Monday, June 05, 2006

The second open thread

I meant to do this a couple of days ago for the weekend but been too busy.

Well, I think the last open thread went quite well don't you? Why don't we try it again then? Of course it's been a very sunny weekend, but you might like to talk about something political - thoughts on the terror arrests perhaps, or the new Muslim Council leader who was elected yesterday - nothing is off topic, and feel free to change the subject.

On your marks, get set..... BLOG


Renegade Eye said...

Maryam Namazie has posted on my blog, a manifesto on Iran, for a Third Camp. The discussion has caused debate between mostly leftists, on Islamism and the left. I had my cheap plug.

I would like to see this blog be a home for socialists of various camps. I'd like to see you guys visit more socialist blogs, and surf for new readers worldwide.

AN said...

Thanks eye - I would like to see it develop in that direction too. Please also check out our main web page:

To go back to a question raised by BadMat in the comments about Marxism 2006. he remarked, quite correctly, that Duncan Hallas and Tony Cliff were major political figures, and that we wouldn't see their like again.

This is an interesting question, because the IS was characterised by being prepared to upset all orthodoxies and push theory and practice in novel directions.

The complete erasure of the libertarian strand within IS politics has been remarked on many times, but it is also interesting that thr SWP nowadays is very theoreticaly cautious, and for example the theoretical journal - the ISJ - seems to just repeat the orthodoxies without developing thought in any new direction.

Also Cliff and Hallas were both the product of a very different experience and politcial culture than the SWP can provide today.

(I know that Respect is a new adventure, but the theoretical defences of it seem to be ex post facto, and defensive)

Louisefeminista said...

Yeah, AN but what about the IS/SWP stance on women's liberation. I know I sound like repetitive but have the SWP substantially changed their position on women's liberation. I found Sheila Rowbotham's book "Promise of a Dream" utterly fascinating and especially drawing on her experiences of the very early women's liberation movement. And her experiences of being involved in the IS and Black Dwarf.
She left the IS due to various problems but they seemingly had a negative view of the women's liberation movement. She says that the IS weren't, at that stage, bogged down by democratic centralism like the IMG. But she left as things started to change.

I was always interested in what actually happened to Women's Voice and Black Voice. I knew someone who worked for Women's Voice and she said that there was no formal discussion about closing them down and that an edict came from the leadership as they were going against "Leninist principles".

Re-reading Cliff's book on women's liberation is so utterly workeristic and economistic and the say goes for German's bk.

I also think that Sheila Rowbotham's chapter in "Beyond the Fragments" on Leninism and IS/SWP is still pretty much correct today.

And well, finally, Respect and their attitude towards women liberation chimes with the line from the SWP.

Where's the debate.. and internal democracy?

Sorry to have gone on but think it is important

AN said...

Hi Louise.
This might be a slightly longer answer than you were anticipating, but this is what I think happened.

I think there are several intertwined issues in what you say. Firstly is the need to acknowledge the almost complete rupture between the IS project and the later SWP. In a nut-shell the IS industrial strategy was that the shop stewards movement could be a transitional form of organisation, uniting revolutionaries and other militants, because if the logic of industrial solidarity and class militancy was pushed to the limit it would require a complete rupture with capitalism.

Now whether this was plausible or not (and I tend to think it was) remained untested because the IS did not have the political or industrial strength to overcome the influence of the CP, and Labourite influences within the shop stewards. But inevitably it meant that (a bit like Lutte Ouvriere today) there was an institutional conservatism about issues from outside the workplace. But this should not be overemphasised, because there was also a libertarian strand in IS, open to new stuff. And the two were not really opposed to each other. The left turn by Cliff (downturn) was sold as tactical but in fact required an unacknowledged strategic shift in the whole concept of how the IS/SWP saw socialism coming about, and also the organisation became increasingly inhospitable for the libertarian wing.

I was in the SWP from 1978 to 1980 as a punkie yoof , and then rejoined in 1986 after the miners strike (in between I was back in the Labour Party). The Women’s Voice issue (The black thingie Flame, never really took off) – was in the context of the SWP being in complete flux (rarely acknowledged today). The launch of the SWP had seen a number of intellectuals leave the party, and the expulsion a couple of years before of Higgin’s et al had dramatically weakened the industrial base, and damaged the internal democracy by weakening any counterbalance to Cliff. What is more the Anti-Nazi League pushed the SWP into very constructive day to day collaboration with comrades much more influenced by socialist feminism, not least of whom the IMG. The Thatcher victory of 1979 was a real crisis for the SWP, and the number of branches and membership collapsed.

The reason I say all that, is that it was in this period that Womens’ Voice as a separate organisation was floated (the magazine had been around for longer). Cliff and Harman were opposed but there was a clear majority in the party in favour of women’s self-organisation. As a bloke I had no first hand involvement in Womens’ Voice. I remember a Womens’ Voice launch meeting in Bath (where I lived) where the first step by the chair was to (quite rightly) boot out all us male comrades. However, from talking to comrades I knew in Womens’ Voice, I would say it was neither fish nor fowl. It was too unclear what it was for, and therefore could not conduct the sort of faction fight it needed to survive in the SWP (especially against such a cunning old fox as Cliff) It was not true that WV was simply closed down, it was probably the last time there was a protracted argument spanning some years in the SWP (all muddled up and at the same time as the “downturn” debate, which took Cliff some years to win).

When I rejoined the SWP after the miners defeat (at which time I acknowledge there really was a downturn) I was very surprised to find the SWP had become quite opposed to self organisation, but there was still around that time a long running debate about it, with John Molyneux arguing that there was a need for self organisation because men benefit from womens’ oppression. I was a strong supporter of Molyneux at that time, but there were not many of us, and the party simply wore us down. I cannot speak for why Molyneux stopped arguing his position, as I don’t know him personally, but I gave up because it is reasonably intimidating to find an entire weekend educational conference for the district dedicated to why you are wrong!

Louisefeminista said...

But to me, AN, this is at the crux of the matter re: SWP and that is democratic centralism and that the party is always right.

But for that matter, most of all the revo groups or should I say the "57 varieties"...
The fact as well is that factions and tendancies aren't allowed (?) though at least, in my own trot experience, the IG/ISG encouraged this.

I cannot understand why the leadership of the SWP stifles debate (opportunism? control freakery?)because this behaviour alienates comrades and forces them to leave. Surely this stunts the growth of the organisation..?

And why this adherence to the party line as opposed to open debate, which is, in my humble opinion, more appropriate? It is not like we are living in pre-revolutionary times, is it?

I have spoken to a couple of women who were involved in Womens' Voice who claim that it was shut down without debate(incidentially they left the SWP and joined the LP... SWP loss!)but I don't want to split hairs over it.

From the copies I have seen it there are a lot of space to devoted to trade union militancy (good!) though there were other reviews and analysis.

If Womens' Voice had been "saved" then there would have been the possibility of the mag being an important propaganda tool in the miners' strike (especially WAPC) and maybe even Greenham.

Just a thought?!

Sorry about the long posts and dominating the comments box...

AN said...

I agree! The paradox is that if the party iis always right then the party can never be right, becasue the presumption that the leadership is already correct precludes it from learning from the experience of the grass roots experience - and as the grass roots includes established industrial and cmapaigning militants the grass roots are often more experienced and insightful than the apparatchiks at the "centre".

I give the histroical context just as a straightforward answe to your question "what happpened to Womens Voice". On the question of whether there was a debate about closing it, well probably I am right, and so are the women you have spoken to. There was a long running and protracted debate about self organisation and the role of WV, but the actual decision to close it was almost certainly done as an executive instruction by the CC.

I still have several copies of WV, and sometimes it was good, but tended to be a bit dour. yes it would have been good had it continued, but that is nothing compared to the lost opportunity of closing down "the Collier" just a few years before the strike, at a time when it was still selling thousands of copies.

AN said...

An actually i like long comments - cos that way there is real deabate :o)

Jim Jay said...

I'm nervous of them - I think the coooool thing about blogs is the back and forth, and when I see a long comment (or post) I always, but always think twice before reading it, particularly because it's harder to read on screen than on paper.

Having said that I can be as guilty as anyone, but I think it's better to have a few short back and forths than one huge comment that brings up so many things you can't deal with them all at once and may not get read.

stroppybird said...

But debate about the length of blogs is debate in itself. Oh dear I really think I should switch of the computer and re -enter the real world......

Louisefeminista said...

I apologise comrades for my long posts, so summary below:

1. Whither SWP? Discuss whether the implications of democratic centralism and lack of internal democracy will have a detrimental impact on the growth of the SWP.

2. Is there a difference between autonomy and separatism?

3. Will feminism help to advance the fight against capitalism?

How's that? Not too long?

AN said...

Louise - how do you define


i won't ask how you define the SWP - I don't ant to encourage the use of bad language.

Jim Jay said...

In Cambridge there's a left group, the Cambridge Action Network which, although set up by anarchists, is in fact autonomist.

One thing that impresses me about the group is the way they simply crack on without a leadership structure - and no one ever speaks on behalf of the group.

The culture that develops is that anyone can come to the group with a project and people get involved if they want to - or not if they don't.

This creates a space where people are encouraged to do what interests them and a good portion of the group are 'leaders' in their field.

So whilst much of the hard left has a 'winner takes all' approach to political arguments which inevitably becomes either divisive or simply unpleasant for those in the minority, this looser and more relaxed attitude toward organising allows autonomous activity without seperating from the network.

Louisefeminista said...


Autonomy: self-organisation with the demands taken to the wider struggle.

Separatism: disengaging yourself off from the class struggle without making demands as seen as useless.

Feminism: do you really wanna a 3,000 word essay, comrade? Depends as well on which thread of feminism.

Off the cuff comments as I am about to get on a train and tube (unhook myself from 'puter as it shackles me for far too long. Damn You!). So, will engage my brain a bit more and think things through.

I am for autonomy and against separatism. Unfortunately the SWP didn't deferentiate between the two.

Horrors AN, I never ever use bad language even when describing those naughty SWPers.

AN said...


Does this way of organising in cambridge allow for accountability?

Jim Jay said...

accountability is one of really interesting questions in the model.

for a start no one is allowed to make statements on behalf of the group - even agreed statements, so no one is able to be unaccountable. and probably 60-80% of projects at any one time are not 'CAN' projects so there is no issue, people just do it and if you don't like it you're not associated with it.

there are minutes taken every meeting and these are gone through at the beginning of (almost) every meeting so if you said you'd do something then people will see that

none of this means that if there is a concensus on a 'big job' that you can't get people to focus on the key task.

on a national level, the dissent network attempts to organise in a similar way and is more hapless and I suspect it is a useful local model but not national

AN said...

I can see it is useful for networking campaigners, but it couldn't extend to electoral politics, or even workplace representation, cos accountablity is necessary to help the candidates or workplace reps being sucked into things.

Louisefeminista said...

Accountability is absolutely vital in workplace representation and as a union rep you are bound by it. Though T.U. bureaucrats are another thing.

Was kinda expecting some comeback over my definitions of autonomy/separatism/feminism..

Though all this debate is a distraction from writing my essay. I am so lazy!

AN said...

I did write a response to the separatism/autonomism, feminism thingie, but then the blog tool ate it and it disapperared into the blog vacuum and I lost the will to write it again.

i will come back to it tomorrow.

In a nutshell i think the SWP do distinguish between autonomism and separatism, but are opposed to both. The main rationale seems to be that if women (or any other group) organisse autonomously they may erect a barrier between them and the transmission belt that pours down the infallible wisdom of the great leader. (who it seems is usualy an alpha male, except in the special case of Sheila Torrence, but her troupe is very small)

stroppybird said...

Im all by myself in stroppyblog and everyone else is here. Its just like being at school again and no one playing with me :-)

Louisefeminista said...

Really? I remember debating with a SWPer on why setting up a "Women Against War in the Gulf" branch was important to the anti-war movement but he kept blurring the distinction between separatism and autonomy.

I also think it is about controlling how the org. debates
and for me, supporting autonomy, makes people think beyond the
line. So, "do what you are told"
mentality is integral to orgs like the SWP.

Ha! The blog tool is sympathetic to the SWP and made sure your comment was lost in the void and probably knew you would lose the will to write it again. Hehehe

Do you think I am losing it..?

stroppybird said...


Once you start to believe the SWP is controlling the blog tool I think that is the internets way of telling you to turn the computer off and talk to real people.

Louisefeminista said...


it sure beats capitalism controlling everything! I don't know any real people 'cept virtual ones..

stroppybird said...

I think before I started the blog with you a few weeks back that I once had real people as friends....

AN said...

Well there are SWPers and SWPers. Some members of the SWP make even other members lose the will to live after a short conversation, but there are also a suprisingly large number of thoughtful and critical members of the SWP who have been around for a number of years, and talk a lot of sense privately.

There are also a lot of f*ckwits, and nowadays nothing surprises me. One of the importnat things about the way most left groups argue is that there is an instrumentalist attitude to debate - so once the main task has been identified (either by someone higher up, or out of fear that someone higher up might not approve) which in this case is to prevent there being an autonomus women against the war group, any argument can be used, however illogical or confused, and any bureucratic stitch up becomes permissible.

And shouldn't you be writing your essay?

Louisefeminista said...

I know, I know, yes, comrade I ought to be writing the damn thing. You caught me out (are you trying to get rid of me?)

Seriously, it does sum the SWP when you say that there are thoughtful and critical members of the SWP who talk a lot of sense privately. Privately being the operative word. And to me, that's a sad state of affairs.

Before you ask, I am reading some fine articles for my essay while waiting for ER to start.

sappho said...

Just stumbled across this blog, & I am so glad I did!
I finally have a place where I can actually get great, important information, as well as in-depth comment dialog!
I will be honest & say that I am a newbie to the Socialist movement, but am VERY intriged & always look for more info on this & people to talk to about it.
I feel that I am no longer represented by the United States capitalist goverment, nor do I have a party which I can adhere to.
But finding places & comrades such as this, gives me hope & happiness!
Thank you,

AN said...

Thanks for the kind words Sappho. Are you involved with any campaigns or political groups in the US?

AN said...

In reply to Louise's question: Does Feminism help the fight against capitalism?

If by feminism we mean the full equality of women and men without waiting for the glorious day then I suppose one question is whether we really care whether under capitalism there are women priests (or perhaps women Rabbis and Imams in the future?), or women pilots in B52s, or women prison guards at Guantanamo.

Another question is whether gender inequality within the labour movement is an obstacle to achieving socialism or not.

On the first question, the exclusion of women from top jobs is actually an irrational aberration from the point of view of the ideology of capitalism, which in its purest form promotes the idea of legal equality. I don’t think it was a “good thing” that Thatcher was prime minister, but on the other hand it did demolish the idea that there are some jobs too responsible for a woman to do, and that is empowering for every woman, at the same time that thatch pursued many policies that were detrimental to women, especially working class women.

Not only should we oppose all forms of racism and sexism in their own right, but the nearer capitalist society becomes to the ideal legal equality, then the more stark remains the contradiction of economic inequality. So in that sense feminism does help the fight against capitalism.

On the second question, I still do believe that working class men benefit from the oppression of working class women, at the same time that they share many common interests as well. This is specifically in the area of unpaid domestic labour and child care, but also in terms of pay, work advancement, social status, etc. Yes the benefits gained by working class men through the oppression of women are in contradiction to their class interests, but hey contradictions happen, and it is fair to say that most working class people in Britain today are not pinning ALL their hopes on the socialist revolution.

To overcome that, and to overcome the degraded self-confidence that many working class women experience requires autonomous womens’ organisation. It also requires the labour movement to enforce it – how many times do “important” male comrades go to meetings and events, while the less politically experienced woman partner stays at home with the children. Why is she less experienced? Cos’ she is at home looking after the children.

Can we overthrow capitalism without challenging gender equality in the labour movement. I don’t know – but I don’t think the women should let us try!

Louisefeminista said...

I agree with pretty much of what you say but I would just chuck something else about autonomy/separatism.

There were arguments in the umbrella group (around 18mths ago) of the org. Abortion Rights by some of us (me included) who wanted to make the group women-only.

The group had been set up as there'd been threats of attacks on time limits. Instead of discussing our strategy we were bogged on whether this group should be women only.

My arguments for it to remain women only was because it was good for women to make the decisions and to be in control of the group. If there were pickets, demos and/or lobbies of parliament then men would be involved (i am not a separatist).

The various women from the revo left SWP, Workers Power and the dreaded CPGB all argued for the inclusion of men.

Supporters of the autonomous space argument were condemned as separatists. I was worried, as well, that if men were part of the decision making they would take it over. Also, men can support a woman's right to choose but ultimately it's women who go through it.

Many of the women, I think, stopped turning up to the meetings as they were fed-up with the debate about including men. The revo left couldn't leave it alone and support women's autonomy.

Sorry again for the long post.

Oh and of course we have to challenge women's oppression in the labour movement.

AN said...

Ah yeah I remember reading about it in Weekly Worker. Mark Fischer wrote an incredibly long and unreadable article about it.

His argument was typical of the mind-set, that oppression of women simply derives from capitalism, and there is a one size fits all solution - socialist revolution!

I think John Molneux was making a very perceptive distinction by arguing within the SWP that autonomy was necessary becuase working class men benefit from the oppression of women, because that both explains the need for autonomous organisation, and at the same time reveals that the systems of oppression and domination are not purely derived from the class dynamic of capitalism, or the capitalist mode of production/reproduction.

As an additional tuppence worth, I would recommend Michel Odent's book "Scientification of Love", which addresses the issue of how the traditional role of women in reproduction has been objectified in industrial societies. It is not a "political" book, but very useful in showing how enlightenment rationalism has forced a rupture with our animal needs, and that nurturing stuff like breast feeding, cuddling, etc are essential to happiness.

Louisefeminista said...

And yeah, Mark Fischer was mainly slagging me off as feminists like me are "bourgeois" and "anti-working class"(and sometimes under his false name, "Elaine Harrison")

And even better, he argued that feminism is a form of sectional politics (comparing feminism to the Bund)

Will look out for the Odent bk.

Ed said...

"and for example the theoretical journal - the ISJ - seems to just repeat the orthodoxies without developing thought in any new direction."

You can say that again. I've stopped reading it for that very reason. You know exactly what the argument of each article is going to be and how it's going to proceed from the title alone.

Jim Jay said...

I found that whole debate pretty off putting to be honest. I was deeply worried about the moves by the right to erode abortion rights and really wanted to get involved and essentially ended up doing nothing about it because I wasn't welcome.

I spent hours trying to get a woman on the left to write about it and eventually Terry Conway did, but the whole process was pretty dispiriting for me.

AN said...

Jim, Perhaps you should have pretended to be a woman like Elaine Harrison?

Jim Jay said...

only in the privacy of my bed room...

AN said...

That was a joke BTW - i don't think that would really be a good idea.

But it remonds me of my favorite Joke:

Q: How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: One, and it isn't funny.

AN said...

Or rather it is only not a good idea for political reasons, what you war in your bedroom is up to you (excpet that i learn over at StroppyBlog that we are both aspects of a multiple personality disorder, or maybe like Glory in series five of Buffy, I change into you without knowing?)

Jim Jay said...

The thought's terrifying!

Louisefeminista said...


The Abortion Rights umbrella group fizzled out unfortunately. The problem was that too much was made out of the fact re: it being women-only. I was involved in FAB (Fight Alton Bill 87/88) and the group I was active in was women-only BUT that didn't detract from men getting involved in the wider struggle such as attending demos, pickets and lobbies of parliament. SWP women and other revo women (including myself at the time)had no argument with it being women-only.

It is important that women take control and make the decisions. Autonomous spaces are extremely important and men were not sidelined. They were encouraged to show solidarity and to take a bit of a back seat. What is wrong with that?

The group diminished in size as women got demoralised from the constant carping from the CPGB, Workers Power and so on (the arguments came from the revo left and not from non-aligned lefties or feminists). We, therefore, were so bogged down in this question that the ongoing strategy was lost.

If you felt unwelcome, Jim. How do you feel women, like myself, who was constantly accused of being a separatist felt?

The other problem with the group was that there was nothing specific to campaign around i.e. nor EDM or potential Bill. The issue around Sue Axon was ongoing at the time and thankfully she lost.

I still believe that women should lead the fight with men showing solidarity. And that means women being forefront of the decision making and if that means it being women-only then so be it.

BTW: AN. A Buffy Fan. Good to hear it!

Louisefeminista said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
AN said...

I think for many men the first time they find themselves excluded from a meeting or campaign it can be a bit suprising - and I think it is a measure of how so much weaker the womens' movement has become that Jim had not encountered it before this abortion campaign, and also that within the campaign the revo groups were permitted to make such a song and dance about it.

How much support was there for your position of a women only group Louise?

Jim Jay said...

Louise, I should make clear I don't object to the group being women only, or women only led - the difficulty I personally had (which may or may not be important, it's hard for me to judge) was because me getting involved would have been contested ground for the group and I felt obliged to stay out the way until the issue was resolved, not wanting to contribute to internal group conflicts.

And of course not wanting to put myself in a position where people I agree with don't want to work with me purely on the basis of the DNA I was born with.

BTW andy i was not surprised by the idea and i'm aquainted with the arguments i was just describing the effect it had on my own involvement.

Louisefeminista said...

Firstly, I am tired of having to keep explaining the importance of women only spaces. It is not such an outlandish idea! One area of women only activity is in the student movement (women's group).

I think it is important for Jim, for instance, is to think about why some women wanted a women-only space. It is not an attack on men, far from it.

From the first meeting the for and against women were polarised between the revo left and the non-aligned. The SWP didn't seem to really push for their position i.e. including men. They seemed very half hearted about the whole project (Respect?). If the CPGB had put the issue to the vote then the revo left would have won but they didn't instead various women (including Terry C.) agreed to discuss it at the next meeting. What was there to discuss? I actually believe the overall decision was for opportunistic reasons such getting the "line" from their respective orgs.

I remember sitting next to a young woman and while I was discussing the debate with another union activist (she was also for it to be women-only), the woman next to me who was quiet during the meeting all of a sudden became animated. She turned to me and said she agreed with me about what I said and she worried about men taking over the proceedings of the meeting. Ask yourself, why did this woman think this? She was not a aligned to any group but she felt strongly in defending abortion rights.

Many of the women who supported a women-only group didn't come back. Many of them seemed so demoralised by a debate which is so simple and straightforward. I frankly couldn't believe the constant "Groundhog Day" arguments.

To answer the question: yes, half of the women in the room supported a women-only space but the revo left could have won the debate had they pushed it but chose not to. I was unimpressed by it all and the meetings ended up a revo left talking shop (union activists, feminists and other lefties pissed off) It was just me, 2 feminists and the revo left. Fun....!

Louisefeminista said...

Sorry Jim,

I am unclear what you mean. It is not a case of your DNA. It is a case of power relationships which exist in this society and the fact that there are times when women have the right to self-organise.

If you want to show something, show support and solidarity to women and let women make the decisions.

Can't you just listen to what women want and support those demands?

I have to say that this makes me angry, upset and but also frustrated as these arguments for autonomy should be obvious to socialists and having to constantly to defend this position.

AN said...

just quickly as I have to shhot out to stop the war meeting.

I agree with you Louise, unfortunetely the tide seems to have turned on this issue, and arguments that a few years ago were self evident to many have now become contested again.

Jim Jay said...

I guess I'm a bit lost Louise as to why you seem frustrated with me. I've already said i do not oppose the fact that this was a women's only space and that I respected that decision.

I made a post earlier in this thread in favour of a method that allows for and encourages autonomy specifically to contribute to this debate.

Can't you just listen to what women want and support those demands?

Um... but that's what I'm doing. I didn't want to take decisions for the group or hold a position or anything like that I wanted to give active and enthusiastic support, but didn't feel it was posible for me to be active in that support in the context of the group.

AN said...

Well I cannot speak for Louise .. but I think I understand her point here.

In a moment of flippancy you suggested that the reaosn you were not welcome in a campaign that had decided to be autonomous women only was due to an accident of your DNA.

But that is a bit seeing it from the man's point of view, and not from the womens'. From the womens' point of view it is not about your biological manhood, but about the space for women to organise without any men being around, and therefore even though you personaly might be the loveliest person alive, being free from any possibility of gender power relations.

I wasn't being funny earlier when I suggested this was as surprising experience for men. I know you have heard the arguments, but not until you are excluded can you feel the rejection, and it isn't easy. I hope you don't think I am being patronising, I am speaking about how I felt from my own experience.

But this sense of being arbitrarily excluded is daily for women in many situations, cos of patronising or laddish attitudes,. I know you are a millionmiles from that yourslef, and probably better than me, but Louise does have a point.

There has been no where near enough discussion of this sort of stuff in the left in recent years (I blame Cliff (my new catch phrase)) - it is nice to meet Louise in virtual world, it takes me back to when i was young and these arguments were around all the time, blimey i will be listening to the Mekons next!

Jim Jay said...

Did they do "Solitary confinement" that was covered by the Newton Neurotics as "living with unemployment"?

AN said...

dunno - they were unlistenably bad IMO, but I liked them when I was 17. The only song I remember was "never been in a riot"

Louisefeminista said...

Thanks AN. I agree absolutely agree with you!

Yes, the bit what Jim said about the DNA did annoy and frustrate me a tad.

I too am please to meet people in the virtual world you remember and were engaged in these debates. It takes me back to my mid teens where unfortunately, Kylie, Jason and Bros ruled the charts!!!

Those weren't the days...