Recommended Posts

Citywide, Nottingham's alternative paper.

Downloaded a couple of copies of this yesterday, 

i can't recall it, 

Reading, it looks to be 84/85.

If, like myself, limited to 500mb a Month

go easy.. high Def' for a few pages ain't good. rough estimate 3mb per page!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, HSR said:

Citywide, Nottingham's alternative paper. Downloaded a couple of copies of this yesterday, i can't recall it, 

 

I don't remember the name.  Can you give us the link to where you downloaded it ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where's my glasses! My mistake, it's Citywise!

 

See my post 2 up to find site..

sorry, it's a direct download, don't have enough data left to post link !

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Cliff Ton changed the title to Citywise Magazine

Interesting. I don't remember it, and having browsed through one of the examples I think I can see why. Published by Mushroom bookshop, it's obviously not aimed at a mainstream readership.

 

Some of it is a fascinating step back in time to the 80s...such as pubs and gigs and shops. But its Mushroom origins also mean it sometimes strays into loony left territory. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely a Loony Left publication CT ....... I read about 2 paragraphs and decided not to waste any more time.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

we focus on the history of anarchist groups and individuals in the UK and beyond, as well as on the history of other social movements, protests and radicalism in Nottingham & Notts and the wider regions of East Midlands & South Yorkshire

 

Says it all really...

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Brew said:

Says it all really...

 

It does? So there has never been any worthwhile radicalism..dissent and resistance in Nottm?  And worse.. anyone who questions the Status Quo ..from which some benefit hugely...while others are 'kept down'.. is to be simply dismissed as 'looney left'?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I reposted their banner blurb. Does it not say it all? Does it not tell the people reading it what subjects will be considered and discussed in the editorial? 

After reading  said blurb what does anyone expect the contents to be about? 

 

But if they do read it, is no one allowed to disagree? If someone decides  something belongs to the 'looney left' is their opinion not valid? not worth consideration.

 

There is I think something of a dichotomy here is there not. You defend with some vigour  dissention against the status quo yet when it is mooted that an article is wrong and needs to be challenged, that in their opinion the  idea's outrageous and  part of the looney left they are frowned upon. 

 

Historically radicalism has brought both benefit and misery to the people. Not all radical ideas are sound. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Brew said:

I reposted their banner blurb. Does it not say it all? Does it not tell the people reading it what subjects will be considered and discussed in the editorial? 

After reading  said blurb what does anyone expect the contents to be about? 

 

Jim, along with Lizzie, you simply dismissed it all.  In your case, purely, by your own admission, on the basis of the 'banner blurb'.

You effectively dismissed whatever the publication might say in its content, as 'Looney Left', which is a very imprecise 'catch all' term used to dismiss pretty much anything outside of Conservative and 'mainstream' Labour.

22 hours ago, Brew said:

But if they do read it, is no one allowed to disagree? If someone decides  something belongs to the 'looney left' is their opinion not valid? not worth consideration.

 

Of course they are allowed to disagree.  But, I'd have thought that you, like me would prefer any disagreement to be based on a reading and understanding, rather than simply dismissing the whole publication.

 

22 hours ago, Brew said:

There is I think something of a dichotomy here is there not. You defend with some vigour  dissention against the status quo yet when it is mooted that an article is wrong and needs to be challenged, that in their opinion the  idea's outrageous and  part of the looney left they are frowned upon. 

 

I don't think I said that.

 

22 hours ago, Brew said:

Historically radicalism has brought both benefit and misery to the people. Not all radical ideas are sound. 

 

The above is of course correct, and I don't think that I have ever claimed that all radical ideas are sound.  But most are seriously.honestly held..and at least worthy of a hearing.

 

However, I also don't think that all 'radical' ideas are unsound, and much less do they qualify as 'looney left'.  The 'banner blurb' you quoted above mentions the history of other social movements, protests and radicalism in Nottingham & Notts .  Surely, even if you disagree with Luddism, Chartism and the various other radical and reforming movements with which Nottingham was associated in the past..then you cannot seriously dismiss the quoted publication out of hand?

I recall going into Grass Roots Books in Manchester in the 1980s looking for a copy of 'Political Parties', the work in which Robert Michels first espoused his 'Iron Law of Oligarchy'. The shop guy looked down his nose at me and said "We wouldn't stock that!"  I asked why? "Because he was a fascist!". I replied.. "He wasn't a fascist when he wrote that book"... but my comment fell on deaf ears. I don't dismiss stuff that way.

These are important historical events and developments in the history of political thought.

 

And.. it is undeniable that most of the political and legal rights of individuals..which were fought for by Luddites, Chartists, Trade Unionists and many other groups over time.. were not surrendered lightly by the wealthy and powerful. All of those rights.. freedom of association/the right to dissent and peaceful protest/the vote/equality under the Law/religious freedom... etc., etc., were hard won..and it does no harm to look at both the direct routes, and odd blind alleys, which led us to where we are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Jim, along with Lizzie, you simply dismissed it all.  In your case, purely, by your own admission, on the basis of the 'banner blurb'.

How do you determine I dismissed all of it? Or that I have not read some of the articles? Nor can I see where the term looney left is attributed to me. I merely commented that the publication does what it says on the tin...

You object to the phrase yet at least two intelligent people have looked and decided, as they are perfectly entitled to do, some of it is of the looney left variety.

Note ‘some of it’ not ‘all of it’. One of our esteemed members  only found ‘some’ of it interesting. To say "all of it" is an assumption.

To sum up, four peole have read some of it, none found all of their reading interesting.

 

like me would prefer any disagreement to be based on a reading and understanding

And your evidence that's not the case?  bearing in mind different people reading the same thing can reach different conclusions

 

However, I also don't think that all 'radical' ideas are unsound,

No one is claiming they are.

 

"We wouldn't stock that!"  I asked why? "Because he was a fascist!". I replied.. "He wasn't a fascist when he wrote that book"... but my comment fell on deaf ears. I don't dismiss stuff that way.

He obviously did and is just as entitled to his opinion as you are yours though the tale surprises me you were so dismissive of his viewpoint. Michels may not have been a party memeber but that does mean was not fascistic in his outlook.

 

These are important historical events and developments in the history of political thought.

So were Das Kapital, Mein Kampf, Utopia and others.

 

And.. it is undeniable that most of the political and legal rights of individuals..which were fought for by Luddites, Chartists, Trade Unionists and many other groups over time..

Agreed but does not acknowledge, and very neatly glosses over, the terrible misery and hardship radicalism has caused in the past and indeed is still doing so today.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was me who first used the phrase Loony Left in this topic, and having looked through a few more editions of Citywise, I stick with my original judgement.

 

The items which mention gigs, pubs, events, local history etc, are interesting, useful and nostalgic, but most of the other features seem to have been written by the People's Front of Judea from Life of Brian.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK Kev, thanks for pointing that out.

 

Jim, Liz.  I'm backing down.  I over reacted for which I apologize.

 

Jim.. I do think we could argue at length about when and why Robert Michels joined the Italian fascist party.  (It was long after he wrote Political Parties)  I think we could also debate the exact meaning(s) of 'radicalism'. and whether it is/was the 'radicalism', or the misapplication thereof ..which causes the misery.  But none of that belongs here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Cliff Ton said:

 

The items which mention gigs, pubs, events, local history etc, are interesting, useful and nostalgic,

 

Exactly Cliffton..

 

I didn't even read the articles, straight to 'What 's on'

Overall.. I conclude how poor is my memory!

At points, I think I can track my movements to the week!

Where was Vino's?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...