Oh so very different. Small Party of Good Boys, innit.
SPGB
- Thread starter Proper Tidy
- Start date
Oh so very different. Small Party of Good Boys, innit.
Proper Tidy
Arsed
Yeah sorry I mean Bakunin.
Socialists of the Leninist traditions certainly do believe that, although I would contest it is cynical. Scientific socialism isn't merely a throwaway term to distinguish us from the utopians; it is taking into account a material analysis of past events and the contemporary situation. We don't believe workers are too 'thick' - this sort of thinking places us as middle-class or bourgeois dictating to the proles, whereas I can assure you in my tradition certainly it is overwhelmingly working-class, from top to bottom. However, in terms of building mass support for socialism throughout society, the demands for abolition of capitalism can appear abstract unless directly linked to transitional demands that link socialism to the current material conditions in society. Our view is that by participation in struggle, the abstraction of demands for socialism will wither away and workers on a mass scale throughout society will themselves reach the same conclusions that the abolition of capitalism in all its forms is needed. It is key, when discussing this, to highlight that we do not shy away from talking of socialism or the abolition of capitalism; but we do attempt to make struggle for socialism relevant to present material conditions.
It is a characterisation - and an incorrect one - to portray Leninist traditions, or at least Leninism applied correctly, as patronising towards the working class as a mass body. I would contest that we see class consciousness as a process; neither do Leninist movements - or again Leninism applied correctly - perceive their roles as being to lead workers to socialism, but to lead workers into the struggle for socialism, from which point the working class as a class will have reached the same conclusions. It may seem a spurious distinction but it isn't, it is key to understanding our position.
We call for a new workers' party because it is a relevant material demand that is translatable to the working class as a whole; and because it develops the process, whereas a demand for socialism and nothing but is, imo, too abstract a demand to attract mass support until we have the material conditions, for which we would need a mass workers' party. I would also dispute that this is a Labour Party mark II - the LP was never a genuine workers party; it was at base a workers party but with a bourgeois leadership. We do not want to replicate this.
I hope this also answers Shevek's question with regard to emotionalism, which is something we reject entirely. The tools for the abolition of capitalism lie in capitalism itself; it is the creator if its own destruction.
This seems to contradict the works of all those in your tradition who discuss this topic.
Kautsky:
Lenin quotes this passage, and claims it is "profoundly true". This doesn't suggest the workers reach their own conclusions. In fact, Kautsky's views actually criticise this notion.
Proper Tidy
Arsed
I like Chomsky - am actually reading one of his at the moment, the essential Chomsky which is interesting because it has a lot of his linguistics stuff in, which I'd never read before. I don't dispute its radicalism; however I would contend that Chomsky does not offer any tangible analysis of how the 'end game' is achievable. My concern with anarchism is that it is all too easily co-opted or thwarted by capitalism. In short, HOW to dismantle them. And you should read up on the 19c anarchists, they are key to your tradition - both in terms of understanding the overall position and its flaws. Anarchism and earlier utopian socialism are inextricably linked, and modern anarchism imo inherited many of the flaws of utopianism. But I'm not unsympathetic btw, I lent towards so-called libertarian communism myself in my teenage years. I suppose my eureka moment then wasn't so much analytical or based in the writings of intellectuals - I hadn't read so much back then - but in the realisation that the tradition of libertarian communism hadn't achieved much and I felt it was unlikely to. This led me on a journey towards, eventually, Trotskyism.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
...and you came out in Bolivia 1952.
Proper Tidy
Arsed
Yes. Kautsky was rather blunt wasn't he? I would personally reject that, as many Leninists would. It is ultimately about applying Marxism rather than falling into dogma. I don't take the black and white view that the authoritarianism of Stalinism was completely in-evident prior to Stalin, although I do believe that Stalin deformed Leninism. I do accept that their was an authoritarian tendency, which you've hit upon, prior to Stalinism, albeit, particularly with the continuation of Trotskyism, would not necessarily have led to the same point. In short, Lenin wasn't infallible, as nobody is. Marx would not have shared the view of Kautsky imo, and Lenin's belief in it was more of a reflex to the Russian situation rather than based upon an international context. We live in a more developed capitalist society which would make it a moot point. I suppose in short I'm saying it is a contradiction, which possibly explains some of the wide variations in how Leninism is perceived and applied by Leninists of various traditions.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
... and also says it's outdated 
Proper Tidy
Arsed
... and also says it's outdated
I didn't say that. I said the Leninist far left wasn't particularly relevant to the average person, which it isn't. I didn't mean the ideas, I meant yer actual far left parties, which I would say is a given. The point I was making is that the SPGB is itself largely irrelevant to the small minority of us convinced of socialism, who are in turn largely irrelevant to the working class.
And mk12, I'm a Trostkyist, which is a form of Leninism, but which has differences with a more classical interpretation of Leninism, albeit Trotskyists see themselves as a continuation of Leninism. This is one of those differences.
Perhaps I'm not explaining it very well. We would argue that Russia in 1917 was very different to, say, the UK today, in which working class people are generally more highly educated, and in which capitalism is more highly developed, and that you need to apply Marxism rather than forcing dogma on to the current situation.
Gravediggers
New Member
The objective economic conditions for socialism already exist in that capitalism has shewn the working class how to produce an abundance in excess of its needs, it fails in that it is unable to distribute that abundance to meet human needs. On the other hand the subjective conditions, which I gather is the point you are trying to make still remains at the stage which Marx described as, "The class in itself". In my estimation the workers have grasped a broad understanding of democracy but have failed in understanding how to use democracy for their own ends and in their own interests. This is precisely the barrier the SPGB are trying to break down.
The struggle for everyday improvements goes on whether we like it or not. In fact that is every politicians game plan. They may well not be improvements that we are in particularly in favour of nonetheless they are improvements so far as the capitalist political economy is concerned.
Your stance on the other hand is that improvements for the working class can be gained but not in the here and know. In fact you stress any improvements are only feasible in a socialist society where supposedly a socialist government will bring them into effect. If this is your idea of socialism I have to disagree indeed it is not even a half-way house for you insist that the wages system will still be in existence in your definition of socialism.
Besides that there is no valid explanation on how you intend to get from A to B. Is it by using the political process or by using the political system, or do you envisage by-passing either through mass demonstrations on their own in order to accomplish your aim? Perhaps you can clarify how exactly you intend to gain political power.
But you are not in truth demonstrating to working class people the benefits of socialism all you are doing is supposedly laying down the conditions for socialism in a socialist society? Surely this is a contradiction? Unless of course you go along with the outdated theory of a higher stage of socialism/communism?
Have you ever considered that once you attain your description of socialism/communism that the situation may well arise with the working class turning around and saying these improvements will do us nicely and refuse to budge an inch? With your long-term strategy in tatters through the use of short-term tactics will your next move be an attempt to impose socialism/communism whether the workers want it or not? That is definitely a prescription for failure.
What the heck are you stating here? You are not surely saying that the Marxian approach/theory should be abandoned due to -according to these 'others' - its irrelevance? Well all I can say on that score is go ahead and do it and we will wait and see how far it gets you. Unless of course SPEW are already in the process of doing it. But the truth is they never accepted the Marxian theory in the first place!
Hole in one.
And here we come to the crux of your argument. Marx wrote and explained his understanding of Political Economy when capitalism was still in its latter stages of development. He could foresee the necessity for speeding this development up so the struggle for socialism was brought that bit nearer. And the reason why he advocated improvements for the workers circumstances was because he had formed the impression such reforms would shorten the full development of capitalism. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think he said, 'the workers are in fact the engine house of capitalism'.
We are now living in the 21st Century and obviously the full development of capitalism has taken place. In fact it reached that stage about a hundred years ago. Admittedly it took a little longer to enact the reforms which Marx advocated but nevertheless the greater majority have been achieved. So in fact you are using an historical analysis which has been taken over by events. But lets keep the record straight for Marx and Engles admitted at a later date they had been proven wrong by events. Indeed, Engles states as such in the 1872 preface of the Communist Manifesto.
Last edited by Gravediggers; 03-05-2010 at 00:32.
Edit/Delete Message
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Proper Tidy
Arsed
Out of interest GD, do you have a link to the preface to the 1872 (I assume you mean 1872 anyway) Communist Manifesto? Can't recall ever reading it, although I must have - its included in modern copies I take it.
Proper Tidy
Arsed
No - butchers also got confused on this so I probably phrased it craply.
What I mean is that the Marxist parties of the far left are not as relevant to the working class as they once were, and have never been as relevant as we would have liked them to be, obviously. This is a constant cause of concern. Now, the SPGB are irrelevant to the far left, if that makes sense - irrelevant to the irrelevant - yet it doesn't seem to bother the SPGB, who just say, effectively, one day the workers will come round.
Proper Tidy
Arsed
No, that is a poor characterisation of where we stand.
The conditions for socialism exist in as much as the economic and material conditions exist - but clearly we do not live in a particularly class-conscious society. It is this that must be addressed, and this is surely also part of the necessary conditions.
You concede yourself that we do not have the necessary class consciousness so I am at a loss to understand your objection to this.
You also still fail to differentiate between a) what you term 'reforms' which are passed down from above, effectively gifted by capitalism, whether to the benefit of the working class in order to strangle socialist movements or to the detriment of the working class as capitalists seek to increase profits etc - like now, where they are determined to make the working class pay for their crisis, and b) 'reforms' which are achieved through struggle from below, in which workers struggle for improvements, and in which workers gain a greater sense of class consciousness and the belief that capitalism must be abolished. If you continue to ignore the difference between a and b then we will never get further in this debate!
We do not stress improvements are only possible at some distant point in the future - in fact, that appears to me to be SPGB's position. We argue that improvements are possible here and now; and that if these improvements are achieved through struggle from below that they will lead to greater consciousness; and that our role is to participate in these struggles for immediate gains and to put forward our position that improvements alone are not enough; workers will still be degraded by capitalism; and eventually any improvements will be driven back by the very nature of capitalism; and that what is needed is socialism. Where we differ is in how best to achieve socialism; we promote socialism through struggle; you promote 'socialism and nothing but'.
I don't get your last paragraph in the above quote, perhaps you can expand.
Gravediggers
New Member
I have a copy, but I'll try and get a link for you. In fact, for some reason, its rarely I've come across a copy of the CM with the 1872 preface by Engles. To me it underlines their commitment to historical materialism and social dynamics and also it refutes the allegations that they were economic determinist.
Proper Tidy
Arsed
Okay, ta GD
Gravediggers
New Member
Here it is:
PREFACE TO 1872 GERMAN EDITION
The Communist League, an international association of workers, which could of course be only a secret one, under conditions obtaining at the time, commissioned us, the undersigned, at the Congress held in London in November 1847, to write for publication a detailed theoretical and practical programme for the Party. Such was the origin of the following Manifesto, the manuscript of which travelled to London to be printed a few weeks before the February Revolution. First published in German, it has been republished in that language in at least twelve different editions in Germany, England, and America. It was published in English for the first time in 1850 in the _Red Republican_, London, translated by Miss Helen Macfarlane, and in 1871 in at least three different translations in America. The french version first appeared in Paris shortly before the June insurrection of 1848, and recently in _Le Socialiste_ of New York. A new translation is in the course of preparation. A Polish version appeared in London shortly after it was first published in Germany. A Russian translation was published in Geneva in the 'sixties. Into Danish, too, it was translated shortly after its appearance.
However much that state of things may have altered during the last twenty-five years, the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever. Here and there, some detail might be improved. The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that "the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes." (See The Civil War in France: Address of the General Council of the International Working Men's Assocation, 1871, where this point is further developed.) Further, it is self-evident that the criticism of socialist literature is deficient in relation to the present time, because it comes down only to 1847; also that the remarks on the relation of the Communists to the various opposition parties (Section IV), although, in principle still correct, yet in practice are antiquated, because the political situation has been entirely changed, and the progress of history has swept from off the earth the greater portion of the political parties there enumerated.
But then, the Manifesto has become a historical document which we have no longer any right to alter. A subsequent edition may perhaps appear with an introduction bridging the gap from 1847 to the present day; but this reprint was too unexpected to leave us time for that.
KARL MARX
FREDERICK ENGELS
June 24, 1872
London
PREFACE TO 1872 GERMAN EDITION
The Communist League, an international association of workers, which could of course be only a secret one, under conditions obtaining at the time, commissioned us, the undersigned, at the Congress held in London in November 1847, to write for publication a detailed theoretical and practical programme for the Party. Such was the origin of the following Manifesto, the manuscript of which travelled to London to be printed a few weeks before the February Revolution. First published in German, it has been republished in that language in at least twelve different editions in Germany, England, and America. It was published in English for the first time in 1850 in the _Red Republican_, London, translated by Miss Helen Macfarlane, and in 1871 in at least three different translations in America. The french version first appeared in Paris shortly before the June insurrection of 1848, and recently in _Le Socialiste_ of New York. A new translation is in the course of preparation. A Polish version appeared in London shortly after it was first published in Germany. A Russian translation was published in Geneva in the 'sixties. Into Danish, too, it was translated shortly after its appearance.
However much that state of things may have altered during the last twenty-five years, the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever. Here and there, some detail might be improved. The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that "the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes." (See The Civil War in France: Address of the General Council of the International Working Men's Assocation, 1871, where this point is further developed.) Further, it is self-evident that the criticism of socialist literature is deficient in relation to the present time, because it comes down only to 1847; also that the remarks on the relation of the Communists to the various opposition parties (Section IV), although, in principle still correct, yet in practice are antiquated, because the political situation has been entirely changed, and the progress of history has swept from off the earth the greater portion of the political parties there enumerated.
But then, the Manifesto has become a historical document which we have no longer any right to alter. A subsequent edition may perhaps appear with an introduction bridging the gap from 1847 to the present day; but this reprint was too unexpected to leave us time for that.
KARL MARX
FREDERICK ENGELS
June 24, 1872
London
Gravediggers
New Member
There is one fatal flaw in this analysis. You have admitted on previous threads that the struggle for improvements, or what we call reforms will only come to fruition once and when a socialist society is established. In fact you have underlined this by stating the struggle for the reforms which you anticipate will be of benefit to the workers are unachievable within capitalism.
So in effect your tactics are to convince the working class that reforms are urgently necessary, and they have to come from below, and in the full realisation that these particular reforms can only be enacted within a socialist society and further this socialist society is the transitional stage to the abolition of capitalism. Thus, it is possible for the workers to control the effects of capitalism within a socialist society. Phew ... and we have been labeled the impossibilists!
Is this not an exercise in putting the cart before the horse? Or rather an exercise in futility? It also begs the question on how you will proceed from A to B is it merely by demanding reforms or is the intention to capture political power through utilising the democratic political process, through a coup d'etat, or by activity on the streets?
Proper Tidy
Arsed
No I haven't.
I've argued that transitional demands - which are different to the 'reforms' that we base our day to day campaigning on - lead directly to socialism. For example:
Or
Are both demands that are ultimately unachievable under capitalism.
But you have conflated this to 'all our demands are unachievable' which isn't the case.
For example:
Is entirely achievable under capitalism.
Transitional demands link the every day struggles to socialism but not all our demands are transitional. Rendering the below somewhat redundant.
Thanks for the Engels preface. I have to go out now but will read it later/tomorrow.
I'd argue 'Trotskyism' added a couple of other theories, but overall there are no real differences at all. All of the central planks of Leninism (the party, consciousness etc) can be found in Trotskyism. There are no "differences".
I'd agree. Although i'm not convinced that most Trotskyists would agree that the methods, strategy and tactics used in Petrograd in 1917 need to be re-evaluated. And I think if I probed you harder (oo er) we'd find you wouldn't either.
Gravediggers
New Member
I think your analysis is a bit confused here. Trade union struggle is not reformism and it is in fact the position of the SPGB (of which I am not a member BTW) to advocate militant trade union struggle (many of them have been, or are, active trade unionists) even if this does not (and cannot) in itself lead to socialism. Moreover, being opposed to "reformism " (the advocacy of reforms) does not mean. of course, opposing reforms but I think you grasp this distinction....
What I dont understand, however, is your rationale for distinguishing between so called transitional demands and reforms. Reforms are, by their very nature, measures introduced by the state. You are not suggesting - are you? - that there is a subset of such reforms which are labelled transitional demands, the advocacy of which is somehow qualitatively different from "reformism". If so what makes them qualitatively different? In what sense do they provide a link between the ongoing struggles within capitalism and the struggle to overthrow capitalism (which reformism by its very nature cannot do)
Frankly I think the whole trotskyist argument about "transitional demands" is incredibly muddled and feebly conceived. The abyssmal record of the Second International which was characterised by social democratic parties that sought to combine a maximum and mimimum programme yet all ended up as thoroughly capitalist organisations shows the utter futility of such an approach. On that point I think we can all agree, the SPGB's uncompromising opposition to such an approach has been more than vindicated
Gravediggers
New Member
ProperTidy its noticeable you have failed to reply to this. I know its a pain but....
Hi All
This is an attempt to put clear water between the Leninist/Trotskyist position on social revolution and that of The SPGB.
What follows is my report of what I've heard an SPGB speaker relate at Speakers Corner Hyde Park on more than one occasion, it's paraphrase not verbatim and I've added some and lost some but not diluted the original meaning. It was simply put so easy the retain the gist, so here's my take on what I heard said.
History can be seen in many ways, so here's some you might like to consider. First history is there so we can learn from it, to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. Second, simple, the more we know the more we can do, the better we know the better we can do. Third, now this a philosophical way of viewing history an just a little challenging. We can, if we've a mind to, see human history as a right of passage, a coming of age, now when a human comes of age, completes their right of passage they become an adult, and on reaching adulthood they know who they are, and knowing that they know what the want, what's achievable. There's more than that though, adulthood brings a qualification, adults are qualified to take responsibility for non adults, children! We can't expect children to take responsibility for adults.
If we take a good look at our world we discover that 40,000+ young humans with same level of humanity as all of us here are dieing every day, 40,000 every day, from the lack of clean fresh drinking water, some wholesome food, easily providable medicine. Millions upon millions are robed of their childhood and their health destroyed, forced to work in dingy sweatshops to make their exploiters rich. Children are kidnapped, forced to bare arms and kill their fellows crippling their personalities so tyrants can swell their Swiss bank accounts, and that's not all of it.
If we take that into account we come to the irrefutable conclusion that we are not taking responsibility for our young, and therefor our society has not completed its right of passage, it has yet to come of age, we live therefor in an immature society.
What is holding us back is that we have yet to discover, recognise and acknowledge a natural law, it's not the kind of law made in parliaments that can be and are regularly ignored, it unbreakable, like the laws of light, thermo dynamics and gravity. It's the law of social responsibility which states: The only way to deal with social responsibility responsibly is to share it. Giving over your social responsibility to leaders is irresponsible, if someone claims as a "leader" that they can exercise your responsibility for you they are irresponsible, have nothing to do with them.
It's been said "that with freedom comes responsibility" those who state that have the world on its head, it's with responsibility comes freedom.
If we are to free ourselves from this revolting unhygienic morass of ignorance and all it brings with it we have to organise as equals, sharing our knowledge our potential our responsibility, through the most wholesome, profound democracy we can achieve, nothing else will do.
This is an attempt to put clear water between the Leninist/Trotskyist position on social revolution and that of The SPGB.
What follows is my report of what I've heard an SPGB speaker relate at Speakers Corner Hyde Park on more than one occasion, it's paraphrase not verbatim and I've added some and lost some but not diluted the original meaning. It was simply put so easy the retain the gist, so here's my take on what I heard said.
History can be seen in many ways, so here's some you might like to consider. First history is there so we can learn from it, to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. Second, simple, the more we know the more we can do, the better we know the better we can do. Third, now this a philosophical way of viewing history an just a little challenging. We can, if we've a mind to, see human history as a right of passage, a coming of age, now when a human comes of age, completes their right of passage they become an adult, and on reaching adulthood they know who they are, and knowing that they know what the want, what's achievable. There's more than that though, adulthood brings a qualification, adults are qualified to take responsibility for non adults, children! We can't expect children to take responsibility for adults.
If we take a good look at our world we discover that 40,000+ young humans with same level of humanity as all of us here are dieing every day, 40,000 every day, from the lack of clean fresh drinking water, some wholesome food, easily providable medicine. Millions upon millions are robed of their childhood and their health destroyed, forced to work in dingy sweatshops to make their exploiters rich. Children are kidnapped, forced to bare arms and kill their fellows crippling their personalities so tyrants can swell their Swiss bank accounts, and that's not all of it.
If we take that into account we come to the irrefutable conclusion that we are not taking responsibility for our young, and therefor our society has not completed its right of passage, it has yet to come of age, we live therefor in an immature society.
What is holding us back is that we have yet to discover, recognise and acknowledge a natural law, it's not the kind of law made in parliaments that can be and are regularly ignored, it unbreakable, like the laws of light, thermo dynamics and gravity. It's the law of social responsibility which states: The only way to deal with social responsibility responsibly is to share it. Giving over your social responsibility to leaders is irresponsible, if someone claims as a "leader" that they can exercise your responsibility for you they are irresponsible, have nothing to do with them.
It's been said "that with freedom comes responsibility" those who state that have the world on its head, it's with responsibility comes freedom.
If we are to free ourselves from this revolting unhygienic morass of ignorance and all it brings with it we have to organise as equals, sharing our knowledge our potential our responsibility, through the most wholesome, profound democracy we can achieve, nothing else will do.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
Louis you don't know how you wound, you really don't, sob sob.
Gravediggers
New Member
[
There is no disagreement, Ive already clearly stated that the workers have failed to use democracy to further their end and interests.
OK there are capitalist reforms and there are working class reforms. But they are still reforms where ever they may have originated. The difference as I see it (and its a fact) are the capitalist reforms are designed to benefit the ruling class exclusively, whilst the workers reforms are designed to benefit the workers and the capitalists. They would not be enacted otherwise, so its a two way split where one benefit is counter balanced by the other.
Your are bordering on the ridiculous here if you think the SPGB "stress improvements are only possible at some distant point in the future". Not at all, for we have always stated the workers can and should struggle to improve their conditions under capitalism, in the realisation that not to do so would leave them in the gutter. But also in the knowledge that the fight for reforms makes for no fundamental change in the social relationships of capitalism. Like I've said previously, the SPGB judge reforms from wherever in the class divide they may originate from, on their merits.
Granted socialism can only be promoted through struggle but that is not what is in dispute. What is in dispute is the means and ends which are utilised to finalise the class struggle. For SPEW the means and ends consists of struggling for reforms which are combined with a set of transitional demands to obtain socialism. Yet the socialism you describe consists of these transitional demands being the base for working class power. When in reality they are to do with the workings of the wages system. And wherever you have the wages system you also have the profit system. In short, despite the fact you call it socialism, some one some where will be creaming off the top.
Yes the SPGB stand for socialism and nothing but. And by making this stand we are clear that the struggle for reforms or transitional demands is not the same has the struggle for a socialist revolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannysp View Post
Hi All
This is an attempt to put clear water between the Leninist/Trotskyist position on social revolution and that of The SPGB.
What follows is my report of what I've heard an SPGB speaker relate at Speakers Corner Hyde Park on more than one occasion....
Originally Posted by dannysp View Post
Hi All
This is an attempt to put clear water between the Leninist/Trotskyist position on social revolution and that of The SPGB.
What follows is my report of what I've heard an SPGB speaker relate at Speakers Corner Hyde Park on more than one occasion....
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Quote you morons
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Oh god hyuo'er dpo boringh.
Similar threads
