhaps a compromise figure of a two year contract could be put forward, with the possibility of the contract being renewed after the 2 years is up.  I dont think the salary it attracts should be too generous or too mean, but middling.  I put forward the figure of 25K per year which sounds about right to me but I am quite happy to be guided by others such as members who actually live in London as to what is an appropriate sum.  I definitely dont think that this paid officer should be the Gen Sec and agree with Adam on this point.  Rather I think the Gen Sec should be the liaison person who oversees the work of this officer on behalf of the EC As for the process of appointing this officer, I really don’t see the need for the Party as a whole to “elect” such a person.  That’s just ludicrous, impractical and democratic tokenism.  How on earth is a member like myself living in Spain to assess the relative merits of one candidate for the post vis-a-vis another when I might never have even met either in person and know absolutely nothing about them. Seriously, the only really practical way as I see it is for the EC to set aside one day for interviewing candidates at HO itself and that these candidates be interviewed in depth by the whole EC.   I’m would be quite happy to trust the judgement of the EC as to who is the most suitable candidate. I doubt there will be a flood of candidates for the post especially if the salary it attracts is only an average one but it would be nice to think it is not primarily for the salary that members would apply (and it goes without saying the post should only be open to members thenselves).  If the vacancy for the post attracted say half a dozen applicants then, speaking personally, I would be quite pleased with such a result.

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Thanks, Robbo, for what happened to "Common Voice". This part struck me as particularly significant

robbo203 wrote:

…WiC was almost entirely an internet-based phenomenon, meaning that there was a very limited and narrow range of interactions between members.

I see this as a warning that we should not follow the view that has been expressed here that we too should become "an internet-based phenomenon" without physical meetings between members. That would be the way to prove the Private Frasers right.

 Yes I agree with your conclusion and it was precisely for this reason that I oppose the idea of turning the Socialist Standard into a purely e-journal.  That would be a retrograde step and involve a significant narrowing of the range  of interactions and activities among the membership.  All the evidence seems to suggest we need to move in the opposite direction in order to entice into activity the currently inactive majority  of members whose circumstances, combined with the restricted range of party-based activities available to them, effectively excludes them from contributing to the growth of  the Party. The  key to any successful reorganisation of the Party has to involve developing ways  of reaching out to and involving this excluded and inactive majority, in my view..  That should be the Party's primary focus.  Expanding our presence on the internet is important but so too is expanding our presence in the more mundane world, so to speak .  This is not an either-or thing

[robbo203]

 

Brian wrote:

 Obviously, because your brain is focused on not paying the rate for the job you have forgotten the lessons learned here:  http://struggle.ws/pdfs/tyranny.pdfAnd we are talking about a job that will carry a lot more responsibility and working in London and not the backend of Spain!

  Not quite sure what the “tyranny of structurelessness” has to do with the rate for the job, Brian.  I only suggested a figure somewhere in between the two figures you provided for Office Manager ( £31,789 p.a) and office administrator (£20,748 p.a).   Of course I understand the job will entail considerable responsibility but if what you are saying means that it should therefore attract a higher rate of pay than the £25K I suggested, then fine.  So be it.  What rate of pay do you suggest in that case? I’m just a country boy from, as you say, the “backend of Spain” and 25K to me will be a small fortune.  I’m quite happy to leave the question of the appropriate rate of pay for working in London to those who have the misfortune of living in London; it’s the principle of having a full time paid worker at HO I’m more concerned with. 

[robbo203]

Brian wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Brian wrote:

HollyHead wrote:

 [Remember these rates are ten years old! and also lets bear in mind London cost of living rates]

The present average payment in London (2017) for a full-time Office Manager is £31,789 p.a. and for an office administrator its £20,748 p.a.

  If a self employed full time worker is out of the question for legal reason then why not  just settle for a full time paid employee on a temporary contract renewable annually on a salary of, say, 25K –  a reasonable compromise figure.in relation to the above figures? The  Party can easily afford this at the present time and, if its financial situation were to deteriorate markedly in the future, it is not obliged to renew the contract. Lets be bold and try this as an experiment.  Having someone working full time at HO 5 days a week  with an expanded remit to undertake political work and well as adminstrative duties could very well make a huge difference  and lift the whole mood of the Parrty. I'm tired of this negativism already  and I have only rejoined in the last month or so!  What have we got to lose apart from our ingrained depression?  If the SWP can employ multiple full time staff, why can't the SPGB employ at least one full time office worker? Actually , offering a temporary contract to the person concerned would, if anything, incentivise that person to make a big impact  in order to secure the contract for the following year.

Obviously, because your brain is focused on not paying the rate for the job you have forgotten the lessons learned here:  http://struggle.ws/pdfs/tyranny.pdfAnd we are talking about a job that will carry a lot more responsibility and working in London and not the backend of Spain!

[robbo203]

Brian wrote:

HollyHead wrote:

 [Remember these rates are ten years old! and also lets bear in mind London cost of living rates]

The present average payment in London (2017) for a full-time Office Manager is £31,789 p.a. and for an office administrator its £20,748 p.a.

  If a self employed full time worker is out of the question for legal reason then why not  just settle for a full time paid employee on a temporary contract renewable annually on a salary of, say, 25K –  a reasonable compromise figure.in relation to the above figures? The  Party can easily afford this at the present time and, if its financial situation were to deteriorate markedly in the future, it is not obliged to renew the contract. Lets be bold and try this as an experiment.  Having someone working full time at HO 5 days a week  with an expanded remit to undertake political work and well as adminstrative duties could very well make a huge difference  and lift the whole mood of the Parrty. I'm tired of this negativism already  and I have only rejoined in the last month or so!  What have we got to lose apart from our ingrained depression?  If the SWP can employ multiple full time staff, why can't the SPGB employ at least one full time office worker? Actually , offering a temporary contract to the person concerned would, if anything, incentivise that person to make a big impact  in order to secure the contract for the following year.

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Incidentally, I have  never quite understood why the old "World Socialist" journal was discontinued.  Can anyone enlighten me?

Seven issues were produced between 1984 and 1987. It stopped, basically, because not even active members were buying it let alone non-members. Also, we were having difficulties getting good quality articles from the Companion parties. I can't remember exactly but I don't think more than a few hundred per issue were printed. There's good stuff in them and there are still copies of some of the issues left at Head Office if anyone wants one. Just ask..

 Thats quite depressing to hear.  Was a  post mortem ever carried out to  discover why the WS was not selling well?

ALB wrote:

 But, can I put a similar question to you, why did the publication "Common Voice" stop being produced. For similar reasons?

 Fair point.  I think the thing about Common Voice is that its fate, by comparison with the World Socialist, was much more directly bound up with the fate of the World in Common Group which is now sadly, more or less moribund.   You can't really compare the SPGB and WiC anyway.  Firstly, this was because WiC was a very much smaller organisation consisting of, at most, 2 dozen members, (if I remember correctly), whereas the SPGB is an organisation of several hundred members.   The fate of WiC confirms something I’ve come to believe – that it is extraordinarily difficult to get a completely new organisation off the ground from scratch.  The smaller the organisation the more vulnerable it is to decline.  You need a certain critical mass of membership to obtain (or maintain) credibility.  WiC didn’t have that but the SPGB has or, should I say, just about has.  It is this fact coupled with the recent decline in the membership of the SPGB which I found very disturbing indeed that prompted me to re-join.  As a socialist it was the logical thing for me to do despite having grown quite accustomed to being a freelancer, so to speak. A growing awareness of the plight of the SPGB forced this decision on me an I could no lobger resist the call to rejoin  Secondly, WiC was almost entirely an internet-based phenomenon, meaning that there was a very limited and narrow range of interactions between members.  After an initial burst of enthusiasm, the momentum simply could not be sustained and a vicious circle of demoralisation and decline set in. This is precisely why I have been banging on so much about the need for the SPGB to diversify, decentralise and deepen the pattern of interactions amongst members.   I know from bitter first-hand experience what happens when you dont.  The workload increasingly falls on a shrinking hard-core of activists who, one by one, succumb to burn-out and then drop out.   The Party urgently need to radically overhaul the way it goes about doing things.  We need to rid ourselves of this lingering negative attitude towards any fresh proposal because it is perceived to be “unrealistic” and because it fails to taken out how few are the members who would be committed and willing enough to put these proposals into effect.   If you keep harping on about how few are the number of committed activists in the Party without offering any solution as to how increase that number then there can only be one outcome – even more demoralisation and consequently, even fewer committed activists to shoulder the workload. You cannot imagine how depressing it is for me to hear such talk after the initial enthusiasm of re-joining. I am convinced that the Party has the potential to turn things around in quite a dramatic fashion.  I would not have re-joined if I thought otherwise.  But it requires a significant change in the whole culture of the Party – and its organisational structure It precisely because there are far too few members involved in activity that the Party needs to considerably broaden the range of activities it engages in and adapt itself to the circumstances of the currently inactive majority in order to draw them into activity   If it does not do this it will very likely go the way WiC went even if the process will be more drawn out.

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Oh no, not amending Terms of Reference again. When I was on the EC a couple of years ago we discussed amending terms of reference month after month after month. It was one reason why I decided not to stand again and maybe why there's a shortage of EC candidates.Anyway, what's there seems flexible enough. It allows what you want. The Pamphlets Committee has an idea for a pamphlet. All they need do is put it to the EC, no need to wait for Conference. If it's a reasonable proposition it will be okayed. If it's a proposal to print poetry it will be turned down.

 OK, well that sounds more reassuring.  I would hate to think that the PC would have to wait for intructions as to what to produce.  Dar better to use its own initative.  We need a two way dialogue not a one way chain of command

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Janet, here it is;

Quote:

Publications Committee1. To edit and produce pamphlets and leaflets on subjects decided by Conference or approved by the EC. 2. To report to the EC annually in January on the results of work done and money spent in the previous calendar year. This is intended to be part of the EC report to Annual Conference. 3. To report to the EC annually in July on future plans and financial requirements for the coming calendar year. This is intended to be part of the EC report to the Annual Delegate Meeting. 4. To be composed of at least 2 members appointed annually by the EC from nominations branches.

Not much. Do you want to be nominated for next year's committee?

 Adam, would it not be advisable to amend these terms somewhat? For instance re 1)  might it not be possible to change the procedure to allow the Publications Committee to play a more proactive initiating role in deciding on the production pamphlets and leaflets – more analogus to the way in which, say, the SSPC decides on the content of each month's Socialist Standard.  Rather than a one way flow of command downwards instructing the PC to produce what conference has decided why not open up something more like a feedback system, enabling the PC to propose projects whilst still retaining the safeguard of EC approval being required My concern is that the current procedure seems to be excessively cumbersome and over centralised in that you have to wait for conference to decide on what gets to be produced when conference meets only once a year.  This is yet one more example of why the Party needs to move  over to a significantly more decentralised mode of organising activity  – to speed up decisionmaking and  to encourage  a wider spread of members to engage in activity other than the relative handful of activists who currently shoulder a disproportionate burden of the Party's work putting them at risk of burnout

[robbo203]

Prakash RP wrote:

Dear ALB, I'd like to revise my comment made in a hurry yesterday.  I don't think most people are silly. I think most people are ignorant and have the silly belief that economic INEQUALITY is justified because humans are NOT  equal in terms of their calibre and capability and add what follows to it. I've taken note of your point that you yourself ' and most other people, agree with [ what you view as " a commonplace observation " ] . ' So, as you agree with this ' commonplace observation ' of mine, I think I can expect you to join hands with me to be the 2nd member of my team and join in the MISSION aimed at awakening humanity, the poor and penniless millions, who sweat blood to produce all wealth and luxuries, and who make up 99% of humanity, by the Oxfam's wealth data, to the THESIS at issue and its SIGNIFICANCE , the immediate corollary to it, namely, the fact that economic INEQUALITY does NOT owe its origin to QUALITATIVE distinctions between humans, between a Nobelist and a receptionist or between the work done by an engineer and that by a porter, and the fact that humanity must get rid of, if humanity wants to be civilised through and through, the EVIL that is economic INEQUALITY , the origin of what I view as the GREATEST and gravest social INJUSTICE , i.e. the most DISGUSTING and agonising fact that the 99% , the poor and penniless millions, were all BORN poor and penniless, and so they're NOT to blame for their poverty and privation. Are we agreed, ALB ?

I think it is a bit of an unhelpful caricature to characterise the 99% as "poor and penniless".  At least some of that 99% are not  at all "poor and penniless"  in the absolutist sense you seem to imply.  There is, instead, a gradation of poverty,   You can have plenty of pennies tied in a property you might own or earn quite a substantial sum of the same as many  workers do  in the course of being employed – particularly in the West but increasingly in the Global South  – and yet still be "poor" in a relative sense ( in the Marxian sense of the term) I appreciate that this might just be a case of  poetic licence but there is a danger in the excesive use of poetic  licence in that your analysis can come to be interpteted as quite disconnected from the actual world we inhabit and the force of any argument you want to present will be considerably weakened as a result Also, though I agree that the workers are not responsible for the poverty and privation they experience, their continuing support for capitalism ensures  the perpetuation of a social system that makes for that poverty and privation in the first place

[robbo203]

HollyHead wrote:

ALB wrote:

It would have to be self-financing (as it wouldn't be) and not take resources away from the Socialist Standard (which it would). And it would require a Conference resolution (unlikely to get through) .So it's a non-starter.  It's not a priority.and would only be a vanity publishing. Another of the thousand blooms flourishing here that will wither in the face of reality.

 I agree. This is another example of the tendency among Party members to duck shove — "Look here's a good idea …" [ for someone else to implement]  […usually the EC,]To run  projects of the sort argued for here the Party would need an active membership of  2.000+ not the couple of hundred we have at present.

 I am not too sure this is the case – there are groups smaller than the SPGB that manage to put out a theoretical journal without much apparent difficulty  -but even  if it were the case why not just adjust the parameters to make the project more feasible  – for example instead of a quarterly journal make it a half yearly or even annual journal?  The question is do we want or need a journal that treats its subject matter in somewhat different way to the Socialist Standard?  I think we do for all the reasons I gave in another thread.   Im battle hardened when it comes to internet debates having  spent  literally years  on numerous forums putting across the socialist case  and referring people to articles in the Socialist Standard . I can tell you, if you dont already know, that it is surprising how often the criticism crops up that the article in question treats the subject in too superficial or simplistic manner.  Yes, Iagree the criticism is unfair inasmuch as it is not reasonable to expect a subject to be adequately covered in a short article.  But the point is that such criticism is less likely to arise in the case of a theoretical journal which takes a quite different approach to the subject matter,    Also, why would such a journal need to be fully self financing as opposed to, say,  partially self financing?  How much Party activity is actually fully self financing? Is it not possible to subsideise it to some extent out of the ample funds that the Party possesses, assuming it needs subsidising? I fully  understand the criticism that is often made aking the lines that "some members come up with good ideas but expect others to implement them" – notably the EC.  Its a fair comment but I think it rather ironically reflects what to me is part of the problem with the Party – that it is too centralised in the way it is organised and that the  party "culture" has adapted to reflect the organisation. Hence the very expectation amongst members you allude to  that any good idea should be organised and implemented centrally and by the EC in particular. .  But it is precisely because Party activity is too centrally  organised that you then have this perception among many members, particularly isolated members that there is little or nothing they can do by way of contributing to Party activity.  So  they feel effectively excluded and disenfranchised.  This in turn results in a large chunk of the membership becoming inactive.  Its a vicious  circle that needs to be broken I want to suggest  that there is another way of doing things were activity is not so much initiated or implemented "by the centre" (e.g. the EC or HO) but, rather, enabled or faciliated by the centre.  Members should be more encouraged to show intiative and to implement ideas themselves and feel less constrained by procedures and regulations. That means  encouraging a wider range  of both activities and approaches to promoting the socialist case to enable the currently inactive membership to become more active.  So I am all for letting a thousand flowers bloom for that reason  I  appreciate this is a general point about party organisation  Im making which might not be particularly relevant to the idea of  a theoretical joural but then again maybe it might!

[robbo203]

jondwhite wrote:

Robbo would you be willing to write for such a journal?

 Yes indeed JW – as I'm sure  would many other comrades both in the UK and abroad. Apart from anything else, it would be good to have  a genuinely international theoretical  journal which I'm sure will be of great benefit to all the companion parties too.   There seems to be precious little interaction between them apart from the exchange of EC minutes.   I see this as one element in a much broader and desparately needed overhaul of the whole movement,  It must surely be obvious to everyone by now that things cannot go on as they have and real change is required if we are going to stop the rot and at long last start growing again.  Doing things in the same old way we have always done them is, quite simply, no longer tenable. Incidentally, I have  never quite understood why the old "World Socialist" journal was discontinued.  Can anyone enlighten me?

[robbo203]

jondwhite wrote:

I have published a few pamphlets years ago herehttp://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/did-trotsky-point-the-way-to-socialism/18314079http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/how-can-a-real-revolution-be-achieved/18314003http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/is-britain-worth-dying-for/18137199http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/the-critics-criticised—professor-popper-looks-at-history/13968432http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/the-origin-and-meaning-of-the-political-theory-of-impossibilism/13952613http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/articles-for-new-members—book-1/18307495http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/articles-for-new-members—book-2/18307523http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/articles-for-new-members—book-3/18307564http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/the-socialist-party-of-great-britain-new-members-handbook/17283282

 While this is excellent and I applaud your effort,  it still doesnt go far enough.  These are essentially reprints of articles published in the SS or reports of debates, are they not?  My point is that we need material of a more intermediate nature – more detailed and meaty than is possible  in an SS article but perhaps not as long as a traditional SPGB  pamphlet.  To be honest, I have,  over many years referred people I have engaged in discussions  wth over the internet to tons of  articles published in the SS and a quite common response has  been to dismissively say the article in question is too "simplistic" or "dogmatic"  in its analysis.   My response has been to tell them that they can't expect to have everything said on the subject within the confines of a short article but this doesnt seem to convince the people I enter into discussion with. What I am trying to say is that the Party needs material of a more substantial, meaty and theoretical nature.  I have been saying this for many years.  The SPGB –  or the WSM – needs , quite apart from more pamhlets,  a theoretical journal where  the subject matter can be treated in greater depth.  While the topical and abbreviated approach to the subject matter exemplifed by the Socialist Standard is necessary, it needs to be supplemented (or complemented) by another approach. I can only report as I find: many people ARE being put off by what they perceive to be a "lightweight" treatment of the subject matter.  The criticism is unfair , I know, but all the same it is a  fact, at least in my experience, that people come away unconvincd because of this. Its such a pity… Thiis why I am saying we need more material in the intermediate range by which I  mean not as lengthy as traditional pamphlets but at the same time not as generalised in its focus as traditional pamplets either.    To explain what I mean with a specific example. The SPGB has a general pamphlet on the socialist attitude towards war.   Of course that is necessary  but the kind of pamphlet in the intermediate range would be shorter  and  focus for example on a specific war – for example, the conflict  in Syria.    This would not only give it a greater degree of topicality than is the case with the traditional party pamphlet on war but, equally importantly, would allow the subject of the conflict in Syria to be treated in much more systematic and thorough manner than is possible in the Socialist  Standard.   You could really go to town on this and bring the subject alive with a detailed historical background and analysis of the forces and actors involved in the field of the Syrian conflict.  This is the sort of approach that is more convincing to many people in my opinion.   There are dozens of topics that could be subject to this same kind of treatment.   Ive  given just one example  – a  cryptocurrency like Bitcoin which is very much in the news lately.  Wouldnt it be fantastic if the SPGB  could come up with a short but detailed pamphlet/critique of Bitcoin in the next 2 months or so?  Not just a reprint of articles from the SS which for space reasons have to treat the subject in a fairly superfical manner.   It does not matter how many articles you reprint they  still all suffer from the same problem of "unavoidable superficallity" – that plus the fact that there will tend to be a degree of repetition which can be avoided in a single coherently researched but significantly lengthier work The SPGB or the publications committee needs  to put in place in procedure whereby it can rapidly respond to developments in capitalism by commissioning panphlets of an intermeidate length and sufficently focussed to permit a detaled and convincing anlaysis of these developments.  The whole overly cumbersome and bureaucratic of referring everything to the EC should be short-circuited and  scarpped. – its quite unecessary    Let them get on with job in a much more proactive way for instance by rapidly comissioning writers on their own intitative  to write up stuff  and I am convinced we will begin to see results

[robbo203]

Mike Foster wrote:

Regarding a theoretical journal, there are copies of unofficial ones available through the site shop. The last three Summer School publications on 'New Perspectives On Socialism' (if there are copies left), 'Money Talks' and 'The Environment' contain a mix of articles giving individual views, including from sympathisers. Next year's one is in the (very) early stages of being compiled.Shorter pamphlets are a good idea, and there's nothing to stop people approaching the Publications Committee already. But a co-ordinated approach from the committee would be best.

  Hi Mike,Regarding shorter pamphlets, that sounds promising,   On this thread there have  been a number of proposals for new  pamphlets,  Would it be possible for the Publications Commiteee to take up these proposals and/or initiate some kind  of brainstorming process to come up with other suitable topics? Also,  what is the mechanism by which you put the ideas into practice?  I am unfamilar with the procedure having been out of the Party for quite a long time,  Do you proactively  commision writers to submit something  or do you need to be "instructed" on the matter?  Personally, I would hope the former would be the case as I firmly believe the Party needs be a lot more flexible and decentralised in the way it goes about doing things – within limits, of course!

[robbo203]

jondwhite wrote:

An Illustrated guide / graphic novel to William MorrisCorbynThe Labour PartyThe Conservative partyWhich are the small organisations that churn out short pamphlets every year?

 The free market  "Libertarian Alliance" is one example I had in mind.   Check out their publications list here: http://www.libertarian.co.uk/?q=publications  They seem to have hundreds of publications on their list! Surely it is not beyond the capacity of the Party to commission at least half a dozen pamphlets per year on various subjects?  I'm thinking  of something perhaps only a few pages long  and dealing with a given  topic in a much more detailed and thorough manner than an article in a Socialist Standard can, but perhaps not as long as most current pamphlets in stock. The SPGB needs to be producing material in this intermediate range and on a regular basis,  The pamphlets should be quite meaty and more narrowly  focussed or specific than its current pamphlets.   Individual writers  with expertise in particular areas could be commissioned to do the basic research and write up.  I would even  favour approaching socialist sympathisers outside  the Party (like that anthropologist who I believe has given talks at party meetings) possessing the relevant expertise  but I know that would probably be too controversial at the present time.  The whole process could be under the control of a pamphlets production committee.   There is no need to refer material to the EC any more than the content of the Socialist Standard needs to be referred to the EC prior to publication.  The Party needs a much more flexible approach to the production of its material as part of its proposed re-organisation. The point is that this proposal plugs a gap  in the existing range of literature (another gap is the absence of a theoretical world socialist journal).  I am sure I am not the only one who has been frustrated by the apparent  absence of  relevant materal to point people to in drawing their attention to the SPGB's  thoughts on some particular subject

[Author]

Posts