Libya, the world and everything: Mr Taaffe flounders on
June 12, 2011 at 5:01 pm (AWL, Jim D, Libya, Marxism, Socialist Party, trotskyism)
The increasingly desperate and incoherent Socialist Party leader Peter Taaffe flouders on, a desperate man in search of a theoretical justification for betraying the Libyan rebels, and attacking the AWL.
It’s classic stuff: “It is true that we have only occasionally taken up their [ie The AWL's] ideas
subsequently for one very simple reason: their limited influence in the labour
movement combined with precisely this shrill tone, which is a barrier to real
discussion and to raising the level of understanding of young people and
workers, which is fully on display in Thomas’s reply to us. The AWL represents a
political dead end for workers and young people who wander, some of them
accidentally, into their ranks. We hope that we can help to inoculate them
against the false ideas and methods of the AWL which are unique only in one
sense: they combine vicious ultra-left methods with an organically opportunist
approach which is absolutely incapable of building substantial support within
the workers’ movement. This has been amply demonstrated when they were put to
the test and failed over the war in Libya.” Read the rest here.
Even some readers of The Socialist are unhappy about the Socialist Party’s treacherous ’line’ on Libya: here.
And read Sean Matgamna surgically taking Mr Taaffe and his tendency to pieces, here. Poor Mr Taaffe, out of his league, must be regretting crossing Sean who eats him for breakfast.
Classic stuff, indeed.
Danni said,
June 13, 2011 at 10:13 pm
“I see my letter is in the journal Socilalism Today. On reflection i have changed my mind since my letter was printed on Libya and now agree with the answer Peter Taaffe gave in reply.”
From Chris Fernandez’ Facebook page. Clearly he has changed his mind since comrade Taaffe addressed his concerns – perhaps Sean Matgamna/John O’Mahony/Seán MacMathúna/Paddy Dollard/Jack Cleary should also change his mind based on his clear and balanced Marxist analysis.
I quite agree that sometimes Peter’s writing is not exactly perfectly phrased, but his analysis is always insightful.
If comrade Matgamna is eating Taaffe for breakfast then why, pray tell, does Taaffe’s tendency have over 2000 members, and Matgamna’s less than 100?
raincoatoptimism said,
June 14, 2011 at 3:34 pm
To see Taaffe’s reply to the NFZ supportive reader makes me shiver – it starts with the faux welcome that can often end with a bludgeoning to death.
charliethechulo said,
June 14, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Danni: “Clearly he has changed his mind since comrade Taaffe addressed his concerns”
Can we expect public self-criticism from Comrade Fernandez, now that he has seen the error of his ways?
Danni said,
June 15, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Not at all. Chris is entitled to his own opinion, however it is interesting that Shiraz cites him as a “dissenting” SP member when in fact he is no such thing.
Mr Oscar back with the shelving said,
June 15, 2011 at 12:00 am
“If comrade Matgamna is eating Taaffe for breakfast then why, pray tell, does Taaffe’s tendency have over 2000 members, and Matgamna’s less than 100?”
That sentence right there tells you everything you need to know about a) the pitiful level of Danni’s thinking skills, let alone any Marxian critical skills, b) just how fuckking shit so-called british-trotskyism actually is and c) just what a waste of fuckking time it is, arguing about anything at all with thick fuckking pieces of shit religiously-minded crankpoTTS.
Danni said,
June 15, 2011 at 3:07 pm
I agree, comparing the size of the two men’s tendencies is about as relevant to which of them is right as comparing the size of their “male organs”. I was frustrated by the shrill tone of the AWL and the even shriller tone of Shiraz so made a cheap comment. It was unnecessary on my part.
It’s not a waste of time to debate me at all. When I first heard about the NFZ I thought it was a great idea, and while I thought certain elements of Matgamna’s argument were suspect – e.g. the distinction between supporting and not condemning the action – I thought he was broadly correct. However, having spoken to other comrades and seen numerous opinions on the subject I revised my view, and now broadly accept the SP “line” on the issue.
Jim Denham said,
June 19, 2011 at 12:24 am
So you believe, Danni, that the rebels and the population of Benghazi should have been willing to sacrifice themselves on the alter of “anti-imperialism”? We could all then mourn their unsullied heroism.