10992[GreenLeft_discussion] Re: Latham's Leichhardt meeting
- Nov 24, 2004
>By Bob Gould...
>What angers me mainly is Hinman's offensive tone towards the rank andOh really? Let's see what the sum total of Hinman's comments about
>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
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 DSPtowards 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 quotesin 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
... 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
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>