Friday Fuckwits - Stop the War Coalition (well its executive and those voting against Hopi)

I posted up a letter last week from John McDonnell MP and Professor Moshé Machover calling for an end to Hopi's exclusion from the StWC. I  won't regurgitate the argument as you can click and read for yourselves.

I was disheartened but not surprised to read Jim's report on the conference. Check it out, but here are the main points re Hopi:

Sadly the affiliation of Hands off the People of Iran, an organisation that opposes war and sanctions as well as providing solidarity with Iranian trade unionists, feminists and other progressives, was again blocked.

The speeches against came from the chair, in his capacity as chair (where else does this happen?), and a particularly vacuous individual who actually said that if Hopi wanted to support the progressive movements against the Iranian regime they should hop on a plane and do it in Iran. But where do they campaign against sanctions or invasion from?

I've been told to go back to Russia a number of times in my life but this is the first time I've heard go back to Iran. I look forward to this person denouncing those who provide support to anti-occupation movements in Afghanistan and Iraq and demanding these people go to these countries if they want to fight the regimes there. No? Thought not.

Jim is asked in the comments what the argument against Hopi is, and he explains :

They were astoundingly weak.

The speaker against said that you couldn't oppose the Iranian regime without making the case for war and sanctions (which isn't true), that it was up to Iranians to make these decisions (which has an element of truth to it but if taken to its logical conclusion means that solidarity work is impossible, including the work of the stwc), that argument also makes the assumption that solidarity work is the same thing as overthrowing the regime from the outside - which seems facile to me.

Most of his speech was taken up with saying why the stwc shouldn't take up the policies of hopi - which is a complete irrelavance to the debate.

Andrew Murray's arguments were equally weak. They centered around the fact that in 2006 Mark Fisher of the CPGB said nasty things about the stwc. It was jaw droppingly thin - but delegates were pre-disposed to vote against hopi affiliating i think - and having heard some of the bizarre things people come out with about it sometimes I think there's a whispering camapign against it, which is probably where that vote was really won.

So this week's 'honour' goes to the executive , those who argued against Hopi and the sectarian fodder that voted against. No wonder the left is fucked.

Channel Four asks ...Is Mark Fischer the next Lenin?

Watch Mark being a media tart...



Oh and Martin Smith , but he is just dull .

Hat tip :David Broder.

Yep, the left is fucked.

Diary dates

First off the big fight this Sunday. Whilst capitalism falls (OK, stumbles ), various sad leftie anoraks will be packed into the Lucas Arms to watch Sean Matgamna and Moshe Machover slug it out. I don't expect anyone to change their view point , as Dave says:

On a related note, here's four things that are frankly unlikely to be said at the said meeting:

* 'OK, we'll just have to agree to differ on that one.'
* 'Well, I have to admit that our paper got the line on [insert issue] totally wrong in [insert date].'
* 'I'm speaking as a member of the International Bolshevik Tendency. But if want to know what I really think on this one, well, personally ...'
* 'Why can't we all, y'know, just share the love?'

For those of you with nothing better to do the details are :

Sunday 12 October , The Lucas Arms, 245a Grays Inn Road, Kings Cross, starting 5.15pm.


I'll be there as its Dave's idea of showing me a good time.

Oh and apparently its going to be filmed and put on the Internet. Who knows if there is demand it may end on up DVD, the ideal pressie for the really sad, though I don't want it in my xmas(fishnet) stocking !

I still think a cage fight would settle this once and for all!


For those of you wanting a calmer debate the Left Economics Advisory Panel (LEAP) are hosting an emergency summit :

'Who Pays for the Credit Crunch?' on Monday 13th October at 7:30pm in Cm Rm 10 of the House of Commons.

Speakers include Brian Caton (POA), Jeremy Dear (NUJ), Kelvin Hopkins MP, John McDonnell MP (Chair), Mark Serwotka (PCS), Prem Sikka (Professor of Accountancy, University of Essex), Graham Turner (author of 'The Credit Crunch').

More details on the LRC website, plus links to debate and papers on the left response .Also on the LEAP website.

The decline of New Labour

New Labour as we know cosied up to big business, in fact many are quite in awe of wealth .



As it won the backing of businessmen it really didn't care too much about the unions or the grassroots members . The money would come from business to pay workers to do all the focus groups and TV adverts , so what did it matter if at a local level many Party constituencies were pretty inactive.

A few years back I blogged in response to Ann Clywd who said at the time, in response to party members being critical of policy, that they should 'just go away.'

What I said then pretty much stands now:

She quotes members as saying "And why don't these other people just go away.'" Well Ann, as I have pointed out many have. I'm glad you feel that the Party is strong enough at the grass roots level that it can afford to hemorrhage further activists. Not sure if the big business donors fancy a bit of leafletting and all the dull work that needs to go on locally. As they start to desert , and the money dries up,will there still be the activists who fund raised and donated money for many years.


Why am I dredging up an old post from two years ago? Well figures show that the Party is losing members and is pretty broke:

The collapse in Labour's grassroots membership numbers has contributed to its precarious financial position, with the party still £18 million in debt despite slashing its staff and spending.

In an official submission to the Electoral Commission, Labour admitted that its membership at the end of 2007 was 176,891.

That is scarcely 40 per cent of the 405,000 peak reached in 1997 when Tony Blair took office, and thought to be the lowest total since Labour was founded in 1900.

Total Labour membership fell by nearly 6,000 during 2007, the year Gordon Brown replaced Mr Blair as leader. It is believed to have gone on falling during the first half of this year too.

The accounts published by the Electoral Commission showed that Labour remains in dire financial straits.

While Labour cut its debt from nearly £25 million to £17.9 million over the course of the last year, it still owes more than £15 million to individual lenders.

More than £11 million of those loans is due to be repaid this year.

The party has run up interest payments of more than £2.2 million on money it borrowed from wealthy backers before the 2005 general election.

According to the commission records, Labour had 213 staff at the end of 2007, down from 302 in the election year of 2005.

But with the exception of Lord Sainsbury, the supermarket heir and Science Minister, and Lakshmi Mittal, the steel magnate, Labour has failed to attract any big name donors, and the bulk of its funding came from the unions.

So membership is down, money is tight and in the polls and at by-elections Labour is doing badly. The Blairites and Brownites continue to bicker about what is fundamentally personalities rather than any major policy difference. Whilst New Labour scheme to knife Brown and find a replacement, it seems that a change in leader is not going to save Labour.

Changing one New Labour PM for another won't help. Its not about 'getting the message across better.'Its not about moving further to the right and making the Tories look all cuddly and electable.

This Labour government now resembles the last years of John Major's . It will stumble on, fighting and blaming but unable to grasp the need to change direction. The Tories are not cuddly and left, but this New Labour Government is letting them pass as such .

I'm not sure what can be done from the left in the Party. I think we need to push a left wing programme but let the right wingers knife Brown. If there is an election then I'd support another John McDonnell campaign, albeit with much cynicism. The unions could now exert pressure , but it seems they do not have will for that judging by reports from Warwick.

The reality is the real fight for the direction of the Labour Party will come after the next election. Much as I like retro furniture I don't much like retro politics, and revisiting the 80s and 10-15 years of Tory rule is not my idea of fun.Been there, done that and got the badges. Somehow I do think there will be a difference , especially once they have power again and the arrogance that goes with it.

Stay and fight in the Labour Party, join another party/group or leave the country ? The last option sounds the best.
The left is fucked.

Pic from that other campaign for Labour Leader.

The left is fucked ...part 225

John McDonnell at the Permanent Revolution event last weekend, via Tami.
He almost makes Dave look an optimist.



Tami also has some good reports of the LRC and PR events last weekend.

How the left should resolve their problems

After much serious thought on the subject I have come up with the answer to all the squabbles on the left. I considered serious political theoretical and strategic discussion but decided to cut to the chase, yep all the old bitter battles as to who did what in 1981 or more recent spats with the SWP could be settled by a cage fight.

Apparently :

The fighting style itself is a physically gruelling mixture of wrestling and martial arts where almost anything goes. Only biting, clawing, gouging, and low blows to the genitals are forbidden. Unlike commercial wrestling leagues, there are no dummy punches or special clickers in the shoes to make it sound like a blow has been landed. Like boxing, a winner defeats their opponent either by knocking them out or on judges' point-scoring. Pinning down one's adversary also works.

No more arguing the toss over who has the correct line and quoting obscure Marxist theory, no more rehashing old feuds , just a good old fashioned fight.

So, who would you like to see in a cage fighting ?

Always look on the bright side of life ...

I know Dave is known for his cheery positive outlook on the state of the left, ok bit sarky, but this post is spot on, if depressing.

I know many will be saying oh well , Labour are no better. Hmmm, as someone who lived under the Tories I think there is a difference, however slight. One area will be that of women's rights and the Tories pushing their pro (straight, married) families agenda that Duncan Smith is pulling together. Its highly likely that with more Tories in the Commons that Nadine Dorries, and her assorted god bothers, will push through attacks on women's right to choose. The Tories aren't really cuddly and when they win they tend to get more arrogant .

Dave is right, this won't be a one term government and by the second the gloves will be off. Watch what Boris does, never mind booze bans, I think there will be more to worry about. Already he has said he will not renew the oil deal with Venezuela, leading to the removal of cut price fares for those on income support. Expect more of the same, he is not playing to inner London , but the Daily Mail suburbs.

Anyway, reading Dave's post reminded me of this...


Where is Spitting Image when you need it...

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.

Life is too short .

I don't have much time to blog today, but just wanted to do this quick post.

My political activity has been varied over the years, times of doing lots and others not so much. I have started to get more active in the last year or so . To be honest though I'm not really sure I can be arsed to do much anymore.

The left at the moment is pretty unpleasant. Its full of hate directed at each other.
Its full of personalised attacks and I realise that with yesterday's post I was getting caught up in all that. I don't want to get embroiled up in that sort of debate.That is not why I became involved in politics .

I don't want to point score.

I am genuinely sad that there is not a broad left party outside of Labour that I feel I can join. I know what i say will dismissed, but I really wish the RR lot would think about how they are alienating people, stop being defensive, and just listen.

For now I'm not sure I want to be very involved . I'll blog. yep that's not worth much. I'll go to the odd demo and conference. I won't though do much else. Life is too short to spend it being attacked by people who should be a comrade.

Looking around at the way the left treats each other I wonder what sort of world we would create if we ever had the chance .

Im sure I can be dismissed , but I don't think I am the only disilluioned person .

The left is fucked !!

Yeah I know, I've said this before .

Today though I spent some time looking on Socialist Unity (never was a name quite so inappropriate).
Now some may say this is sour grapes as Andy has proudly announced a number of times how many people visit his blog and he gets many more than my 250-350 average unique visitors. This has increased since the Respect split. If that makes him happy then all well and good but at what price,I mean the Sun newspaper gets more readers than the broadsheets .

Anyway I read the comments with an increasing feeling of depression and anger at the way people were arguing. There was so much hate, anger and energy directed at scoring points and being abusive and threatening.

Andy has said that this blog is one of the very worst for intimidation and that I have double standards. Well that phrase came back to me as I saw mainly male commentators being abusive and threatening .

So whats happened about this new accountable, open , welcoming Respect Renewal then?

There is a post on sexism which has degenerated into abuse and threats. One commentator allegedly is known to have hit a woman and he seems to be welcome there and also quite active in RR. So far no one has denied that.

I have in the past been called a 'CIA whore' by someone who comments there and is in RR.

Another RR member is making threats to people in the comments.

Andy, if you are serious that RR is different then you need to look critically at the behaviour of some of your members and the level of 'debate' conducted by them.


So come on Andy, do you also have double standards ?
Oh and don't divert attention back to what the SWP did or didn't do. RR is a broad left party, it has councillors and MPs. For many lefties who are disillusioned in the LP it should be a tempting alternative, the SWP isn't. RR is saying they are different, come on then show us.

Look at the level of 'debate' . Oh and now we have the reopening of the Sheridan/SSP/ Solidarity fights now that there has been an arrest.So now there are two nasty bitter fights going on.

I look at much of the left and seriously would not want many of them to exercise any real power.

The left rips itself apart and fights in ever decreasing circles.

Stand back and look at how the left is behaving. Imagine you are new to the left, wtf does it look like.

Does it really care that it is getting smaller and more inward looking , disappearing up its own collective backside ?

I expect I will be dismissed as having double standards, or be told but what about the LP , or stop picking on RR or some diversionary tactic. I doubt my view counts and they probably don't care that they are alienating potential supporters. Its easier to attack than listen and reflect.

Meanwhile in the real world its pretty shit for many people.

But hey, lets get back to the important stuff, fighting each other while New labour and the neo cons laugh at us.

Can't be arsed

I will write a longer, more considered, post on this a bit later. For the time being I really can't be arsed and have had enough with all the really crappy attacks and point scoring for what passes as debate on the left.

Hello?? we are a tiny group of people. Anyone looking in would run a mile. We alienate more than we draw in through our tactics. Hey, perhaps I do. I have been told I am alienating for the way I criticised Galloway and that my blog is one of the most intimidating around. My views count for little as I have had a drink with Denham.Makes a change from being told I have blood on my hands and am a CIA whore (which I'm not btw, don't charge and only shag lefties :-))

I really wonder why I bother. Who needs enemies when you can have leftie comrades. Fuck knows what any society we created would be like.

Oh and this is not just a rant at any one person. Its a general I am fucked off with the left brought on by debates about Kylie's arse (Says it all really) and the general nastiness that passes for a debate on Respect. Its just a culmination of pissed off ness.

Want to know what I'm griping about? Bit of a political masochist ?
Check out here , here and here.

For now I'm going to have some JD, play scrabble on facebook and eventually write a more considered post in the next few days.Or perhaps give up and get a life.

btw on Splintered Sunrise Andy Newman says that this blog is intimidating

Generally, the blogs are not safe places where people feel confident to express a dissenting view. And two of the very worst in terms of intimidation are Stroppyblog and Shiraz socialists, because you tolerate the verbal bullying from Voltaires Priest and others.
And Stroppy
You did tolerate and collude in bullying of Louise by “Voltaires Priest”.


He is referring to this thread.

Make up your own minds if this makes this blog one of the very worst in terms of intimidation.

I don't delete and I don't moderate . I don't see anything here that is worse than many of the blogs and that includes SU.

My head hurts

Good intentions . I planned to avoid the blogs today, but like a soap opera addict I had to get the latest episode.

arghhhhhhhhhhh!

Might post something a little more constructive later if I don't lose the will to live all together.