As for Galloway, he has spent his entire adult life planting wet kisses on the buttocks of tyrants.
That\’s fun. And this is even better:
They point out that the revolt in the SWP is led by Richard Seymour, a puffed-up political hack, who is just as totalitarian as the apparatchiks he seeks to replace.
But, as ever, we must be fair about even the people we ridicule. The SWP has good amounts of money stashed away. If Ritchie Lad there can gain control of the central committee there\’s a good chance he might gain control of that cash.
Although I fear that he might be disappointed even if he does manage it. I rather doubt that democratic centralism includes allowing the next generation of democratic centralists to make off with the cash. It\’ll be stashed somewhere else, I\’m sure.
From someone on FaceBook this morning:
Enjoyably scathing review – by Stephen Robinson in Sunday Times – of Richard Seymour’s pathetic ‘critique’ of the Hitch. A couple of quotes: ‘If ever a short book should have been a long article in an obscure left-wing magazine, this is it’ and ‘As for Seymour, he is not worthy of changing Christopher Hitchens’s printer cartridge’.
“Between”, not “on”.
That Nick Cohen can call somebody else a hack betrays a deficiency of self-awareness.
Where do you get the idea the SWP has lots of money? Somehow I doubt they sell that many newspapers!
Let’s put it this way: for a party of the workers they have had a fair few rich and well-connected members.
Needless to say, Seymour didn’t take the criticism well.
No doubt they will have been lavishly funded over the years by the KGB…