Well that's alright then ....

Bush's illegal bugging of US citizens is nothing new and follows the illustrious example of Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, the internment of Japanese during the Second World War and spying on anti-war activists during Vietnam, that's according to one Republican supporting 'security consultant' speaking on Channel 4 News. By their own words.......

We're all middle class now - apparently

One can get very bored of a select group of hate figures - Nick Cohen, David Aaronovitch, Ann Leslie - so it's good when another one comes along, especially one as cretinous as Deborah Moggach. According to Moggach we are all middle class now; the working class has all made so much money from council house sales or the rise in taxi fares (they all drive black cabs don'tcha know) that is has decamped to the Costa del Sol. Of course, concedes Moggach, one shouldn't forget there is an underclass and let's not leave chavs out of the equation (great, let's get all the snobbish bases covered). Moggach - in a way that seems typical of simpering upper middle class pundits - finds the first appearance of 'chavs' in the work of Jane Bleedin' Austen.

Shut the fuck up. Wittering, solipsistic arseholes like Moggach make me want to throw up ( or seek out my nearest AK-47 vendor). Only those whose social orbit is restricted to Radio 4 studios, independent production companies, the Groucho and being flown Virgin Upper Class to New York - for a premiere of Pride and Prejudice as Moggach crows on her website - could come out with this crap. Has she never been further East than Farringdon Road, further south than the Embankment?

Bastard.

John Fowles

Like many adolescent boys I was captivated by John Fowles's The Magus. The mixture of psychological thriller, romance, fantasy and would-be existential fable pushed all the right buttons.

Fowles latterly saw the book as a somewhat juvenile work and indeed, went as far as rewriting the novel. With the passing of time The Magus waned in my estimation, although not necessarily in my affections. Even now I would recommend it to any teenager (or adult for that matter). Whatever Fowles's view of its merits it at least does not qualify for the 'kidult' category.

If the appeal of The Magus declined, my estimation of other Fowles works - most notably, The Collector, The French Lieutenant's Woman and (best of all) Daniel Martin - increased.

Both of the latter two books experimented with form in intelligent and entertaining ways. The multidimensional Daniel Martin was clearly marked by the 1970s upsurge in the interest of English departments in the works of Gramsci and Lukacs, but was none the worse for that. For me, Daniel Martin was an admirable work.

Fowles's later novels were less satisfactory, the inventiveness more strained, and a certain prurience - if not misogyny - crept in. However, taken as a whole, Fowles leaves a strong body of work informed by a progressive sensibility, and for those who are not familiar with his work or have only seen the films, he is well worth investigating. Suffice to say, the film of The Magus, - unlike the Pinter-scripted French Lieutenant's Woman - is not.

Who needs Parliament?

So now Blair tells us that 'complacent' MPs should think carefully before ignoring the views of those who know better. Rather than questioning the wisdom of the police and meddling in things of which they know little, our elected representatives should fall into line and give unalloyed support for the chief constables' preferred anti-terrorism measures.

Blair's latest remarks underscore both his natural authoritarianism and the deference to technocrats implicit in New Labour thinking. Given that the Party that now little more than a vehicle for the career ambitions of management consultants and lawyers it is hardly surprising that it should be so willing to defer to the 'professionals' of law and order. Framed within a Blairite logic the police are disinterested guardian's of public safety. The notion that the police (or army) might have a less benign agenda or have a natural predilection for heavy-handed solutions does not enter into this discourse.

I am not concerned here with questioning Blair's sincerity or whether he inhabits this ideological construct - he may do, he may not. What I am concerned with is its effect, a diminishing of the value and legitimacy of Parliament, its members and the democratic process. And for that Blair must be roundly condemned.

And the Man Played Waltzing Matilda

.... well actually he wrote a song that, with a nod to Australia's unofficial national anthem, stands as one of the greatest anti-war songs of all time. Most people know it via the Pogues whose marvellous version can be found on Rum, Sodomy and the Lash but it was Eric Bogle, profiled here who we can thank for a moving reminder, if any were needed, of the follies of war.

The last refuge of a scoundrel

.... analysed today by George Monbiot. I often find Monbiot's columns irritating - I am not sure entirely why - but today's is worth a look. As every liberal commentator works him or herself up into a lather over identity, nationalism and patriotism Monbiot advances the position that was once a commonplace on the left, that of internationalism.

It's all in God's plan...

Or at least it is according to Dubya. Fresh from having involved himself in mattes of medical ethics and adding to the misery of the husband of Terry Schiavo, Bush is now turning to education, suggesting that schools should include teaching 'intelligent design' alongside the theory of evolution.

Never mind the fact that the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have both opposed any such move, having concluded that there is no scientific basis to the notion of intelligent design; for believers like George W the choice between evolutionism and intelligent design is a choice between equally valid stances.

It is good to see that this is one element of Christophen Hitchen's former belief system that hasn't been jettisoned in his drift to the right and into the embrace of the neo-cons. Hitchens is right to question John Roberts' nomination. Hopefully, we will see Hitchens also turning his fire on Dubya's intervention regarding the matter of scientific education.

McCarthyism redux

Last month I suggested that Charles Clarke's Spook's Charter would lead to radicals being persecuted simply because they oppose the New Labour orthodoxy on the 'War on Terror' (Jul 20 2005). It seems that the consequences of the government's announcement are already being felt with at least one Leed's bookshop being raided because it carried anti-war material.

First rule of interviewing: listen

One never expects much from BBC local news programmes, indeed they are best avoided, but Emily Witless, sorry Maitlis, provided an exemplary show of even handedness when interviewing a representative of the Muslim Safety Forum on Tuesday's programme. The Forum's representative was interrupted and hectored as he tried to explain some of the problems involved in persuading young Muslims to trust the police and join its ranks.

The Paxman-Essler technique is clearly becoming a standard part of the BBC's presenter toolkit and one can only assume that it is now mandatory within Beeb training programmes. Giving interviewees a tough ride and probing their arguments is one thing, talking them down and deriding their positions - an approach which suggests that the interviewer occupies a position that has a legitimacy the interviewee lacks - is quite another. Maitlis' interview subject was unable to advance his views, moderate though they were, without Maitlis continually interrupting.

BBC London has always been the home of poor interview technique, its reporters frequently substituting ill-informed posturing for objective reporting. There is a tendency in local reporting to frequently overegg matters in an attempt to create a story where there is none. Although there are exceptions many BBC London reporters default to this mode.

Terrorism, the state killing of innocent members of the public, and the concerns of our communities should be dealt with by a public broadcaster in a balanced fashion and with as much objectivity as is possible. That's not what is going on at BBC London.

Charles Clarke's Spooks' Charter

Charles Clarke’s announcement that he plans to introduce a global database of ‘extremists’ is worrying and the implications of such a proposal, potentially dangerous.

Clarke told the Commons today that he has asked the Home Office, Foreign Office and the intelligence agencies to "establish a full database of individuals around the world who have demonstrated relevant behaviours".

These relevant behaviours are yet to be defined. We are told that these measures are principally aimed to exclude those from the UK whose presence is deemed “not conducive to the public interest.” Targets for surveillance and listing include radical preachers, websites and articles intended to foment terrorism.

The Government also intends to introduce an offence of “indirect incitement to terrorism.” The UK already has an offence of direct incitement. The new measures would target those who, “while not directly inciting, glorify and condone terrorist acts knowing full well that the effect on their listeners will be to encourage them to turn to terrorism".

On the surface these proposals may seem reasonable. No one can or should support the targeting of innocent civilians and the ideas of the Islamist extremists this measure presumably targets – organisations such as former Al Muhajiroun and its cognates – must be countered, especially by the left.

It is likely that during the coming weeks, we will hear reassurances from the Government that the measures are not designed to stifle legitimate debate, or for that matter to bring all radicals – religious or secular – under a regime of surveillance and monitoring. The aim of these measures, we will be told, is to provide instruments which are wide enough in scope to enable the police and security forces to ‘do their job’ and protect society. Safeguards will be built into the system.

The track record of the security forces in these matters is not a good one. During the Cold War, MI5 and other security organisations dedicated considerable effort to infiltrating socialist organisations and unions. Margaret Thatcher made similar use of the security forces to further her domestic agenda, most notably crushing the National Union of Mineworkers. What hope, therefore, than a new set of powers will be used in a restrained and discriminating fashion? None at all.

Yet the problem with this whole approach goes wider. Indeed, reflecting the imperialist project of which it forms a part, the mechanisms of surveillance and the denial of legitimacy that form the essence of the Clarke proposals are part of a logic that seeks to cement the interests of the US and British (and by implication, Israeli) states as the only legitimate deployers of violence.

Marxists have historically opposed individual terrorism and condemn attacks on innocent civilians. We are not, however, pacifists. The left has a tradition of supporting liberation movements around the world and defending workers’ organisations right to resist oppressive regimes. In the Spanish Civil War and other conflicts, socialists have participates in conflicts, even when those conflicts are in foreign countries.

More recently, the left has supported the struggles of the Nicaraguan and El Salvadorean peoples against US-backed insurgencies and in struggles with US-backed dictatorships. Would the FMLN be proscribed under Charles Clarke's proposals?

Similarly, many young Muslims may be opposed to violence against civilians yet support military actions against those they see as their oppressors, whether that may be in Chechnya, Kashmir or Palestine.

The problem is one of drawing the line. For George Bush, forces that are opposed to US foreign interventions can be written off as terrorists or illegal combatants. Is the British government going to define those it disagrees with as beyond the pale? Must all resistance be passive? If it takes a hard line on such matters there will be many, and not just Islamists, who will come within the scope of the mechanisms of surveillance and find themselves on watch lists.

Now let’s not be naïve. Such organisations will already be under some form of surveillance.

However, the term ‘indirect incitement’ is very broad and would, I fear, in the hands of a zealous spook, encompass many of the radical weblogs now on the Web.

And one must also ask: will such measures actually work? Applied in too heavy handed a manner, constraining debate and vigorous opposition to government policies, it could even enhance the cachet of the lunatic fringe. The solution to beating the extremists is not to be found in overly sweeping measures such as these, it is in the provision of alternative avenues for protest and involvement, and in the removal the grievances that create wave upon wave of potential recruits. Unfortunately, the government has proved time and time again that it lacks the imagination and will to pursue such avenues.

Good riddance II

Already covered but when it comes to invective, nobody does it better.

Good riddance

There will probably be some idiot in the national press who will try and find some good in the tawdry, sordid, miserable life of John Tyndall, racist, fascist and leading figure within Nazi organisations stretching back to the Fifties. Unlike more recent leaders of the fascist right like Nick Griffin, Tyndall made little attempt to disguise the true nature of his politics and his bids for respactability were always less plausible, even to the more gullible elements within society.

The BBC's story lets the man off lightly and allows the British National Party to praise Tyndall as a 'great man.' The fact is that the man was scum and the world is better off without him. Tyndall was an anti-semite and was involved in the founding a number of openly Nazi organisations. One site quotes the BNP as saying that the CPS and police may have hounded Tyndall to death. If only.

Good riddance.

A light interlude pop pickers

When we're not being po facedly political we like a natter about popular music down here at the Grill. It's generally agreed that list programmes are a bad thing. A lazy way of filling the schedule for next to nothing but Jarvis Cocker, you've come across some cracking stuff on Jarvis Cocker's TV Rules. I thought I saw and remembered every rubbish TV music moment from the Seventies but I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw Peter Glaze and Jan Francis performing Bowie's Golden Years on an episode of Crackerjack. How drug addled were BBC production staff back in those days? Fantastic!

Banged to rights

Bernie Ebbers, the fraudster head of telecoms giant WorldCom cannot have expected to have received a 25 year sentence. After all, accounting scandals aren't real crimes are they? Even if the sums involve amount to $11 billion.

Ebbers, claiming health problems - usually know as the Pinochet defence - and past good works is pressing for less jail time. After all, look at the way that other fraudsters have been treated. Take that nice Mr Milkin. All that insider trading but out in a few years.

Of course, the financial press cites the thousands of shareholders who lost money on WorldCom rather than the hundreds who lost jobs. One cannot deny that there are small investors and others foolish enough to have bought into the pre-bubble hype who deserve sympathy.

The attack on white collar crime was a final component in maintaining the legitimacy of US finance capital in the wake of the 2000/1 downturn. In reality, expect Ebbers sentence to be significantly reduced in the light of a 'lesson learned'. co-operation with the court and good behaviour. After all, poor Ebbers did reliquish most of his personal wealth to compensate shareholders. Now he is estimated to be worth a mere $25 - $40 million. Poor man, what is there to look forward to, even when he does get out? Sad.

Newsnight under fire

According to the television industry bible, Broadcast the BBC has once again been forced to defend Newsnight's treatment of MP George Galloway during interviews.

"Invited on the programme on Friday, 8 July, in the wake of the terrorist attacks in London, Galloway faced Newsnight presenter Gavin Esler, who challenged the MP on his views on the bombings.His style of questioning attracted complaints from viewers who said it was "rude and aggressive".Newsnight editor Peter Barron himself admitted that it "became ill-tempered" butstood by Esler's technique ....... More than 100 viewers complained, but BBC head of political programmes Sue Inglish said Paxman's line of questioning was justified."

Nancy Banks Smith: Time Traveller

At times like this one needs some light relief. It was provided this morning by the always amusing Nancy Banks Smith, doyenne of British TV reviewing. For once the amusement did not arise from Nancy's writing. Instead, it revealed the Grauniad at its accident prone best.

Banks Smith fillets the CSI season end Tarantino-directed double bill with her usual aplomb. Unfortunately, it had been cancelled presumably because its content was not appropriate in the light of recent events.

We look forward to seeing the postponed episodes with ......... suspense? Maybe not.

Making sense of madness

The news that the July 7 bombers were British highlights a wide range of issues: too many to adequately address here.

The media, it seems, is struggling to find the right tone and language. There is a desire to preserve the liberal consensus and to highlight the exceptional and unrepresentative nature of the acts and the perpetrators. Yet repeatedly muslims are described in the language of the other. The muslim communities (I would contend that there is no single muslim community) are questioned in terms of their failure; as if these communities remain loosely appended additions to British society rather than an integral part, tightly enmeshed with its fabric.

Let us not be naive: there is a large element of truth, not because muslims exclude themselves but because it is from jobs, welfare provision, education and many other facets of British life that they are excluded. These cannot be ignored as contributory factors explaining (though, of course not justifying) the actions of these isolated, hitherto unknown, invisible individuals.

Communities are both defined and self-defining. Benedict Anderson described nations as Imagined Communities. Similarly, the borders of ethnic and religious communities have borders that have an element of the imaginary, whether than delineation happens within the minds of the majority population or those of the minority.

An interesting dimension of the nature of the the muslim community is the way that both leaders within the community, certain elements within it, and external commentators seek to define muslims as exclusively religious rather than culturally muslim. This highlights the limitations of our common understanding and a constraint and distorting factor upon dialogue and debate.

Of course, like Christians, Jews, Hindus or, for that matter, Zoarastrians there are those who are orthodox and observant, those who are moderately religious, and those who have little or no interest in the religion into which they were born, other than to make occasional observances once or twice a year. Some may have total belief, others will display none.

This latter group, larger than many in the media or the broad community would acknowledge, is largely overlooked. I highlight it for a number of reasons. First of all, because it highlights the reductive nature of the debate and of making judgements regarding a diverse group of British people.

To hear commentators speak or to read many blogs one would think that young British muslims all live in enclosed communities, are homophobic, discriminatory and their lives are determined entirely by religion. Unfortunately, this is the view of many who would see themselves on the revolutionary left. They would ignore the fact that many have extremely liberal views, have diverse friends, gay and straight, have varying strengths of religious commitment, go clubbing and with varying frequency to the mosque and feel nothing but revulsion at religiously or politically inspired violence. How do I know this? Because they are my children and their friends? I am fortunate to live in a mixed family.

My step-daughter, in the course of lively, stimulating and humerous discussions, often teases her godless atheist step-father. I sometimes do the same back but she knows I support and respect her in all she does, and that includes the practice of her faith, something she does lightly but with real seriousness. Young women like her are off the radar of the pro-war 'left' - let alone the right.

I am not saying this to contrast a more 'liberal' Islam with more traditional forms. I highlight my step-daughters case because one of the things that unites her and her more religious sisters is that the media and others will ask her to comment on or condemn the bombers, as if they had some responsibility for them and their actions, simply because they are co-religionists.

No one makes these demands of C of E parisioners because ant-abortionists bomb clinics, of catholics because of the Real IRA, or of hindus because of JVP-led violence. Nor should they.

However, for the pro-War left, Islam is all of a piece. One should not work with muslims in organisations like Respect. For these groups most politically active muslims are Islamists.

There is of course a political phenomenon called Islamism and it does have a violent wing. Moreover, there is undeniably support for the actions of resistance movements and varying degrees of support for the various forms that violence takes. Yet for many on the left there is no differentiation between those whose Islam is an inspiration for general political action and the motivations of the suicide bomber.

The morality and political consequences of terrorist practice is an issue that merits independent analysis. Yet it is worth asking the question of why young men should turn to such actions and examining the nature of the relationship between such individuals and wider Islamic political movements.

The term chosen by many bloggers and columnists is that of Islamofascism. Hitchens, Aaronovitch and Cohen have all adopted this term. Lenin examines this usage in a characteristically useful contribution. Tariq Ali, a critic of the war and of imperialist activities, suggests that Islamo-Anarchism is a more appropriate descriptor.

This is unfair to most anarchists who would see the state but not ordinary working people as a target for different forms of direct action.

But in another sense Ali seems to be on the right track. Perhaps a better analogy is the terrorist groups of the 1970s such as Baader-Meinhof, the Red Army Faction, the Symbionese Liberation Army and the Weathermen. These, it is undeniable, grew out of the left and the Movement of the Sixties. The participants in such groups were frequently middle class, isolated, demoralised, pessimistic of the possibility of mass action or social transformation. Substituting themselves for a working class for which they had contempt such organisations frequently became solopsistic death cults, unable to see beyond their own limited experience and disappointments.

If anything that is where the parallels and lessons are to be learned. Not asking questions of innocent members of communities and groups who bear no responsibility for the actions of a small number of disaffected young men.

It's not what you say ......

It's clearly a matter of who says it.

As a brief rider to the Friday's report of the BBC's Newsnight interview with Galloway, it was interesting to note that former CIA analyst, Michael Scheuer advanced exactly the same view in the following segment. Scheuer, some may remember, published - with his employers permission - Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama Bin Laden, Radical Islam and the Future of America.

Scheuer argues that the source of discontent in the Middle East, fuelling the murderous actions of the most reactionary elements, is rooted not in envy at Western freedoms or a desire to impose a caliphate upon non-Arab nations but instead, in bitter fury at the actions of Western governments in the Middle East and other muslim regions. For Scheuer the answer is withdrawal from Iraq, an end to propping up dictatorial client regimes and a harder line with the Israeli's. Where is the difference except in the BBC's standards of journalism.

No one accuses Scheuer of insulting the dead, of cowardice in the face of the enemy or support for the evil deeds of weak, isolated individuals. Why then do so when it comes to the left?

Protecting Orthodoxy

Gavin Esler, like many of his Newsnight and Today colleagues is one of the better exponents of BBC journalism and frequently probes the inconsistencies of government policy, domestic and foreign. As a public broadcaster, the BBC is not informed by the more naked class interests that drive much of the press. However, major events - war, strikes, terrorism - have a way of revealing the role that broadcasters like the BBC in preserving orthodoxy and delineating its borders.

Such was the case with Esler's interview with George Galloway on Friday night. Galloway could not have made clearer his revulsion at the acts of the terrorists and his support for their being brought to justice and punished in the severest of terms. He also stressed that one should never - can never - negotiate with the perpetrators of such atrocities. Yet Galloway, quite legitimately, argued that the attacks cannot be isolated from British and Foreign policy in the Middle East and Afghanistan.

Blair, Bush and other advocates on the 'war on terrorism' strive to suppress such criticism, arguing that the country must unite 'steadfastly' behind their policy. To dissent is to offend decency.

Decency insists that in a respectful manner those who dissent do so, clearly, calmly.

Galloway put it even better in his speech to Marxism 2005 and if truth be told, he allowed himself to be drawn on the question of his right to raise such issues. If Galloway has a weakness it is to be drawn from the issues to the personal. Understandable, but it weakens the message.

But the exchange highlighted the limits of the BBC's role and role it plays in maintaining hegemony.

For more on Marxism 2005, see this space in the coming days.

Fuck off Bob

Yeah, you're well meaning, I don't dispute that. No one has bought your records for years so I really don't think that's your motive. But when even Newsnight remarks that you are standing in the way between those who want to change the world and those who want to preserve the status quo then perhas you should, as another Bob once said, stop "blocking up the halls." Before he started advertising underwear and coffee that is....

Socialist Unity

Good to see that some in the Socialist Party seem to be still pushing for at least tactical unity around elections (see letter For socialist unity in future elections). It's a pity the leadership of the Socialist Party can't be as positive.

As an former member of Militant it's depressing to see the organisation engaging in the same sectarian behaviour it once accused others of. The decision to withdraw from the Socialist Alliance and to criticise Respect from the sidelines seems to me to have been be a mistake. This is not to suggest that others were blameless in the matter or to downplay the difficulty of creating united fronts but there seems far more benefit in unity than division.

Of course, Militant's criticism of others' sectarianism was, to an extent, disingenuous. Like others on the revolutionary left, orthodoxy (or rather, adherence to its own particular analysis) was more important than dialogue or joint action. Discussion of theorists or ideas that fell outside the accepted canon (a fairly limited one of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky) were frowned upon or dismissed with faint amusement.

On the other hand, the organisation has a lot to teach others on the left. While the years spent in the Labour Party had some negative effects it also had many benefits, not the least of which were strong roots in the working class (in key areas) and a wealth of experience in local campaigning and electioneering. Respect could benefit from such experience, provided others - most notably the SWP - were able to act in a truly collaborative fashion.

One of the issues raised during the discussions over the future of the Socialist Alliance, Scottish Socialist Party and Respect, has been the task of creating counter-hegemony and what the term actually means. I would suggest that for the foreseeable future it is not so much about creating a unifying orthodoxy, rather it is about creating unity around tactical and strategic objectives, and also about creating a discursive space in which ideas with their roots in Marxism can be exchanged and refined. More importantly, it is about creating an oppositional culture that is vibrant, rather than one that is narrow and sterile.

Part of the problem is that the Trotskyist left was constructed upon a model that evolved in insurrectionary circumstances, and was refined by a core of embattled revolutionaries. Before the Civil War and the growth of Stalinism crushed it, the Bolshevik organisation demonstrated a diversity that many would find hard to imagine. Indeed, few modern revolutionary organisations demonstrate the diversity of thought that characterised the Russian social democrats during exile.

New thinking is needed for a new era, especially if were are to build an opposition to New Labour and neo-liberalism. Obsessing over othodoxy or shying away from building unity are not part of that new thinking or new future.

Waking from the American Dream

Proof that the US model works in today's New York Times.

According to the Op Ed item on class mobility - the foundation of the American Dream - is a myth. The author writes: "American workers have been hurting badly for years. Revolutionary improvements in technology, increasingly globalized trade, the competition of low-wage workers overseas and increased immigration here at home, the decline of manufacturing, the weakening of the labor movement, outsourcing and numerous other factors have left American workers with very little leverage to use against employers.

Many in the middle class are mortgaged to the hilt, maxed out on credit cards and fearful to the point of trembling that all they've worked for might vanish in a downsized minute.

The privileged classes, with the Bush administration's iron cloak of protection, avoid their fair share of taxes, are reluctant to pay an honest dollar for an honest day's work (the federal minimum wage is still a scandalous $5.15 an hour), refuse to fight in their nation's wars, and laugh all the way to their yachts."

Bob Herbert's comment piece in the US establishment's house journal links to a special, Class Mattters which reveals the suppressed truth underpinning Republican ideology.

Mao: Stating the Bleeding Obvious

There is something I find extremely irritating about the current publicity hoopla around Mao: The Unknown Story by Jun Chang and Jon Halliday.

It may be that the authors have, indeed, uncovered previously unknown nuggets and I will be interested to see what they have produced. However, I fail to see how any of the 'revelations' in the book - that the Chinese revolution relied heavily upon Russian support, that Mao was a demagogue and butcher, that the Chinese revolution saw more deaths than either the period of high Stalinism or Nazi rule in Germany, or that Mao turned on his supporters - represent any kind of real breakthrough, or for that matter, an airing of hitherto hidden truths.

While some on the Trotskyist left underwent a period of infatuation with Maoism (and in some instance, dissolved into Maoist organisations) a large section of the left always saw Mao for what he was. The Maoist sects always acted as a barrier to advancement by the Western left and while some members of the media may be embarrassed by the 'revelations' in Mao many of the rest of us always saw the endorsement of Maoist China as either laughable or tragic.

It may be unfair to place Jun Chang and Jon Halliday in the Martin Amis category of reheaters of already known and established facts but it is certainly tempting to do so.

Trotsky's writing on China and the tragedy of the its first, failed revolution highlight how the Chinese working class was crushed due to the mistakes of Stalin and Bukharin and their misplaced faith in Chiang Kai Shek. When Mao came to power it was as the head of a peasant army, with a politics that from the outset mimicked the worst aspects of Stalinism. Personalities are not insignificant factors in the making of history but any analysis worth its salt must recognise the underlying forces at work.

Some of the reviews suggest that this is not the approach taken by the authors. Others, like Will Hutton in the Observer have sought to take a more balanced view. Even one of the more gushing reviews concedes that there is no indication of the quality of sources and it is clear that in some of the cases the authors have relied upon Nationalist sources.

In the meantime, the authors seem to be doing little more than stating what many of us knew all along.

One of the most interesting aspects of George Galloway's recent testimony to the US Senate subcommittee has been the reaction of the US left and even sections of the the American media. As the Guardian pointed out earlier this week, even Fox News was forced to conclude that Galloway had made a robust defence of his position and the senators had made a poor fist of giving Gorgeous George a grilling. Fox presenter John Gibson didn't know whether Galloway was guilty but what he did know was, "that if you're going to bring Galloway in for the grilling, be sure to bring the grill, be sure to have plenty of propane in the tank and do the darn grilling. Galloway got away scot-free here. (Senator Norm) Coleman meekly sat there and got chewed out."

Maybe that's because the US position is built on lies and hypocrisy.

The reasons why Galloway has met with such a positive reception from large sections of the US left and has drawn such media interest is that he both departs from the formalised niceties the US public has come to expect from its politicans (especially in the Senate) and that Galloway is a progressive who has actually dared to go on to the offensive.

These are all points addressed more seriously by former weapons inspector Scott Ritter in a column in today's Guardian.

One of the important points touched upon in Galloway's testimony was his long-standing opposition to the Iraqi regime. What the British commentariat could never get their heads around - mainly because they chose not to - was that one could oppose the regime and oppose the war.

For the British commentariat - following the example of the late Christopher Hitchens - Galloway and his supporters are Islamofascists. In this looking glass world columnists like former Eurocommunist David Aaronovitch and his Observer colleague, Nick Cohen strive to redefine the right and centre as the new left and the left as the new right. As the Eurocommunists in the former Communist Party of Great Britain regularly used to demonstrate, despite the split with Stalinism certain practices and rhetorical devices remained ingrained. One was the third period tendency to define those who oppose a given strategy as functional allies of one's enemies (social democrats were social fascists, Trotskyists were simply fascists).

Events such as the Senate hearing and the actions of Galloway and Respect are shining a light on such obfuscation.

Galloway is not without his faults and he has undoubtedly shown poor judgement at times. His uncritical support for Cuba is one such example and some of his comments and historical analogies regarding the resistance are ill-conceived. It must also be stressed that Respect must be more than a vehicle for Galloway's political resurrection. However, the strong performance in other parts of London and the Midlands show that is what it already is. The UK needs a progressive force to the left of Labour, capable of addressing the needs of all sections of the community and uniting a range of progressive voices. Respect has the potential to be that force.

After the election

There's an interesting review of Red Pepper's analysis of Respect's campaign in the run up to the election that makes some valid points, particularly regarding the challenges Respect will face after the election, however itl turns out in the current target constituencies. Good to see a more balanced view for once. The author of the Socialist Unity Network item rightly says that at last, "somebody has gone beyond the usual dichotomy between Respect as the best thing since sliced bread versus the grumpy sectarian write-off." One might that it also makes a refreshing change from the cynical, dishonest, Stalinist name calling from the ex-CPers, ex-Clause 4 members and Labour right wingers that inhabit the pages of The Observer and lurk around sites like the execrable Harry's Place.

Welcome to Gramsci's Grill

Intellectual barflys have the Whiskey Bar, Leninists have the Tomb, Gramsci's Grill is opening its doors with the modest aim of providing cultural cuisine and political piatti for organic intellectuals. The menu may turn out to veer more in the direction of antipasti rather than larger, more robust dishes but hey, we're just starting out, experimenting and trying to find our feet.

The left needs places where it can exchange ideas and create a more vibrant, heterodox culture. The Grill hopes it will grow into one of those places.