Via the ongoing feuding between the Socialist Unity Blog and Lenny comes the petty, sectarian but very funny quip of my day:
#307 I imagine that Seymour’s relationship to Rees is similar to his “The Simpsons” namesake’s relationship to his mother, Agnes.“Seymour, are you reading those anti-SWP blogs again?”
“No mother!”
Comment by Anon — 25 February, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
[Via Here.]
Neil Williams commenting over at the Socialist Unity Blog is right; this is a bit of a nugget of left trainspotting information, if true:
"“Mark Steele [sp] spoke to a packed Green Left fringe on saturday and was very funny and radical, good on how socialist need to rethink strategy, good on climate change and good on the media. He said he had left the SWP which surprised me”. [The exclusive is buried in amongst Derek Wall's post, A Good Conference - Green Party of England and Wales.]
Begs the question, though: will the Harry's Place mob finally admit that the bloke is funny now that he's apparently left the SWP after nearly thirty years of membership? Thought not.
Gary Bushell; Peter Hitchens; Wendy Henry; Will Rubbish's mate; Jim Fitzpatrick; Gus MacDonald; Roger Rosewall . . . Ahmed Hussain?
Andy N over at the Socialist Unity Blog is the cat that got the cream with the news that SWP member and Tower Hamlets councillor, Ahmed Hussain, has been in talks with the Tories over the little matter of him probably possibly defecting to the party of Margaret Thatcher. Things haven't been finalised yet as Councillor Hussain has also been having chats with the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, apparently.
I guess this means that the right/left split that was cited by the SWP as the core reason for the fallout between Team Galloway and themselves has to be re-examined in light of one of their Party members leaving by the blue door. No jokes about the much vaunted "Popular Front of a Special Kind" are necessary at this point.
Poor old SWP. Gotta feel a wee bit sorry for them in their current predicament. As the bonafide vanguard© of the working class, they have got that far ahead of the rest of us, that on looking over their shoulder they've suddenly realised that there's nobody behind them. We're such ungrateful bastards.
If they're open to a wee bit of helpful advice from a concerned abstract propagandist, could I suggest that the next time they consider participating in the democratic process - bourgeois or otherwise - perhaps they could apply some democratic practice to their own organisation. That way, maybe next time they won't be played like a cheap fiddle.
Remember kids. Vanguardists are better than us . . . and they know what they're doing.
It's still early in Brooklyn, but no one will top this as the (unintentional) funniest comment of the day:
". . . But no matter who he manages to hook up with (The CPGB perhaps?) the question will remain: Who's gonna hand out the leaflets?" (My emphasis.) [From here.]
So that's what they meant by a 'Popular Front of a Special Kind'. I always wondered.
No news yet of a Stephen Frears/Peter Morgan film adaptation but, in the meantime, the Fourth Internationalists, Socialist Resistance/ISG, have just brought out a part-epistolary novella detailing the crisis surrounding the split in Respect these last two months.
Naturally, being partisans on one side of the debate, they've got their side to tell, and tell it they do.
Makes sense: Peter Morgan's adaptation will be all the more smooth because of it.
What started out as great expectations has now irreversibly fallen on hard times. Andy N over at Socialist Unity blog has the latest sketches on blogz regarding the old curiosity shop that was Respect (Mark I).
Despite public protestations to the contrary, it turns out that meetings did take place in late October behind closed doors between the two opposing factions in these adventures of political twists and turns. Up for discussion was the small matter of arranging as bloodless a separation as possible between the two opposing camps. It all came to nought, as both sides sought to steal a march on the other.
As someone who has nailed his colours to 'Respect Renewal's' mast, Andy probably doesn't see it this way but I think it would take a magician of the skill and deftness of a David Copperfield to explain how two opposing factions - who were each in turn claiming to be the democratising pluralist voice and/or defending the democratic inclusive voice within Respect - could conduct their divorce negotiations behind closed doors and behind the backs of those rank and file members that they were supposed to be representing on each side. I guess it's one for the polemical papers to pick over.
Big question for me, though, is: who's 'Our Mutual Friend' who gets such a prominent mention in this post? S/he is . . ." an independent and respected friend of both sides . . . [who] had offered to mediate in any discussions. It was agreed that this ‘mutual friend’ should be asked to chair the negotiation." [Negotiating what was supposed to be the amicable divorce between Respect (Galloway) and 'Socialist Respect'.]
Little Porrit, maybe? Nah, even when he was active in the Green Party, he was never a member of its eco-socialist wing. Negotiate suggests a legal mindset. Maybe Malcolm Mansfield parked himself at the centre of the dispute. No, can't be him; you can't mix your Dickens with your Austen. There's only so far that this blog will go in its frivolity.
Andy N is insisting that any comments to his post that speculate on the possible identity of OMF will be immediately deleted. With a response like that, watch that thread get derailed quicker than you can say 'What's Tommy Sheridan* up to these days?'
*Of course, it ain't him. Just adding fuel to the fire.
"This is what makes working with the SWP in movements such an enervating experience – they are manipulative, but not usually in a malicious way. Rather, very much like the old adage that what’s good for General Motors is good for America, they assume that what’s good for the SWP is good for the working class."
Another excellent post on the Galloway/SWP break up over at Splintered Sunrise.
We're tagged, they're split
Do you want to try and explain what is currently going on in the current Respect Galloway/SWP fall out? Quick, hurry up and post otherwise there'll be a new post at the Socialist Unity Blog or Dave's Part or Liam Mac Uaid or . . . or . . . from that bloke in Manchester to both up the ante and to contradict what everyone else has been saying in the previous 15 minutes. (Even Lenny's climbed down from his pole to opine again and again.)
The best I can do for myself at this moment in time is to post once again the tags of the main blogging participants, and maybe a few months down the line some sort of sense can be gleaned from them all:
Socialist Unity Blog Liam Mac Uaid's Blog Dave's Part Neil William's Respect Supporters Blog Lenny's Punchlines Splintered Sunrise Blog
I'm sure there are other sources worth checking out, but it's difficult enough to keep up with the blogs listed above.
As a funny aside it's patently obvious that the Weekly Worker/CPGB crowd are seriously pissed off with the fact that their niche has been temporarily stolen by various blogs covering these unfolding events. One of their members who regularly posts on UK Left Network recently came over the wrong side of peevishness with the one liner: 'The Socialist Unity Blog is for Christmas, the Weekly Worker is for life'. I think what he meant to write was 'Weekly Worker is for five minutes on a Thursday, Socialist Unity Blog is for every day.' It's all good stuff.
PS - What's the post title all about?
I can't remember on which blog I read it, but I think a particular commentator on the current car crash hit the nail on the head when s/he wrote that what precipitated this bust up between Galloway and the SWP was the fact that Galloway - like the rest of the political class - was expecting Brown to call a snap General Election this autumn and he was seeking to correct what he considered were organisational deficiencies in time for that election.
Remember it is/was Galloway's intention to stand against Labour's Jim Fitzpatrick in Poplar & Limehouse, and there was an outside chance that Respect could retain the seat Galloway was vacating in Bethnal Green and Bow. Add into the mix the strong possibility that Salma Yaqoob could win a parliamentary seat in Birmingham, and we are talking about big stakes on the fringes of British politics.
If the General Election had been called as expected, compromises would have been reached in the fullness of time for the campaign to be fought by a united Respect. By Brown not calling the election as expected, tensions and contradictions that had always existed between Galloway and the SWP in their mutually beneficial lash up have come up for air and there wasn't a readily available external enemy to smother them out.
Radar: "Their ringer spotted our ringer."
A total misuse and misapplication of a film quote as you will see below but it is drag down Friday, and I couldn't help but think of the above quote from M*A*S*H, Robert Altman's classic 1970 anti-war film, after I spotted this comment from 'Johng' over at Socialist Unity Blog:
"In other words this was an anti-democratic move. All this talk of late surges. Really. How absurd. Hundreds of people were being recruited and paid for by a single counciler just a couple of weeks ago. Did you not notice?" (From here.)
Mmm, an SWPer getting all upset at the idea of someone packing a meeting. Whatever next? A mormon complaining about someone turning up unannounced on their doorstep on a wet and windy Wednesday night? In fact, I can just picture it:
The scene: The doorstep to a mansion situated just outside Boston. Two people with clipboards and a bundle of papers are at the door. The one who rings the doorbell does all the talking.Bright eyed and bushy-tailed doorstepper - Mr Romney?
Mitt Romney [hesitant and wary.] yes?
BEABTD - You signed our petition back in August . . .
MR - I did?
BEABTD - Yes, it was about plans for a local incinerator.
MR - OK, I vaguely remember that, and did you vote for me like I asked when signing the petition?
BEABTD - Sorry, we'd already committed ourselves to Ron Paul. He has a more consistently anti-imperialist position on the war.
MR - [clearly irritated] I'm a busy man. What do you want?
BEABTD - Well, as you signed our petition, we've thought you'd be interested in an event we've organised. It will be a week of debate, drama and the dialectic.
[Bushy-eyed hands Romney a glossy brochure advertising the event. A familiar face stares out from the brochure.]MR - Wait a minute? This was months ago. I'm a mormon not a moron. You know there's a difference, right? Wait up . . . I get it. You don't know how to finish this post, do you?
BEABTD - [Now looking anything but bright-eyed. If anything, looking a bit sheepish.] Don't know what you mean.
MR - You should have finished the post on the quote from M*A*S*H. That was one of your better efforts.
BEABTD - [Now totally crestfallen.} I guess so. But we still have to sell another five tickets for this event or our district organiser will have us doing paper sales outside Foodtown for the next six months. What do you suggest?
MR - "Off you go - fuck off, fuck off the lot of you" [Slams the door in their face.]
BEABTD - [Talking to the door just shut in his face.] Ok, totally understand. Would you like to take out a supporters subscription to our newspaper, then?
Mashup - "A Jamaican Creole term meaning to destroy".
Leninist Vanguard editor, Dave Dudley, takes time out from his current self-imposed exile in Miami to shout Schadenfreude! in a very loud voice at the SWP and George Galloway over at Monesvain's Place.
Then again, it might not be the real DD. It may be an imposter doing a karaoke Dave Dudley for comedic effect. Who cares? This is post #997, and I will soon be able to put the blog on a low gas again.
From the Socialist Unity Blog
"The answer I have come to is that they [the SWP] cannot and will not tolerate the development of Respect, or personalities within it, that could act as an alternative pole of attraction to the SWP on the left, because Respect will only be tolerated to act as a bridge INTO the SWP, and not towards different directions on the left. They have no conception, or respect, of a left beyond themselves or outside their control. This debate is about sectarianism, pure and simple." Ger Francis, ex-SWP hack turned Salma Yaqoob's gatekeeper.
"The SWP needs all voices within the Party to be heard in the run up to and at conference itself at the moment - if you have an issue with the Party on something then don’t just walk away and vent your spleen in the blogosphere- you have to fight within the Party for your position - write an article for the next Internal Bulletin or something. In fact, you have a duty to do this if you are a serious revolutionary - Lenin for example disagreed with the Bolsheviks on a lot of things - at times he was in a minority of one within the Party - yet he stayed and fought for his position within the Party. If your arguments make sense, then you will win the support of the Party - if they don’t, you won’t - thats how Party democracy works. But the Party itself will almost certainly emerge stronger for having had the debate." SWP blogger and all round Party loyalist, 'Snowball', dishes out the advice to a disillusioned SWPer. (As an aside: He doesn't mention if he offered the same advice to Wrack, Hoveman and Ovenden just before they were expelled from the SWP.)
I have to redden up this wee nugget from 'Snowball's' comment that caught my eye:
"If your arguments make sense, then you will win the support of the Party - if they don’t, you won’t - thats how Party democracy works.
Guilty of the worst sort of ultra-left sectarianism, I have to ask the McCarthyite like question, 'Snowball, have you now or at any other point in your life actually been a member of the SWP?' Your exhortation doesn't have any passing acquaintance to the actual reality of being paper-seller fodder within the ranks of the SWP?
Maybe Andy should turn down the temperature in his comment box. It looks like 'Snowball' is melting.
Looks like Chairman Lenny is bowing to the mood of the meeting, by allowing some dissenting voices in his comments box.
Obviously with it being a meeting organised by the SWP, the Chair can be a bit partial, refusing to allow certain 'sectarians' to speak, and heavily weighting the contributions to SWP fellow travellers and those people who have a Socialist Workers Party 'Party Notes' surgically implanted in their brain, but this ultra-left Kremlinolgist is spotting a thawing - nah, more an uneasiness - on the part of Lenny and his cohorts in having to explain/argue their political machinations in front of their *cough* class.
More please!
"HEAR ME NOW"
Lenny has finally broken his silence on the matter of the current ongoing crisis within Respect between the SWP and Galloway.
Apparently the ". . . nature of the crisis is a division between those in Respect who cleave to socialism and those who have always tended toward electoralism. So it now comes to a point where this has to be stated in the open."
That's cleared that up then. The SWP leadership has taken the initiative and stepped forward to defend the core principles of socialism against those within Respect who are all too ready to transform the Coalition into a vehicle for pure and simple electoralism. Join the fight against the parliamentary road to reformism anyone?
Except, and I'm sure it's a minor point, Lenny neglects to mention to his readers that it was Galloway who initiated this 'debate' within Respect by penning his 'It was the best of times, it was the worst of times' letter to the Respect National Council way back in late August. (And the leadership of the SWP has been on the back foot ever since in its vain attempts to keep its grip on proceedings.)
But, then, maybe Lenny does truly believe that he* and his readers don't actually read those "sectarian blogs" that have been abuzz with this story since it broke in August and who, in the case of the Socialist Unity Blog, currently has a bigger blog readership than Lenny?
Anyway, all this business - you know the most serious internal crisis the Socialist Workers Party leadership has experienced in a generation - is beneath Lenny, and he has stated in no uncertain terms, in the very own comment box to his post no less, that his blog is not the place for anyone outside his very own inner cricle and wider fan club to turn up and ask any awkward questions about the one political and organisational issue that actually directly concerns him.
If you were in any way unsure that Lenny really . . . honestly . . . seriously doesn't give a shit about any of this or is even the least bit bothered about any of those irksome dissenting voices out there who have the cheek to point out the authoritarianism that is at the core of the SWP's politics, he protests too much reiterates the point one more time to his loyal readership in the comment box:
" . . . I am not told what to say on my blog by anyone or authorised, or otherwise instructed. I could easily have commented on this before, but didn't, and only did so here because of the urgency of this matter."
Sorry to sound cynical about Lenny's explanation but it does appear that he's only chosen now to publically comment on this matter on his incredibly popular blog after he saw that the Socialist Worker had published an editorial on the issue.
It doesn't take a Kremlinologist to work out that Lenny has a party card where his spine should be.
*This Lenny who popped up twice on the Socialist Unity Blog to comment on the expulsion of middle ranking SWP cadre was not our Lenny. It was the other Lenny. Glad that misunderstanding has also been cleared up.
Further Reading On Developments Within Respect:
Splintered Sunrise has the best post that I've seen so far on the current crisis within the SWP and Respect.
"Tony, we received a special midnight shipment from our crew on the south side. We'll make a bundle."
(Caught off-guard, the minutes secretary and the student officer of the Glasgow Shettleston CLP are spottedcaucusingdiscussing next week's combined jumble sale and tombola to raise branch funds for the coming General Election.)
Over at Dave O's Place, the artists formerly known as the UK Left Network Denizens are currently chewing over what many of them are interpreting as George Galloway's Dear John Letter to that 1930s cover band, John Rees and the CC's.
In its own way, it's fascinating stuff, and I'd definitely recommend to anyone interested in the nitty-gritty of the machiavellian far left to wing your way over there - or to any other of the 57 far-left blogs also currently doing the rounds on the Galloway/SWP square off - for a quick shufty.
Dave O's thread on the matter is especially enjoyable as you can witness a snowball melt before your very eyes in the comment box, and it also contains this wonderfully vivid quote from Jim Carroll that definitely makes my quote of the day:
"No one with any knowledge of the brand of Scottish labourism that nurtured Galloway, which is essentially an amalgam of Straight Left and The Sopranos, would have been under any illusion that the swp were anything more to him then useful idiots and that sooner or later they were going to get right royally screwed. One would have though that the swps scottish wing might have counselled a degree of caution but given that leading members of that grouping seem to have got themselves fatally involved in the looming disaster that is Sheridan and Solidarity, maybe that was too much to ask for.The bit in the Galloway document that amused me was GGs reference to the train wreck that is the scottish left. Given that Galloway actively campaigned for Solidarity at the scottish elections I would imagine that Solidarity members will not be too chuffed to read that comment. More useful idiots to advance Galloways career.
The SWP and Galloway deserve each other. Its like watching rats fighting in a sack.
