Mr Taaffe lashes out: condemns self out of own mouth…

June 3, 2011 at 12:13 am (AWL, Jim D, Libya, Middle East, sectarianism, Socialist Party, trotskyism, unions, wankers)

In an increasingly hysterical and incoherent effort to justify the Socialist Party’s shameful betrayal of the Libyan rebels (and to attack the AWL), Mr Peter Taaffe lashes out at my goodself and ‘Shiraz Socialist’:

” Again, after the very successful National Shop  Stewards Network conference earlier this year, when the AWL, along with the other ultra-left groups, were defeated and a fighting anti-cuts organisation was set up, this is what Denham wrote once more on his blog: “However, two leading RMT bureaucrats Alex Gordon and Steve Hedley were present at the conference and both spoke in support of the SP, though neither is a member… It would seem that Bob Crow and Alex Gordon had a meeting with Bill Mullins and Linda Taaffe (of the SP) in advance of the conference, and agreed a deal. This was never put to any constitutional body of the RMT . RMT activists may wish to raise this matter within the union.”  Once more this is a farrago of lies and misinformation. Leave aside the sneers about good RMT fighters being “bureaucrats”; there was no “deal” between the Socialist Party and Bob  Crow over the conference. There was a meeting, a discussion and then agreement arising from this on how to approach the NSSN conference  amongst individuals from the RMT, Bob Crow and Alex Gordon – they did not commit the RMT as an organisation to that position – and the Socialist Party representatives from the NSSN steering committee. Denham is incapable of accepting defeat in the most open and democratic  conference seen in the labour movement in recent years. He prefers to give the impression of a sinister “deal”. This once more illustrates the rotten character of the AWL and its representatives in its approach to others on the left and the labour movement generally. ” 

Now, I ask you, what do the words There was a meeting, a discussion and then agreement arising from this on how to approach the NSSN conference  amongst individuals from the RMT, Bob Crow and Alex Gordon – they did not commit the RMT as an organisation to that position – and the Socialist Party representatives from the NSSN steering committee” actually mean? And how does that account of events, from Mr Taaffe himself! – show that what I wrote (as quoted by Mr Taaffe himself, above!) about that particular matter (calling what Mr Taaffe describes as an “agreement” by the alternative noun “deal”)  was “a farrago of lies and misinformation”?

I understand that the AWL has challenged Mr Taaffe to debate the question of Libya, but as the Socialist Party are not very brave when it comes to debates in front of audiences not made up predominantly of their own members, that’s probably not to happen.

In the meanwhile, the AWL’s Martin Thomas takes Mr Taaffe apart on Libya, Trotskyism, modern history, the English language and elementary logic, here.

And here’s the ‘Shiraz’ article that so upsets Mr Taaffe.

[Peter Taaffe in 2006]
 Mr Taaffe: hysterical and incoherent
//

12 Comments

  1. tyresome points said,

    What do these words:
    Denham is incapable of accepting defeat in the most open and democratic conference seen in the labour movement in recent years
    actually mean?

  2. Jim Denham said,

    “The most open and and democratic conference seen in the labour movement in recent years”

    http://www.thesyndicalist.org.uk/majority-of-nssn-officers-resign-en-bloc/

  3. maxdunbar said,

    Has Resistor been unmasked at last?

  4. Winston Smith said,

    Oh for fuck’s sake, will you please just FUCK OFF. I don’t even know why Peter Taaffe is bothering to debate your shower of shit.

  5. charliethechulo said,

    Come to that Winnie: why are you?

  6. Andrew Coates said,

    It is highly amusing that Taafe is now spending his time spitting venom against the AWL, ranging from his ponderous critique of Soldiarity’s line on Lybia to the NSSM.

    I will not comment on the former.

    But on the latter it would appear that Taaffe considers the AWL, the Weekly Worker, the Commune, Labour Briefing, and UNITE officers (official supporters of the Coalition of Resistance), anti-cuts activists up and the down the country who argued against a new SP Front in the anti-cuts movement, not to mention the whole layer of non-SP members of the NSSN who resigned, to be members of “ultra-left groups.”

    No doubt the readership of the SP will get a taste for this kind of ‘polemic’.

    Perhaps we will soon the Socialist devote a special page to attacks on left groups, as it seeks to become a print version of the now skeleton UK Left Network.

  7. Doug said,

    Sectarians and Swappie puppets like Dave Chapple and chums throw their toys out the pram. Boo hoo.

  8. Mr Oscar back with the shelving said,

    pepple who call themselves ‘Winston Smith’ in blergghs comment boxes. Them as well. into the skip with them all.

  9. Mr Oscar back with the shelving said,

    and doug eeeeee fresh. another cuernT.

  10. Jim Denham said,

    An AWL comrade in the RMT comments:

    “Yeah, we noticed how little influence we have in the labour movement compared with them when whopping them in the RMT Exec election in LT region.”

  11. From the archive: special features « Poumista said,

    […] Mr Taaffe lashes out: condemns self out of own mouth… / Peter Taaffe: what is your answer? / Miriam Karlin: feminist, anti-fascist, socialist, trade unionist […]

  12. Jorein Versteege said,

    The AWL support western intervention in Libya. That is wrong because you cannot trust imperialist forces. Were were the western nations when 300 Tunisian people got killed and 800 Egyptians? Socialists must never support imperialist actions NEVER! The Libyan rebels first opposed foreign intervention. They only asked for help when they feared defeat. They could have won, if they remained loyal to their principals and fought as an united movement led by democratic elected committees. But that did not happened.

    Ex-Gaddafi people took control of the rebel movement and called for western aid. This was a powerful tool used by Gaddafi to fuel fear about western imperialism in Libya. Many Gaddafi soldiers fought against the rebels because they did not wanted a Libya controlled by capitalists and western oil imperialists. Now right-wing democrats rule, there are no socialist parties in Libya yet. I fear for them, because those liberal democrats are right-wing and capitalist. This is what western nations wanted, a capitalist government that is loyal to the market and to world capitalism!

    The AWL should have opposed western intervention and called for a united workers movement against Gaddafi. But no, they choose to support western attacks!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: