Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

10992[GreenLeft_discussion] Re: Latham's Leichhardt meeting

Expand Messages
  • Nick Fredman
    Nov 24, 2004
      >By Bob Gould
      >What angers me mainly is Hinman's offensive tone towards the rank and
      >file Labor and Green activists and supporters at the meeting. The
      >whole tone of Hinman's report reeks of contempt for these people. The
      >reference to them as a clan, the ridiculing of their courteous tone
      >towards Latham, etc

      Oh really? Let's see what the sum total of Hinman's comments about
      the nature of and comments from this audience were:

      "In the end Latham was let off lightly. The majority of questions and
      comments, while critical of many of Labor's policy, were polite. This
      was essentially a meeting of the clan, and while Latham got heaps of
      applause, and a standing ovation at the end, not all were happy ...

      "A passionate, but considered plea from a once-ALP stalwart ...

      "There was clear concern about Labor's preference deals with the
      far-right religious party ...

      "... a concern about young people being sucked into the new
      evangelicalism, and a call for Labor to set up a left youth movement

      "While there were many true believers at the Leichhardt Town Hall
      last night, there were many others who had come for a look-see to
      find out of Latham had a fight-back plan. They were left disappointed"


      I think that's all. Ridicule? Contempt? Pissing on? What a load of
      hyperbolic rubbish. More like a sense that this was a politically
      mixed group, some apparently uncritical of Latham, many asking very
      pertinent questions, and many critical of Labor's positions and
      looking for something more progressive. Bob manages over 3000 words
      in 2 posts about this meeting, a lot of it about Pip's post, without
      a single solitary word that she used quoted. This is simply shoddy
      argumentation, and I suggest to Bob if he's going to continue
      long-winded deconstructions of what other people supposedly wrote,
      then referring to a quote or 2 would be a more honest approach. Even
      more honest and relevant would be to not only endlessly repeat
      comments along the lines of ...

      >>The belligerent, unrepentant, mean-spirited sectarianism of the DSP
      towards the members of the ALP who are pushing for a more leftist
      outcome is an obstacle to the creation of a class-struggle left wing
      in the workers movement<<

      ... but also cite an actual example or 2 - where are all these trade
      unionists and activists, Labor, Green or otherwise, refusing to work
      with the DSP and/or Socialist Alliance after being shocked by GLW
      articles or whatever? You've said something about the free Craig
      Johnston campaign ...

      >>The Defend Craig Johnson Committee, in a statement that the DSP quotes
      in Green Left Weekly without comment, says there are many more ALP
      trade unionist members of the committee than there are members of the
      Socialist Alliance [last 2 quotes
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GreenLeft_discussion/message/10965 ]

      ... which merely shows the DSP is involved in a rather effective
      united front (the point about the lack of comment is entirely
      unclear, perhaps you're trying to show that GLW is being
      inconsistent, if so the only inconsistency is with Bob's dishonest
      caricature of the DSP's position on and tactics towards Labor).
      Rather rather endless repetitions of the same arguments, let's have
      some evidence from the real world. Where's all this hostility,
      suspicion etc among decent Labor activists, what campaigns and
      struggles has it wrecked? Doug Cameron? You're welcome to that
    • Show all 12 messages in this topic