In Defence Of Argument

At the outset, I must point out that this is a post about the politics of argument, and is not aimed at any individual whatsoever. There has been a lot of stuff on this blog of late - and in and around the left in general for years - about whether we should argue amongst ourselves. These are my thoughts on the issue, and, I repeat, not directed at any particular comment or commenter.

The second thing I'd say at the outset is that I actually hate arguments. If I know there is one coming up at a meeting, I will usually lose sleep for a couple of nights before and get unbearably tense on the way there. I argue not for fun, but because it is, sadly, necessary. I also freely admit that, in common with many people, I am better at dishing it out than taking it.

Yes, arguments within the left and the labour movement can be very frustrating and can get nasty. But suppression of argument is a much more ugly tradition. I have sat through numerous trade union events and watched endless uncontroversial resolutions pass unanimously. This does not make me think "Wow, isn't it fantastic that we all agree with each other and can go out and fight the bosses in unity!" No, it's more like "Bloody hell, I know we have loads of disagreements, but instead of being addressed, they are being drowned in a sea of inanity." The lack of argument within the Socialist Workers' Party is not a sign of its political health but one of its greatest weaknesses. And need I even start on the Stalinist method of suppression of debate?

How can we possibly develop the best policies for our movement without considering different points of view and arguing them out? I've held to various views during my lifetime that have failed to stand up to argument with others, leading me to revise my thinking. And I'm very glad of it - if I had avoided the argument, I'd still hold to naff views.

But doesn't arguing amongst ourselves stop us fighting the real enemy (that's the Tories and the ruling class, not the SWP!)? Taken to excess, yes. But generally, no. In fact, the opposite. We can be more effective in fighting the real enemy if we argue our politics and thoroughly discuss our tactics. I have seen more campaigns and trade union struggles fail because of lack of argument than because of too much argument.

The important issue to me is not whether we argue - that's unavoidable - but how we do it. As the appalling level of so-called 'debate' on the 'Socialist Unity' blog referred to elsewhere has shown, the left seriously needs to raise the standards of how we argue. I can't help feeling that often - though not always - crap standards of debate are rooted in crap politics. For instance, the stuff against Stroppy and Tami on the SU blog comes from the fact that their critics were struggling to defend the indefensible ie. their softness on George Galloway's dodgy politics on women's rights.

Here are a few tips I try to follow, albeit not always successfully:

• Read and/or listen to your adversary's argument in good faith. They might be right, at least partially. And even if they are totally wrong, you will get useful practice arguing against them and will convince anyone else who is eavesdropping more effectively if you engage with what they argue.
  
• Back up your argument with facts and examples, but don't turn an argument into a competition about who knows the most facts about the issue.
  
• Don't take it personally. If someone criticises your politics or your view on a particular issue, they are having a go at your argument, not at you. Mind you, if they do have a go at you personally, by all means take it personally and give as good as you get.
  
• Sarcasm usually doesn't work in print. There will always be someone who thinks you mean it.
  
• And this should go without saying but sadly doesn't - we argue with our mouths, pens and keyboards, not with our fists.

So, "Can't we just stop arguing amongst ourselves?" No, we can't. But we can do it in a more political, comradely and constructive way.

Why HOPI should be accepted for membership in StWC

I thought I would stick my tuppence h'alfpenny regarding this debate around HOPI (Hands Off People of Iran).

To put my own cards on the table, Andrew Murray of StWC is wrong to decline membership to HOPI.

I hope this ludicrous decision is overturned soon. There is sabre rattling regarding an attack on Iran and another country to be targeted by the imperialist west.

"The main focus of StWC is, however, on challenging the policies of the British government in respect of the war, which includes respecting the rights of all peoples to self-determination.."

I am an anti-imperialist. Regime change has to be from within by the self-determination of the Iranian people. But why can't HOPI join? I think the arguments used by Murray are red herrings esp. One argument being that HOPI being a front for the CPGB. And I can't see how HOPI really counterposes the politics of StWC either.

There are probably other fronts…and many groups do indeed have more fronts than the average sea side town! But a coalition (yes, the word, “coalition”) should accept them. Unless if it is a deliberate attempt to smash and disrupt your group up then yes, you would bar them.

But this doesn't seem to be the case with HOPI as there are people involved who are consistent principled anti-imperialists. You politically argue your points by NOT barring them, or the specious argument that “the CPGB are a collective pain in the arse” is nonsense… Reality check here, name me a group that isn’t?

This decision should be overturned as it will give StWC a very bad name along with the anti-war movement overall. It will start an unhealthy precedent and attacks democracy. If we are gonna get picky about political affliliations and picking and choosing then what’s Andrew Murray’s group again, many people think StWC is an “SWP front” and so on… glass houses, throwing stones come to mind as well.

If this is a "front" by the CPGB then they are utterly clever in hoodwinking comrades. The list of names include some I have known for years and have been around the political block for years and would know a "front organisation" if they saw one.

If also we use this bizarre logic of denying HOPI membership then why are Labour lefties allowed? I mean, we are members of a pro-war, pro-imperialist party. Murray's argument falls to pieces. It shouldn't be allowed any gravitas.

I think Charlie Pottins is correct in asserting: "If Hands off the People of Iran was really just set up as some devious CPGB stunt, they have been clever with it. The supporters' list includes some well-known figures whose standing in the anti-war, labour and> progressive movements few would doubt (e.g.John> Pilger, Ken Loach, Naomi Klein, MPs John McDonnell and Harry Cohen, and Green MEP Caroline Lucas...).


I think it boils down, partly, to people disliking the CPGB and that is pretty subjective and apolitical. There's are many groups on the Left that I find annoying and narksome but I don't think, hey, lets bar 'em. I work with them, argue and engage with them. HOPI has other groups/individuals involved including Organisation of Revolutionary Workers of Iran, and Workers Left Unity Iran, so let them have membership.



The treatment of HOPI will fuel the fires of the pro-war "left" while rubbing their hands in glee something which coulda/shoulda been avoided.