CHRIS Harman - former editor of Socialist Worker and International Socialism Journal, and a leading theoretician of the Socialist Workers' Party - died in Cairo last night, reportedly as a result of a heart attack. A statement from the SWP central committee can be read here.
He was a prolific writer, especially on history and Marxist economics. On the latter topic, he was one of the few authors whose work remained accessible to the non-specialist reader, although thanks to its mistaken theoretical framework, he inevitably reached obviously untenable conclusions.
My last memory of him will not be of an orator in full flight, but as a man holding a carrier bag with one hand and his partner's arm with the other, while traipsing round Dalston Kingsland shopping centre on a Sunday afternoon.
Condolences to his families and friends.
Posted at 11:55, 7 November 2009
Comments (77)
Devestating news on so many levels. A good day to re-read what stands as a good summation of the perspective he was most associated with developing:
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/harman/1967/xx/revlost.htm
I regret Harman's death, as I regret the death of any human being, but I can't conceal the fact that it leaves the socialist movement with one less dishonest apparatchik. It also leaves the SWP bereft of its last direct link with its third camp origins - not that he did anything to fight to defend that heritage in recent years, as far as I'm aware.
My Jim , such a fine socialist that even you can't bring yourself to be too rude about him.
Personally I found his theoretical framework just fine. I remember him talking about planning quite a few years ago (not always the most inspiring of subjects) so clearly that much of it stays with me still.
Skidders: I think you'll find, on re-examination, that I *was* being "rude" to him.
Sean Matgmana had the measure of Harman, and I've reproduced Sean's "Open Letter" to him, over at Shiraz Socialist.
When you die Denham there will be one less bitter twisted twat in the world.
Tyhe intellectual "JOHNO": "When you die Denham there will be one less bitter twisted twat in the world."...
...and your point is..?
Oh yes, "JOHNNO", you never answered this:
I'm used to reading ignorant libel about myself fom liars like "JOHNNO", but I'd be interested to see his evidence for this:
"It is people like Jim Denham who believe our ruling (class) should be bombing countries who have different state religions to us who make the left nervous and defensive. See his views on the Irish for christs sake."
Care to defend any single aspect of that statement, "JOHNNO"? What "views on the Irish", for instance? You'd better explain yourself, pal. When you fail, I'll accept your grovelling apology.
Excellent article, btw, Dave. Lenny Symour's bleating attempt at a reply shows you've got the perennial student element of the SWP rattled. Keep it up!
Posted by Jim Denham | 20:07, 6 November 2009
Give us an answer, do, JOHNNO: or else I'll be compelled to call you a LIAR, a COWARD, a CHARLATAN, and a FUCKING IDGEAT... and you wouldn't want that would you... JOHNNO?
Denham,
On Lenins Tomb re the Euro vote you called the Irish a bunch of backward reactionary simpletons because they lived in a Catholic country.
These idiotic rants are typical of your style mate.
Maybe the drink is affecting your memory.
At least when I say something I am not ashamed to admit it. Your type say something and then deny ever saying it. What does that say about your politics.
And your obnoxious rants about the late great Chris Harman are beyond the pale. I am sorry I had to drag myslef down to your level and I withdraw my offensive last remark.
I hope you are around to annoy us for many years to come.
The idiot "JONNO": "On Lenins Tomb re the Euro vote you called the Irish a bunch of backward reactionary simpletons because they lived in a Catholic country."
Wrong again, "JONNO": I called anti-EU forces in Ireland "backward" -which they (and you) are. Not the same as denouncing an entire people. But, evidently, you're too thick to understand that.
Jim Denham cements his reputation as a contemptible little cockroach.
Condolences to Chris Harman's family, friends and comrades.
No Denham you called the Irish backward Catholic anti immigrant idiots for not backing the Lisbon treaty.
Even though the Catholic Church within Ireland was divided on the issue.
And then you don't factor in the idea that the Irish were the only ones to have a referendum. How do you think a vote would go in industrial England?
And the main outcry from the no vote didn't come from the working class but the business community.
But we know that your politics that you now line up with these forces. Your views on imperialism show that you see these people as humanity's liberators, not the working class. In fact you don't see wars as evils of capitalism but capitalisms moments of liberation. You politics are rotten to the core.
Your demented offensive inarticulate ramblings are an embarrassment to socialism.
Johnno (or any other SWPer)
If you think Jim Denham is anti-Irish, then please do paste in his comments from Lenin's Tomb and the link to the comments page, that should clear the matter up either way.
I am not wasting time proving that Jim Denham is an offensive rotten inarticulate shit, who doesn’t let facts get in the way of his putrid bigotry. It’s the most well known fact on the left.
I think my points above on the Irish issue, namely that the Catholics were divided, that the majority of workers voted no (at least the first time) and that anti EU sentiment exists in industrial England, perfectly expose Denham for the bigoted idiot he is.
And I think it makes the point I made on the ‘confessions of an Islamophobe thread.
Surely the most pressing issue is the stance Jim Denham takes on the Taliban?
Is he one of those wooly liberal types that can't seem to see the bigger picture and get hung up on womens rights . Personally I think those women should support the Taliban and put their personal issues to one side.
It would be nice if comrades could save their bickering for another page (there are whole blogs dedicated to such things) and show some respect to this one.
I am no admirer of Trotsky's fans since I think that they have a mental disorder rather than an ideology. That said, Chris Harman tried - and failed - to help put together an anti-state coalition. As we head into the fourth decade of neo-liberal governments that should be worth something.
It should come as no surprise that infantile elements like Denham are giving out their sectarian old wank. Sadly, that is the Trot mind all over. Chris Harman was possibly the exception:
may he rest in peace.
I think it's about time Mr Denham was banned from any blog run by socialists and his friends on other blogs should stop indulging his unpleasant, abusive and hysterical rants. The best favour they could do him is get him some professional help.
Johnno,
Thanks for the lack of effort.
You confirm my original thought, which was that you were bullshitting.
I have found, from experience, that modern day SWPers and their allies will often accuse their opponents of being "racist", but when you ask for proof they go silent.
It is a habit found amongst ultraleftists, the intellectually incontinent and thickarses, more common today than 30 years ago, when the SWP had a fine selection of working class militants in its ranks, and even the ex-students at least tried to occasionally avoid the worse aspects of Ultraleftism.
But oh, how will the SWP is changed in that time, and with Harman's passing marks a new era.
It is a shame that nowadays SWPers and their allies in the age of the Internet seems to emulate the worse politic manoeuvring, backstabbing and organisational manipulation which comes from student politics, not the working classes.
How times change!
JohnNo, Doug, et al,
Denham is a serious revolutionary! I know this because he said so in comment three over at his blog.
Come the great day of the Revolution just one less to put against the wall.
I am no fan of the SWP but its typical of Jim Denham to insult the dead while they are still warm, Chris Harman did what he thought best for socialism, I might have done it differently but I think heaping up insults is inappropriate.
From Dave above to Socialist Resistance http://socialistresistance.org/?p=728, critics have been generous and good that they have been.
my thoughts here http://another-green-world.blogspot.com/2009/11/chris-harman-dies-of-hearth-attack.html, time for condolences not cheap
and nasty political points.
Whatever differences any of us had with Chris Harman there was no doubt that he lived and died as a committed revolutionary internationalist.
It would be for the best if Dave removed the abusive filth from the comments and any reference to it.
Agreed Liam. It's getting quite nasty.
I'm not an SWPer by any means, but Harman was always an interesting guy and I enjoyed reading his stuff on the Russian and German revolutions, being periods which have interested me the most (I'd describe myself as being more historically than politically inclined, although admittedly the latter influences my interpretation of the former).
Mod,
I wasn't bullshitting. Denham called the no voters Catholic anti immigrant anti abortion backward idiots. Now the points I raise about the working class voting no, the Catholic Church being split, the fact the Irish were the only ones to have a vote, the hostility to the treaty in industrial England and the main outcry of the no vote coming from the business community. All these things show the foolhardy remarks by Denham which is typical of his embarrasing style.
He justs spouts ill thought out abuse without any regard to the wider issues or facts. As an ally of yours you should be criticising him too, its what friends are for.
Perhaps now is the time, after necessary condolances, to have a political discussion of Harman's legacy.
I never noted him letting up on that.
Johnno you wrote:
"I wasn't bullshitting. Denham called the no voters Catholic anti immigrant anti abortion backward idiots."
You made a very specific allegation:
and when asked to substantiate it, you couldn't.
That's called bullshitting.
Rather than put your own interpretation on Jim Denham's words concerning the EU treaty, and in the process misreading what he was saying, why don't you find his comment that you find most objectionable and paste it in here, with a web link for verification purposes?
That would settle the matter, one way or the other.
I don't agree that Jim Denham should be forced to show more respect for a dead SWP member than he does for the living. I think it is hypocrisy for people to be suddenly nice about those they've derided for years because it's supposed to be wrong to speak ill of the dead.
Modernityblog - it can be quite hard to locate a comment on blogspot blogs like LT. Are you denying that JD made any such comment? Why don't you search for what he said if you are so concerned about him being represented accurately. A quick search of the Shiraz Zionist site reveals a blog posting titled "Voodoo For Gullible Catholics", which would fit with the words being imputed to Mr.Denham.
Andrew Coates - what do you think his legacy is?
JOHNNO (when challenged to provisde evidence of his slanders against myself): "I am not wasting time proving that Jim Denham is an offensive rotten inarticulate shit, who doesn’t let facts get in the way of his putrid bigotry. It’s the most well known fact on the left."
...In other words, you simply *can't*. You liar, "Johnno".
"Modernityblog - it can be quite hard to locate a comment on blogspot blogs like LT. "
No, on the contrary, it is trivial to locate comments on Lenin's Tomb, if you really want to.
1. You would scan haloscan files using Google with a few key words, or
2. Find all the posts related to Ireland and Lisbon treaty, open up the comments file and use CTRL F to locate Jim Denham's comments.
3. If you know expressly Jim Denham's comments and remember them with clarity, then you'll probably remember the thread in which he made them, and so be able to highlight them quickly.
As I said simple.
My point, if it wasn't blindingly clear, is that if you're going to make an accusation you should provide evidence to back it up, that's the rational way to do things.
Failure to do so suggests bullshitting.
Gosh, ladies, but you don't half get het up!
I have a photographic memory and remember his comment provoked a few outraged responses.
Denham called those that voted no in the treaty Backward (which he even admits in an earlier comment) he added that they are Catholic, anti immigrant idiots!
His language plays into the prejudice and the caricature of the Irish. He plays on stereotypes to spread his poison, very much like the BNP.
And he doesn't take into account the wider points that I have raised, which shows he replaces prejudice for argument, again very much in the style of the BNP.
If people don't believe me I suggest following Modernity's advice and searching out his comment.
Shame, that Johnno's supposed "photographic memory" can't actually recall which thread Jim Denham is alleged to have made those comments in?
Johnno, when you provide *evidence* then people might take you more seriously on the matter.
Incidentally, you should read my comments again, *my* advice is that *you* provide evidence, not that others search it out.
Again, in case you misread, provide evidence.
Andrew Coates - a quick check of your blog answers my question to you.
Modernity - when I had a discussion with you about the WTC on AVPS you were happy to insist on receiving the answers to all your questions, but refused to answer mine. Does that make you a bullshitter?
Is this the comment in question:
It's good to see the Catholic, anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, nationalist, reactionary forces of rural idiocy routed, and modernism, internatialism, urbanism and multi-culturalism triumphant. Sad, however, to see so many who claim to be on the "left" on the reactionary side. But good that they lost.
Jim Denham | Homepage | 4 Oct, 03:33
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/lenin/6664189008623794817/
I think JOHHNO failed to describe their idiocy as rural, so perhaps his photographic memory isn't quite perfect.
Sorry if this gets multiply posted:
Andrew Coates - I see the answer to my question is on your blog.
Modernity - when I had a discussion with you about the WTC on AVPS you were happy to insist on receiving the answers to all your questions, but refused to answer mine. Does that make you a bullshitter?
Is this the comment in question:
It's good to see the Catholic, anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, nationalist, reactionary forces of rural idiocy routed, and modernism, internatialism, urbanism and multi-culturalism triumphant. Sad, however, to see so many who claim to be on the "left" on the reactionary side. But good that they lost.
Jim Denham | Homepage | 4 Oct, 03:33
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/lenin/6664189008623794817/
I think JOHHNO failed to describe their idiocy as rural, so perhaps his photographic memory isn't quite perfect.
skidmarx,
You will noticed that I rarely engage in meaningful exchanges with ultralefts, faux "anti-imperialists", SWPers, thick ex-SWPers, Galloway's fans, the terminally dense or those that seem to enjoy car bombings, and whilst you might be none of these I have found, from experience, that exchanging views with you, to be pointless and prone to bickering.
So please do forgive me if I mostly ignore your comments. I am not being rude, I just don't have the energy.
PS: I saw that very comment a few days back and it does not substantiate Johnno's point either way. As I said, shouting "racist" or "anti-Irish racist" at people is none too helpful in the current political circumstances.
As evidence for Denham's bigotry
http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/the-last-tammany-hall-politician/
where Denham uses the occasion of Ted Kennedy's death to accuse him of being a 'Tammany Hall' politician purely on the basis of his Irish Catholic heritage. In case you miss the point, he uses a racist caricature (by Dr Suess!) which could have come from a 19th Century edition of Punch.
ps In fact the Kennedys were opponents of Tammany Hall, not that facts are ever important to Denham and his AWL grouplet.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19660628&id=2uUNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TXQDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7475,4141554
Skid,
That’s the comment. The rural comment also plays into the stereotype of the Irish; it uses prejudice as the foundation of an argument. My points that the Catholic church were split, that the working class initially voted in the majority no, the fact that the EU is unpopular in industrial England, the fact that the Irish were the only ones to have a vote, the fact that the business community were the most upset by the no vote. All these things should have been considered by Denham but instead he sinks to prejudice and racism to uphold his argument. Very BNPesque.
Admittedly I didn’t quite remember it in the context of the yes vote but I think you can see my point
And I think anyone on the left should denounce this, especially when it comes from a socialist.
If anything, it goes to show that ultraleftists, cranks and people that don't like Jim Denham can't read too well and what they read confuses them, two points:
1. Taking resistors contribution, firstly such as it is, Jim Denham's is short and should been paste in, but then the actual context would be seen:
Tammany Hall politics is synonymous with corruption and dodgy dealing. So to talk about it, is not intrinsically anti-Irish, unless you believe that there is only one way of reading those comments, in the worst possible light, which is clearly absurd.
2. As for the Lisbon treaty comment at Lenin's Tomb, it is commenting on reactionary catholic forces in Ireland, and anyone with knowledge of that country would know that they exist and have existed for years. Evidence for this can be seen in the 1937 constitution and the position of the Church in influencing Irish politics since.
Granted, it is on the wane, but years back when Irish women wanted abortions they couldn't get them in Ireland because of the Church's obstruction and more often than not, took the ferry across to Holyhead.
Now you can disagree with Jim Denham's position and argue that there are not two blocs, but what he said wasn't racist, it was political, if crudely put.
So please, deal with what he says, don't invent things if you are basically too lazy to understand his arguments.
So Modernity, such is your own impoverished social skills that you happily plough onwards using what is basically a death notice to continue the dumb and dumber double act that you have with Jim Denham in the comments of Dave's blog.
Your whole political pose is to take the moral high ground on issues that you fetishise and yet we see you here in the most appalling reality; one half of a an internet bullying tag team with the loathsome Denham.
If you wanted to try and regain any semblance of credibility my advice to you would be to shut the fuck up for a while.
Eddie,
Thanks for your apolitical contribution.
It is a pity that in all your years of political education and time as a political functionary that you never learnt basic argumentation skills, as adopted by most rational thinkers.
I will explain briefly, because I suspect no one could be bothered to explain these things to you:
When you make an argument or a very bold claim, it is incumbent on you to provide reason or evidence to back up that argument, if you don't it is merely an assertion.
That was my point, that unless you argue rationally and with evidence then you end up in the political gutter, you might remember that is a common feature nowadays unlike 60 years ago, etc.
I fully appreciate that you won't understand a word that I have written, but then that is your problem, not mine.
Might I suggest that you get someone to read my comments to you again, and again and again, that might assist with your comprehension difficulties, although I doubt it :)
Mod writes,
'Tammany Hall politics is synonymous with corruption and dodgy dealing. So to talk about it, is not intrinsically anti-Irish.'
Except Denham used a crude Irish caricature to illustrate whatever point he was trying to make. The more you defend his bigotry, the bigger the hole you dig for yourself.
A long time ago Denham crawled out of the gutter and into the sewer of the AWL, I hope you like the company you find there.
The problem is Modernity I have given ample evidence of Denham’s racist methods but your eyes are closed to it. Now Denham doesn't just single out the Irish, it seems to be anyone opposed to the neo liberal project, be it in Europe or farther afield.
I nearly pissed my pants when on the “Chris Harman’s ideas and the future of Marxist economics” thread Denham said “I'm amazed that petty bourgeois elements (like "Seymour" and "Game") get so upset when we Marxists mention this.”
Take this quote from Marx in a letter to Engels in 1870,
“The sensation caused by Jennychen’s second letter (which contained the condensed translation of O’Donovan’s letter) in Paris and London has robbed the loathsome and importunate (but very fluent with gab and pen) Talandier of his sleep. He had denounced the Irish as Catholic idiots in the Marseillaise”
Talandier, the Jim Denham of his day and enemy of Marx.
The full letter can be found here (In case Modernity thinks I am making this up):
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_03_19.htm.
What a God awful thread/site this has now become. W*nkers of World unite.
As Dave's thread was "supposed" to be about Chris Harman, I'll just state that in my few discussions with him (1970s), mostly about Rosa Luxemburg's economics, I always found him to be sceptical but extremely helpful, open to debate, and above all, "Decent". Before that word was so totally corrupted bu the above ranters and 13 year old tossers.
So please do forgive me if I mostly ignore your comments. I am not being rude, I just don't have the energy.
You always seem to have the energy to demand answers to your questions.On threads on Afghanistan here you seem to have the energy to give long accounts of how terible the Taliban are and demand the debate only be conducted in relation to those points.
I saw that very comment a few days back
Then why on Earth did you not mention that earlier, say "Here is the comment, but I disagree with JOHNNO's interpretation of it", rather than calling him a bullshitter and imply that he was making the quote up? That is a dishonest way of proceeding.
"Then why on Earth did you not mention that earlier"
Why? Cos it doesn't back up Johnno's wierd accusation of anti-irish racism againgst Jim Denham.
That's why.
I assume that Johnno "I have a photographic memory " meant another one.
That's it.
But as Johnno and other's positively **want** to read it in a particular way and put a silly connotation on those words, then there's no use debating it.
It merely demonstrates that ultralefts, modern day SWPers and their allies are not constrained by comprehension skills commonly used by everyone else, and in their cackhanded inability to read a semi-plausible meaning into a set of words they grasp the wrong end of the stick continually.
So if someone has difficulty working out that simple sentence and what he's trying to get at, then the complexities of Chris Harman's Marxism, human existence and the world today may well be beyond them :)
Shorter SWPer's version, if you too thick to see what Jim Denham's getting at, then you probably too thick for politics in general.
I'll finish on this, I think there are many ways which you could criticise Jim Denham politics, if you wanted to and you were semi-serious about politics,but what I don't think is acceptable is to invent the accusation of being anti-Irish racist (anyone who knows the slightest bit about the AWL would see why that would be absurd)
Shorter version, deal with his politics not fabrications of your overactive minds.
Modernity,
If you can’t see the racism in Denham’s method then you have the problem. He used stereotypes of Ireland as the basis of his argument, I made a few points (Such as the Catholic Church was split etc etc etc) to highlight that he had done this. So it wasn’t my interpretation.
I don’t have a problem with him making a case for the yes vote but I have a problem with him basing his argument on prejudice and so should you.
What I see is a desire to attack Jim Denham at all costs, a desire to shout "anti-Irish racist" at all costs and evidence which does NOT back it up.
What I see is poor reading skills, little politics and a very limited grasp of Ireland.
What I see is the same old ultraleftism that has self-isolated the British Left for 40 years.
Now feck off and try it on with someone else, Johnno.
Let me take this very slowly modernity.
Denham opposes the no vote clearly. How does he express this, he uses the caricature of Ireland (country simpletons, backward god fearers) to make his case. He fails to consider that all the factors I raised, such as the EU being unpopular in INDUSTIRAL England etc etc etc, which to anyone one with a semblance of a brain shows Denham uses racism as a base for his argument. He doesn’t take all relevant factors into account and then give a reasoned position for the Yes vote. He stoops to the level of the BNP and it will be photographically remembered how you apologised for this racist method in all future engagements.
Let me explain this slowly, if *I* had voted in Ireland on the EU treaty, I would not have sided with the reactionary forces and faux radicals that opposed Europe.
But none of that matters, Denham's point, if crudely put, argues there are two blocs on that issue, and overall he's probably correct.
And in this matter you have NOT addressed the issue of the Catholic Church in Ireland and its negative political role (I suppose my reference to the 1937 constitution flew over your head?) and you didn't get my point concerning the AWL.
Rhetoric, modernityblog style.
1. Repeatedly asking the same 'when did you stop beating your wife' questions of individuals, derailing threads by *demanding* an answer over and over again. If they don't reply, or don't provide the answer he wants to hear, he'll accuse them of evasion - if they successfully dismantle his crap arguments, he'll ignore them and move on to someone else. Like all good bullies, he can sniff out the weakest commentator on a thread and will focus on them.
2. Trotting out a load of 'prolier than thou' bollocks at every opportunity, using crude, dated pejoratives like "student politics". modernityblog is some kind of computer programmer, yet seems happy to call anyone who isn't a fucking coal miner "middle class" (because, as we know, any opinion is automatically invalid if voiced by a member of the middle class).
3. Israel, right or wrong. I suspect this is just pure contrarianism on mod's part. For a self-described socialist, he seemingly hates and pities everyone on the left and the I/P issue is the most economical way to enrage his "fellow" leftists.
"I would not have sided with the reactionary forces and faux radicals that opposed Europe."
I really don't see this as reactionary forces versus progressive forces but it is an issue that people on the left need to debate. I may even side with the yes vote actually but not on Denham's racist (crude) terms! Can you not see that Modernity. He is an embarrasment.
Sick of Modernity,
"Like all good bullies, he can sniff out the weakest commentator on a thread and will focus on them."
Whoever you are I hope you didn't mean me!
Johnno,
You can't simply accept that there is more than one-way of looking at things, so you want to portray Jim Denham in the worst possible light and you read his comments completely in bad faith, assuming the worst possible motives.
Again you still didn't click with the reference to 1937 constitution, did you ?
It doesn't make any sense to you, does it?
Well if you had taken a real interest in politics, rather than merely shouting "anti-Irish racist" at people, you'd know the answer to that.
And again because of your poor grasp of politics you don't know who, in fact, is the Guru of the AWL and Jim Denham's political hero.
Go do some elementary research using Google and if you can put together the connections you might see a lightbulb come on above your head, but I somehow doubt it.
Again, cos you might not get it, I am sure Jim Denham has many faults (we all do), but as far as the evidence you presented it did NOT show him to be an "anti-Irish" racists, it merely indicated that you wanted to read it that way, which is not the same :)
I should know better than to argue with Morality Blog, but here goes.
Speaking from an Irish perspective, Denham is not correct about "two blocs" in Ireland. At least, his characterisation of the Yes and No camps is so grotesque as to be laughable. Look:
1. The Yes camp included almost the entirety of the Irish capitalist class and both the major rightwing parties, as well as the trade union bureaucracy.
2. The No camp included everyone to the left of the (extremely moderate) Labour Party, and sociologically was mostly working class.
3. In both referenda, the highest Yes votes were in the richest areas and the highest No votes were in the poorest areas.
4. The Catholic hierarchy did not issue a statement on the referendum. However, the semi-official Irish Catholic newspaper was firmly in favour of a Yes.
5. The 1937 constitution separates church and state, which was the cause of some misgivings in the Vatican at the time. The current version of Article 44 strengthens the separation. Note that such a separation does not exist in the English constitution.
6. Denham, as per usual when discussing Ireland, can't get through a sentence without resorting to either ethnic stereotypes or 17th-century anti-Catholicism or both. The fact that his sect is led by an Irishman who has (let us say) serious issues with his own background is neither here nor there. After all, the SWP was founded by a Jew and you still call them antisemitic.
But of course, Morality isn't interested in facts. As demonstrated by his David Irving-style performance, when confronted by a quote from his mate Jim, that Jim couldn't possibly mean what he plainly means.
Fuckwit.
For pity's sake
Chris Harman has only just died, and that's a tragedy for his partner and his family and friends. Not an opportunity, surely, to rip apart the SWP and various other factions?
I am no fan of the SWP in any way, but Chris Harman was pretty consistent and produced some very useful thinking here and there. Even if you didn't agree with his analysis, at least someone was producing something coherent. I hope that someone will take up his legacy - not the legacy of the SWP, but the careful analysis. We won't get out of this mess and get to a world in which Chris Harman would have felt at home by arguing with one another when the funeral hasn't taken place. None of us is right all of the time, we are all flawed, and Chris was no exception, but slagging off a dead person gets us nowhere. leave that until later and slag off the work, not the person.
I would even write this sort of comment about George Galloway, who I reagrd as appalling - but I would like to see him retired, not prematurely deceased.
Disheartening to read some of the contributions here. Imagine how his partner must feel reading some of this..........
"Speaking from an Irish perspective,"
You'll be shocked, but you're not the only one that can use such a perspective.
I am glad that you want to help the slow witted SWPers from Lenin's Tomb, but again you are mistaken.
1. My reference to the 1937 constitution relates to the privileged position of the Church, I'll quoted lest you've forgot:
http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/eich_02/eich_02_00562.html
Got that? "...the special position of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church..."
This was later amended, but what you had, in effect, was the Catholic Church and its hierarchy in a privileged position for nearly 40 years, formalised in the Irish constitution and this was reflected in its social conservative influence during and after that period, etc etc
I have no doubt, you might be tempted to argue the contrary and state what a positive role they played, for the sake of contrarianism, that would be nonsense, but please do, if you want, I'd like to see you square that circle employing your not inconsiderable intellectual talents.
2. Yes, the AWL's political Guru and Jim Denham's hero is Sean Matgamna, an Irish man. Even a dim SWPer could have found that out in 25 seconds with google.
PS: Splintered Sunrise, I'll go on record.
I don't think the SWP are antisemitic, neither are you, but I do think you are both lazy, complacent and profoundly ignorant on that topic as your comments have indicated before.
I think the fact that the SWP could host an anti-Jewish racist, Gilad Atzmon for 4 years, is rather telling.
Again, gobshite, just in case you didn't get it. I think neither you or the SWP are antisemitic, but you demonstrate insensitivity, stupidity, general thick headedness which could be interpreted by others as such, however, I think they're wrong.
RIP
Interesting how the Irish question is still so divisive
While no fan of the SWP, I think the comments here are outrageous. We may disagree with them, but they aren't enemies.
I take back the Irving comparison. Irving would be a more honest antagonist than Morality.
In any case, relying on Sean Matgamna for an analysis of Ireland is a bit like relying on Gilad Atzmon for an analysis of Israel. Both have serious issues with their background, although Atzmon at least is an accomplished musician and therefore a useful member of society.
I notice that, while parading your one factoid about Irish constitutional law (and you can't even get that right), you don't care to take up Denham's reality-challenged account of the Lisbon referendum.
Aye right enough, Splintered Sunrise
I take back the accusation that you are a gobshite, that would be an improvement on your wretched intellectual performance thus far
I notice that you can't engage with the issue of the Church's influence and privileged position in Irish society.
And I am sure that you will always find a pleasant word for that anti-Jewish racist, Gilad Atzmon, such is the nature of your character.
Are saying, Mod, that complimenting Atzmon's musicianship says something about one's character?
Rhetoric, modernityblog style.
1. Repeatedly asking the same 'when did you stop beating your wife' questions of individuals, derailing threads by *demanding* an answer over and over again. If they don't reply, or don't provide the answer he wants to hear, he'll accuse them of evasion - if they successfully dismantle his crap arguments, he'll ignore them and move on to someone else. Like all good bullies, he can sniff out the weakest commentator on a thread and will focus on them.
2. Trotting out a load of 'prolier than thou' bollocks at every opportunity, using crude, dated pejoratives like "student politics". modernityblog is some kind of computer programmer, yet seems happy to call anyone who isn't a fucking coal miner "middle class" (because, as we know, any opinion is automatically invalid if voiced by a member of the middle class).
3. Israel, right or wrong. I suspect this is just pure contrarianism on mod's part. For a self-described socialist, he seemingly hates and pities everyone on the left and the I/P issue is the most economical way to enrage his "fellow" leftists. Also, he does seem to know an awful lot about holocaust deniers and can get from 0 to Atzmon (or Faurisson) on 6.3 seconds.
What 'issues' does Seam Matgamna have about being Irish that might equate with Atzmon's anti-semitism?
"Then why on Earth did you not mention that earlier"
Why? Cos it doesn't back up Johnno's wierd accusation of anti-irish racism againgst Jim Denham.
That's why.
I assume that Johnno "I have a photographic memory " meant another one.
That's it.
But as Johnno and other's positively **want** to read it in a particular way and put a silly connotation on those words, then there's no use debating it.
It merely demonstrates that ultralefts, modern day SWPers and their allies are not constrained by comprehension skills commonly used by everyone else, and in their cackhanded inability to read a semi-plausible meaning into a set of words they grasp the wrong end of the stick continually.
Are you really saying you couldn't tell that:
"On Lenins Tomb re the Euro vote you called the Irish a bunch of backward reactionary simpletons because they lived in a Catholic country."
referred to:
It's good to see the Catholic, anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, nationalist, reactionary forces of rural idiocy routed, and modernism, internatialism[sic], urbanism and multi-culturalism triumphant.?
Whether you agree with the interpretation or not, I would say that you are either dishonest or very stupid in saying that you can't see the link. But I'd rather finish by saying that Chris Harman was a great bloke who'll be missed, and to answer Sue R's point on the other thread, yes the SWP will survive this, as they have enough branch-vuilders and hopefully enough theoretical depth to go on without him.
Chris Harman. Who ever heard of him amongst the real working class. That is people that go to work every day. Not middle class people that talk a lot about what should be good for the working class. You lefties really have to go out and work for a living. Get out of your little smokey booze filled rooms with your useless self indulgent chatter. Get your hands dirty. Get a job and most of all meet real people. You can write all you want about Marx but most people relate Marx to Groucho.
Jimmy Glesga wrote:
"You can write all you want about Marx but most people relate Marx to Groucho."
Erm, maybe that was the case 40 years ago, but probably not today. At the mention of the name Marx, 9/10 thirtysomethings will think of Richard before they think of Groucho.
PS - I love the workerist patter, btw. Sounds familiar. Didn't you once try to sell me a copy of Socialist Worker?
Whose Richard Marx?
Oh my God!!! I'm guilty of a solecism. It should have been, 'Who's Richard Marx?'. Dreadfully sorry.
Jimmy,
"Chris Harman. Who ever heard of him amongst the real working class."
You mean apart from you?
Sue R -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwJqJTdTHcA&feature=related
But of course, Morality isn't interested in facts. As demonstrated by his David Irving-style performance, when confronted by a quote from his mate Jim, that Jim couldn't possibly mean what he plainly means.
And that quote, folks, seems to be "Rural idiocy."
And where do you think that particuar phrase comes from?
1/ Mein Kampf
2/ A Midsummer Night's Dream
3/ The Communist Manifesto
...Answers on a postcard, please...
Denham,
I will repeat a comment I made earlier to give a taste of what Marx would have thought of you:
I nearly pissed my pants when on the “Chris Harman’s ideas and the future of Marxist economics” thread Jim Denham said “I'm amazed that petty bourgeois elements (like "Seymour" and "Game") get so upset when we Marxists mention this.”
Take this quote from Marx in a letter to Engels in 1870,
“The sensation caused by Jennychen’s second letter (which contained the condensed translation of O’Donovan’s letter) in Paris and London has robbed the loathsome and importunate (but very fluent with gab and pen) Talandier of his sleep. He had denounced the Irish as Catholic idiots in the Marseillaise”
Talandier, the Jim Denham of his day and enemy of Marx.
The full letter can be found here (In case Modernity thinks I am making this up):
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_03_19.htm.
Hint: When reading Marx try to take in more than words or phrases, look at the context.
Not being rude, but I am often astonished by those that claim to have read Marx, etc when you find in reality they have problems understanding a few lines written in a comments box.
I can only assume that if such readers get the wrong end of the stick when posting on blogs that consequently their grasp of Marx must be as shaky :)
Mod,
I feel the same way about Denham, he actually thinks his comments re calling the no voters rural backward catholic idiots equates the to 'idiocy of rural life' quote by Marx.
It is all very sad and I thank you for finally seeing the idiot Denham for what he is.
"Johnno": I repeat my question: where does the "rural idiocy" quotation you are so excited about, come from?
A clue: a very easily accesible work by a leading German-Jewish philosopher and economist.
“a very easily accesible work by a leading German-Jewish philosopher and economist.”
Easily accessible but alas not easily understood.
Who said the following?
“Religion is the opiate of the masses”
Was it:
A)Cardinal Wolsey
B)Sonia on her hit record Only Fools (Never Fall in Love)
C)19th century German Atheist
I am sure that if Jim Denham gave out the weather forecast then faux Marxists (such as Johnno), SWPers and associated cranks would attack it as a manifestation of "neo-liberalism".
That's the sectarian nature of bits of the Left nowadays, they make the SLL/WRP seem nice, touchy-feely and champions of Left unity by comparison.
They are a gift to the Far Right.
You must be a bit dim witted or something Modernity. It was Denham who claimed ownership of Marx, here’s the comment again from him,
“I'm amazed that petty bourgeois elements (like "Seymour" and "Game") get so upset when we Marxists mention this.”
All I did was question that assertion, I claimed no such ownership of Marx.
Read the exchange again, this time more slowly.
So without knowing it you were criticizing your mate and not me. But your ability to think honestly is overridden by your sectarian bias.
What a gift to the far right that mindset is!
Without wishing this thread to degenerate any furthe, modernity are you the git that keeps on giving it the large?