[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

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Any suggestions for the topics of future pamphlets.I'd like to see one on banking/money creationI'd like to see one on UBI/Citizen wageI'd like to see one on nationalism 

 Absolutely Alan! And one also one on cryptocurrency as well The SPGB should be churning out at least half a dozen short snappy pamphlets on a specialist theme every year.  One or two other organisations I can think  of , smaller than the SPGB, manage to do this.  Why not the SPGB as well?  There is a definite market for this sort of thing and it is always useful to be able to refer people to something that it is a little  more substantial and weighty than a socialist standard artilce on some subject

[robbo203]

Its true what Brian says about QUORA.  Every member on this (SPGB) forum ought to join.  The number of views they  can potentially get is phenomenal.  For instance,  I havent been particularly active on quora the last few months and I dont think Ive written anything in the last one or two months as I am kind of bogged down with various other things    Yet stilll  Im getting views and upvotes.   Ive just checked my own stats for the last 30 days out of curiosity and found  I got 2.53K views and 18 upvotes during this period. I will of course eventually get back into submitting answers to questions raised in  Quora and the views and upvotes will start to climb up again as a matter of course.  I would seriously urge others to do the same.  It is a fantastic resource for spreading socialist ideas

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

Another 6 'likes' since last week. A 'like' indicates that someone has watched the video. Thats six more workers with knowledge of the SPGBs case and existence. The campaign should be stepped up without any more delay.edit. Are the members who have not 'liked' the video 'inactive' members A bit of pruning perhaps 

 I would encourage people to post this video on any forums they participate in.  Irs a good way of spreading the word

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

I would not go along with this idea of some kind of mass cull, or weeding out, of non active members  at all, Alan. I think its a terrible idea to be perfectly honest. I think it would be utterly devastating in its pschological impact on the Party.  The loss of morale would be incalculable  and it would set in motion a vicious circle of decline.  (….)The fact that many members are not active does not mean they are not socialists and fully entitled to remain members,  The focus is completely wrong here. All organisations display a spectrum of membership participation – from the hyperactive to the inactive. Its just a fact of life and we shouldnt expect the SPGB to be any different. What we should be looking for instead is ways to increase the particapitation rate.  Instead of looking to prune away the "dead" leaves or, more literally , the dead branches, we should be looking to see how we could encourage the green shoots of growth among the currently inactive part of the membership.

Precisely. Couldn't have put it better myself or so politely.I'm afraid, Alan, you are becoming a caricature of yourself. The good news is that, although you are a moaning minnie, you are not a cassandra.

 To be fair, though, Alan was not  really making this suggestion.  What he actually said was  "I'm not happy with that suggestion and will be pleased if it can be rebuffed with a more optimistic suggestion" My criticism was directed at the suggestion, not Alan's  point of view, and to continue in the metaphorical vein,  it is a suggestion that needs to be "nipped in the bud"

[robbo203]

Is bitcoin a bubble phenomenon or is it a structural transformation  of capitalist finance? My money is on the former.  https://www.thestreet.com/story/14420899/1/bitcoin-could-make-banks-extinct-israel-pm-netanyahu-says.html Perhaps there needs to be a special issue of the Socialist Standard specifcally devoted to cryptocurrency and currency crankism

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 I'll leave others to do the maths but it now seems like most of the Party doesn't give a toss for the Party's survival, certainly not enough concern to put aside 10 minutes to answer this survey, so we can't expect any physical assistance or internet contributions from them, can we, no matter how member-friendly we make the organisational structure.This places everything into perspective.As a political party, our effective functional membership is less than a hundred. And it is on that figure we must now base all our decisions and proposals, and no longer a fictitious card-carrying number.Perhaps, as Gnome suggests for his own branch, a paring of the dead leaves is necessary, a weeding out, so to permit healthy growth of the Party. 

 I would not go along with this idea of some kind of mass cull, or weeding out, of non active members  at all, Alan. I think its a terrible idea to be perfectly honest. I think it would be utterly devastating in its pschological impact on the Party.  The loss of morale would be incalculable  and it would set in motion a vicious circle of decline.  Organic metaphors comparing the Party, or any other form of organisation for that matter, to a plant of tree are seriously misleading and, in any case,  as someone who does tree surgey as part of my work I can tell you that over-pruning some kinds of trees can very easily  kill them. The fact that many members are not active does not mean they are not socialists and fully entitled to remain members,  The focus is completely wrong here. All organisations display a spectrum of membership participation – from the hyperactive to the inactive. Its just a fact of life and we shouldnt expect the SPGB to be any different. What we should be looking for instead is ways to increase the particapitation rate.  Instead of looking to prune away the "dead" leaves or, more literally , the dead branches, we should be looking to see how we could encourage the green shoots of growth among the currently inactive part of the membership. Again and again I keep coming back to this point.  Any serious re-organisation of the Party has to take into account the kinds of activities that Party currently engages in.  My basic argument is that it is the very limited and restricted range of acitivities that the Party engages in that is primarily responsible  for generating this organisational dichotomy of a relative inactive majority and hyper active minority.  The lack of involvement by large numbers of members arises from the fact that they simply dont see any way at present in which they could meaningfully contribute to the Party's growth.  There is little or no opportunity for them to do anything really useful.   The restricted range of activities on offer effectively excludes them from participation and reduces them to the status of passive consumers. From where I am standing, there seems to be little if any attempt by the Party to reach out to such members to actually engage them.  What attempts there are seem to consist in occasional calls for volunteers to fill the various posts pertaining to the running the central apparatus of the Party.  For a great many members, given the geographical spread of the Party this is totally impractical and it only serves to reinforce a sense of isolation I am saying that what we should be doing is adapting the nature of activity to suits the circumstances of the members  themselves – NOT expect the members to adapt to the organisation and the way it has been doing things for the past 113 years or so.   We need to expand the range of activities that the Party currently engages so as to give people  much more in the way of opportunities to participate meaningfully in what the Party is doing in ways that suit them and fire their enthusiasm.   You join the Party and apart from the welcoming pack you receive along with your membership card –  I still havent received mine yet since rejoining though no doubt it is in the post  – but thats it as far as the Party is concerned.  You are on your own and its more or less entirely up to you what you do next.  So the rot sets in right at the very beginning.   There is little or no serious attempt to reach out and engage members on their own terms not only at the beginning but on an ongoing basis.  Even something simple like a monthly Party newsletter would help here and if we do get  fulltime paid staff at HO this could be one or his/her designated tasks The Party needs to significantly expand the range of activities it engages in so as to give members (and sypamthisers) much more in the way of opportunities to participate and it needs to be much more proactive in reaching out to these members.  That involves a more decentralised and networked approach to activity (albeit it backed up by more effective centrl support).  I have given a number of examples of what this could entail. – see my earlier post 131 – but  I am sure others here can come up similar examples of  innovative ways of involving the membership more fully. Unless we broaden and deepen the pattern of interactions that go on within the organisation there will be little to bind members together in a sense of common purpose..  The majority will continue to remain inactive and isolated not knowing how they can  usefully contribute to the growth of the Party quite simply becuase there are few if any practical  opportuniies available to them to make such a contribution

[robbo203]

gnome wrote:

Bijou Drains wrote:

Dave I understand your principled stance on this issue. I have a degree of dissonance about the idea as well. However we in effect pay staff when we hire in someone to fix the boiler, or repair the roof, or any other service we use.

Let me see now.  Over the past seven years we've paid non-members to install a new shopfront and a central heating gas boiler.  Other than that we pay for regular 'servicing' of the photocopiers, fire extinguishers and alarms.  Everything else, be it administrative or maintenance to the property, is undertaken by party members, all for free, zero, zip, zilch.

Quote:

I don't necessarily see this proposal as one which needs to involve "paying comrades to do party work". I think we should get in skilled and qualified paid administration worker to carry out the admin work for the party. I think people underestimate the skills and values of a good admin worker, if we were to hire non party staff to carry out admin duties, this would release volunteer Socialists from the mundane business tasks and allow them to use their activities more fruitfully in putting out the party case. Not only that, we would have those tasks done by a skilled worker who can do these tasks effectively and efficiently

I'm struggling to think of which administrative duties, other than possibly the paying of wages (and I have my doubts about that), the party could safely and securely entrust to non-members.  Would they be let loose on the SS subscription or membership databases, perhaps free to talk to enquirers about socialism, be they callers to the premises or on the phone?  Could they become the General Secretary, Party Treasurer or Central Organiser, maybe serve on the Executive Committee or sub-committees?  Frankly the whole idea is too barmy to contemplate.

 I agree with Dave that admin work for the party should be carried out by party members only.  Its quite different when you get an outsider to fix a boiler  or whatever.  But with admin work we are talking about someone having access to sensitive data which i would feel slightly uncomfortable about, personally speaking.  However, that is not an argument against having one or two paid full time staff – providing they are members!,  Im convinced the case for now having paid staff is very strong and I also believe that it would lead to a significant increase in the extent of voluntary activity within the party.  Its a win-win situation

[robbo203]

gnome wrote:

Bijou Drains wrote:

We can hardly write about the evils of the gig economy and then rely on it ourselves.

But it's OK to rely on "proper employment", eh?  For the party to go down the road of paying comrades to do party work would not only be a retrograde step ideologically but fraught with all manner of difficulties. We can't even, it seems, make elementary returns to the Electoral Commission without landing ourselves in trouble and possible sanctions but here we are contemplating involvement in the paying of wages, national insurance, sickness benefit etc., and all that that necessarily entails.

 Would this be a problem though,  Dave? I dont know what the set up is in the UK but here in Spain you can employ the services of a "gestor" to sort out all these things very easily and for a very modest fee I dont  see the Party going down the road of paying one or two comrades to do Party work at Head Office as a "retrograde" step at all.  To the contrary, I think it will be key to the transformation of the Party's fortunes  and, parodoxically,  could lead to a very significant expansion  of voluntary effort throughout the Party as a whole.  Its not just that having HO open for business 5 days a week full time has multiple  benefits at  both a practical and symbolic level in terms of boosting morale and confidence. If the Party is finally, and at long last, going to start having full time paid  it is vitally important that their remit should be expanded to include  proactively supporting or enabling  a much greater range of party acitivities than the Party currently does.  I cannot stress this point enough.  Its not just the decision-making structures of the Party that need to be modernised and overhauled  We have to look at what the Party actually does in the way of activity itself. As I have argued earlier it is the limited  range of this activity that is part of the reason why  you have this dichotomy between a relatively inactive majority who, because of their personal circumstances, feel excuded and unable to meaningfully contribute  and  a small minority who disrprorportionately shoulder the burden of Party work and are at risk of burnout.  We need to both deepen and broaden the interactions between members and also, though this is a separate matter,  find ways of more fully engaging sympathisers outside of the Party who after all are prospective future members Diversifying and expanding the range of party activity to encourage more people to contribute,  employing one or two full time staff to underpin this and take off some of the administrative burden currently placed on a hard pressed minority and fundamentally reorgainsing the decisionmaking structures of  the Party to create a much more collaborative networked organisation are, to my mind, the three central props of a radically transformed SPGB which will,  in my opinion, then be in much stronger position to finally arrest this serious decline to which it has sucumbed and for the first time in a long long while, enjoy some significant and sustained growth, Nothing less will do.

[Author]

Posts