Oh no: we’ve got to go through it!
The celebs and semi-celebs who fellow-travel with the SWP have been put in a difficult position by the present unpleasantness. Take poor old Michael Rosen, for instance: the recently-appointed Children’s Laureate has long been a loyal defender of the SWP and all its works. His only known moment of dissent was a couple of years ago, when he promised to challenge the SWP over their invitation to Gilad Atzmon, the anti-semitic sax-player, to perform and speak at “Marxism”: but in the event Rosen failed to deliver.
Now, poor Rosen (supposedly a man of words) is reduced to this gibberish (on Lenny “Seymour” Lenin’s hilarious/pathetic site):
“I think a lot of the white noise going on is about people diving in to side with their enemy’s enemies without bothering to check first if they disagree more with the enemy’s enemies than they do with the enemy…
“By they (sic-JD) way, I’ve started a political party, it’s called My Party because I’m the only member. Other people can affiliate but not be whole members. I’m holding a rally on November 17th in the Albert Hall. See you there.”
He also sends this Youtube clip which I think sums things up rather better:
Jim Denham said,
November 9, 2007 at 1:25 am
Bloody hell! Rosen’s started commenting in the comments boxes over at the hilariously mis-named pro-Galloway blog “Socialist Unity”:
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1000#comment-14861
Nooman’s done really well out of the Respect implosion, hasn’t he?
capacitor said,
November 9, 2007 at 1:52 am
Yes. but I doubt in a financial way.
Jim Denham said,
November 9, 2007 at 1:54 am
I most certainly didn’t mean to suggest that.
modernityblog said,
November 9, 2007 at 2:32 am
ahh come on, leave poor old Mike Rosen alone, he’s lost, as an average Respect member, he doesn’t know what’s going on, he’s being pulled from both sides and no one is telling him the truth about the Split.
Rosen has only kind words to say about Galloway, and his past connections to the SWP play strong with him.
my bet is that he’ll hover for a while and then go Galloway, then again…
still the SWP is certain of one things: Gilad Atzmon undying support!
Michael Rosen said,
November 9, 2007 at 11:09 pm
I’m lost, I’m lost. Show me the way, o wise ones…
Michael Rosen said,
November 9, 2007 at 11:10 pm
I’m lost, I’m lost. Show me the way, o wise ones.
modernityblog said,
November 10, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Mike,
if in doubt write a poem about it?
my doggerel is poor, but I hope it isn’t shown the door:
oh Galloway, oh Galloway
how could we ever let you get away?
your strutting on the world stage was plenty
but it left us feeling rather empty
the workers wage will never do
for such is the likes of you
as Respect is split asunder
it does make you wonder
oh why didn’t socialists see that such communalism is dire?
and will only lead you into the hands of liars!
[free of copyright]
Michael Rosen said,
November 10, 2007 at 5:21 pm
o modernity, modernity, modernity
Your verse is timeless
and will last for eternity,
people said that satire was dead – or worse
but, nay, it lives on in your verse…
tim said,
November 10, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Michael,
can you find a rhyme for perjurer?
I’ve got one for spiv.
modernityblog said,
November 10, 2007 at 6:08 pm
ahh Tim,
lay off Mike Rosen
Mike is too easy of a target and I know we can all say “I told you so”, and we’d be right about the nasty aspects of communalism, subjugating of “shibboleths” and the Machiavellian politics of both Galloway and his SWP opponents in Respect, but that doesn’t make it easier for him.
I suspect that Mike like many people would have wished something better or left of Labour, but the reality is the British Left is rubbish, full of posturing ex-students, egomaniac’s, opportunists, political opportunism and outdated dogma, well past its sell by date.
until that changes in a meaningful way then clutching at straws in Respect (SWP) or Respect Renewal is hardly the way to go.
nevertheless, I can see that people will do it, much like they would join a cult or take up some strange religious belief, it is a strange human compunction do appear to do something however useless or pointless that activity might be in reality
still best not run salt into Mike’s wounds, he’s had enough with the SWP and Gilad Atzmon.
Michael Rosen said,
November 10, 2007 at 7:41 pm
…and there’s an obvious rhyme for tim, huh?
Actually, mod, not feeling too wounded, so no need to worry about the salt. Politics isn’t about being peeved or not, is it? Left-of-Labour is an interesting territory and it always has been.
modernityblog said,
November 10, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Mike,
peeved or not,
no, I wouldn’t say so, but having followed much of the discussion as I can at SU blog, I can see there is a great deal of confusion as to what is really going on, and how much is politics, how much is personalities, and how much is underlying beliefs is another question
I think the point is that it was clear from the outset trying to stitch together an organisation based on “the lowest common denominator” type politics, with a dose of communalism thrown in for good measure wasn’t going to work, that’s clear when we step back and try to be objective about the whole situation
and the political instincts of the key people as shown by the unfolding events shows that it isn’t too removed from the “Blair School” of control freakery (power at any cost), combined with organisational models more suited to tsarist Russia and handing down of the “line”, resemblance of the 1930s Comintern – all very outdated and stupid
of course, 30 or 40 years ago all of these shabby events would have been held behind closed doors and we would be none the wiser but the Internet and in particular SU blog have played a good (if partisan) role in showing up the main players for what they are, mostly strutting egomaniac’s and political hacks
who couldn’t run a bath or tell the truth if their life depended on it.
that’s been a problem for the outdated Leninist model, it and the SWP have not quite kept up with the Internet and the implications, so they tell a pile of porkies, half-truths, misinterpretations and then they’re surprised when people reject them after reading the extensive critiques that are on the Web (Laim MacUaid’s site is good for this)
I’m not sure that any of the political lessons will be learnt from this debacle, certainly people will be contrite for a few months, they’ll talk about unity and “need to learn lessons” (like the platitudes of the Brown government), but a year down the line they’ll still be carrying on, much as they have in the past
a sense of history, modestly and introspection are decidedly lacking on the British Left
Which is a shame, there are many fine activists, many excellent and dedicated people on the British Left, but when you compare it, overall, to European counterparts, it is minuscule, fairly useless and misses out on any good opportunity (mass anti-war sentiment) to build something different, because mostly the politics are childish, simplistic and unconvincing, and in the end people decide with their feet and walk away in droves, and you’re stuck with a Left in Britain that resembles religious sects (leadership figures, footsoldiers, parroted dogma, no dissent, etc)
All a bit silly eh Mike?
tim said,
November 10, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Michael is a very good childrens author.
On Galloway of course I think those who have taken the lowest view have always been proven right.
Personally I think its likely that George has perjured himself and that Oil cash through the wifes Jordanian account found its way to a scottish Coop bank account.
Theres time for that.
On the Respect project I have been wrong on one thing.
I expected a fake break in rather than a lock out.
One thing is certain,Ovenden Hovemanetc are making a big mistake.
Georgie will back Jamaats Miah for Bethnal and dump the bag carriers..
Dave said,
November 11, 2007 at 11:20 am
In fairness to Mike Rosen, of all the books written by Marxists that I have ever read to Daddy’s Little Princesses by way of a bedtime story, they much prefer ‘We’re Going on a Bear Hunt’ to ‘Revolution Betrayed’.
KMS said,
November 11, 2007 at 5:50 pm
If you have tried to read your princesses Trotsky as a good night story, I’m sure it would have worked (in sending them to sleep), but on the other hand, it would be very close to child abuse.
Jules said,
November 11, 2007 at 7:15 pm
On the other hand Lenin’s Materialism and Empirio-criticism would have sent them to sleep pretty quick.
snoopythegoon said,
November 11, 2007 at 7:23 pm
“Michael is a very good childrens author.”
Could be, I am ignorant on this point, my children coming of age before I got free access to anti-proletarian British literature. So I know him/of him only as Isakofsky, the poisonous dwarf of Mark Elf’s (he of Jews sans Y-fronts fame) collection of court fauna.
Marxist? Oh well, there are lots of labels out there. We call them “tags” in IT industry, and more than one can apply to an object. Or to a subject…
Michael Rosen said,
November 12, 2007 at 12:17 am
modernity, you describe the problem here as if it was all a matter of organisation (a right or wrong one) and procedure. No doubt you have views as to what the content of the politics could or should be but you start with questions of organisation, presumably because that’s what some of this row in Respect seems to be about.
In all the discussions I’ve read that say that a) the SWP is Leninist and b) Leninism is crap and outdated, I haven’t seen anything that suggests exactly what kind of organisation would be better. I see words like ‘open’ and ‘more democratic’ and ‘less top-down’ but they don’t actually say very much. I see the problem as this:
1. There are a few thousand people who appear to hold a set of views to the ‘left’ of the Labour Party, though some of these people are in the Labour Party.
2. The models for political organisation in the three main political parties are not exactly democratic. There all operate a layering system that enables an elected elite to do what it wants. People in these parties don’t seem to mind this terribly much.
3. A ‘left of Labour party’ usually tries to work to some other model. As we all know here are some of the problems that have to be overcome:
the organisation has to respond to events as they happen
the organisation has to represent the views of the majority of its members
the organisation has to be able to develop positions on issues.
the organisation has to be able to stay together so that it can circulate its ideas and organise ie be active and take part in events as it sees fit.
I’m sure there are others.
So what’s the best format for these? I’m not in an organisation. However, I don’t see many examples of people even trying to set up organisations that fulfil this set of criteria. Nearly all organisations and institutions in our society are run by appointed elites. Curiously, very few people have much a problem with these. However, the moment it comes to a political organisation outside of the main three, people suddenly start getting much more concerned about whether their views are heard, or whether the top council/committee of this organisation is really listening to them etc etc. I detect that this has become a stick to beat left organisations with simply because people don’t like the particular organisation. We all know that the Thatcherite war on the unions wasn’t really about union democracy – when has the Tory party been interested in democracy in the institions we live and work in? – it was because they couldn’t stand unions.
So, some left of labour organisations adopt something they call democratic centralism. What precisely is wrong with this? Branches select delegates, delegates attend conferences, Conferences pass or reject motions. There is a central committee. Can the members of this central committee be recalled? How often are its members re-elected? Is this set-up unsatisfactory? Why? How? If it’s unsatisfactory, is that in some abstract theoretical way – ie not fulfilling some basic democratic criteria? Or is it because its organisation can’t deliver what it says that it want to deliver ie in a practical way? Are there organisations around that offer a better model in a) an abstract way and b) in a practical way?
Modernity, you mention the internet but the internet is really a very large pub. People just chat. They can’t pass motions. People say things without any responsibility. Indeed, there is a sense in which it’s not real ie most people write anonymously. This means that no opinion or thought has to be backed by a real person’s actions. People don’t have to be consistent (they can change their pseudonyms, or be two people at the same time etc). Any political organisation, has to deal with real people. The people who decide things have to be there and vote and (usually) abide by majority decisions. The internet can’t be a substitute for this. It can only be a very large pub full of strangers you can’t see and might not think what they say they think. It’s therefore full of misleading red herrings – as I know full well, when people whose identity is hidden decide to engage with long arguments with people whose identity isn’t hidden!
(thanks I’m flattered by the stuff about me as a children’s author, but just consider for a moment, I have no idea who ‘modernity’ is, who ‘tim’ is, who ’shiraz’ is etc etc. The conversation is completely asymetrical. ON this occasion, the links with my personal and professional life are quite benign and jokey. But on plenty of occasions it hasn’t been. But I can’t reply in kind (assuming that I would want to).
In a political organisation, decisions can be reached where this kind of asymetry doesn’t operate anywhere near as much. In fact, this seems to be part of the problem on the Galloway front. It seems as if (I guess) that there are some people who think that GG’s powerful speaking presence and election as an MP should have meant that his opinions and decisions should have been different from other people’s. If he wanted to do x or y, then as he’s GG, he could and should. It’s certainly one way to operate in an organisation but if the organisation has other organising principles then it’s a bit tricky. As it happens, I’m not saying this as a criticism of GG but more of how things can develop around someone like GG. I’ve seen it happen elsewhere in other situations and I happen to think that it’s a consequence of the way we live and work in existing institutions. We can’t break the habits of them, and instead, we import them into the very organisations we’ve joined in order to change or demolish the existing ones!
modernityblog said,
November 12, 2007 at 1:37 am
Mike,
I agree with much of what you say, in the above instance, I hope I was highlighting what should have been obvious to most people who follow politics? A few random thoughts, it is late and my mind is not too good.
Surely, these problems are not unique. it’s like everything else, part organisation, part people, part politics and part events?
You wrote:
Nearly all organisations and institutions in our society are run by appointed elites. Curiously, very few people have much a problem with these.
On the contrary, a lot of people have a lot of problems with them, but instead of making a fuss, they just walk away.
The evidence for this, is the stream of people will go through left-wing organisations and the Left still remains small. Or you could take the example of the antiwar movement, a fine opportunity, millions there and now it’s down to tens of thousands.
We can make rationalisations of these problems, but I think that’s part of the issue, the Left in Britain is great at rationalising things, explaining them away, but achieving something tangible, something solid is so elusive.
In many ways the British Left is very British, it barely looks across to the continent and the large-scale working-class organisations that are over there, and thinks, “how do they do it?”, “what lessons can we learn?”, etc
Instead what you have (as far as I can say) amongst the Left leadership a lot of know-all know-nothings, if you look at their pronouncements and then compare what actually happens, there is such a difference, which inevitably is explained away with some slight of hand.
But it isn’t very convincing.
It is a bit like listening to a Tony Blair news conference, for the fourth time, you know what is going to be said, a mountain of platitudes, grins and vague promises, but what does he actually do for anyone else but himself and the elite he represents? Nothing, a big fat nothing.
I’m sure if some parts of the Left ever use their extensive analytical capacity to analyse their own failings then something might happen, but I doubt it
I think John Sullivan summed it up best:
“In fact, the Left groups do not exist outside history, and if we consider the context in which they live their actions are as rational as anyone else’s. If we should criticise them particularly, it is because they claim to have a superior understanding.”
http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/pages/Sectariana/Pub.html#Conclusion
Nearly twenty years on, not much has changed eh?
modernityblog said,
November 12, 2007 at 1:40 am
Mike,
Anna Chen’s stuff raises many of the issues that I would also point too:
http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Politics/Chen.html
a very public sociologist said,
November 12, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Always good to have a celeb kicking about on your blog. Who knows, maybe he’ll link you next!
Louise said,
November 12, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Modernity: Yeah, Anna’s article is spot-on re the shenanigans in the SA. The Left is its own worst enemy and never really learns from the painful lessons.
Instead trots along aimlessly to the next washout. Needs to understand why many good committed lefties get burnt out and piss off in disgust. It will take more than the average balance sheet. I would say the constant adherence to the practices of Leninism and dem cent is one of the core problems but said it all before.
But read Anna’s article.
modernityblog said,
November 12, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Mike,
my point concerning the Internet, was that otherwise private skulduggery and political backbiting was often done in secret years ago
the Internet has opened up political discourse, now we can all point to problems with that, but by and large, I think the exchange of views, news and critiques are useful
dictators all around the world are scrambling to limit the Internet, they do it because they want to control of flow of news and information, so I think that the Left should take a positive approach to the Internet and not be so begrudging, as it seems to be.
concerning the Respect debate, I can understand why members might not want the dirty laundry to be washed in public, but it is a historical record and people can,with time, filter out the real events and cogent interpretations of them
the thing is, I’d rather have an open debate than no debate at all
reading the numerous comments, I have even found myself acknowledging the wisdom of people who I would never normally agree with, some of them make very good points, political points
and that’s what I think we should encourage political debate amongst the widest range of people, not closed down or just limited to an elite