[Marxism] China Mieville and Richard Seymour respond to a critic

Louis Proyect lnp3 at panix.com
Thu Feb 7 17:21:44 MST 2013

On 2/7/13 1:19 PM, Louis Proyect wrote:
> The Nick Grant to whom they are responding wrote a disgusting letter to
> the ISO: http://socialistworker.org/2013/02/07/views-brief
> http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.com/2013/02/on-accusations-of-heresy.html
> On accusations of heresy
> Enter Nick Grant, defending his leaders from the ravages of socialists
> who disagree with them. His role, and that of others of his ilk, as a
> bullhorn for CC insinuations is clear. The CC's traducing of its
> internal critics in Party Notes consists of nudges: no names are given,
> details are scant, hints are urgent but en passant. The CC wager that
> the faithful, whose investment in 'official' positions is unshakable, as
> libidinal as theoretical, eager for diktats to keep them safe from
> nuance, will parse these nuggets. Thus here. We respond to Grant not
> because he is an interesting figure in himself - he is not - but because
> he is a function, a meat-exemplar of the worst kind of loyalism. We
> argue not with Nick Grant, but with 'Nick Grant'.

A comment on this:

Liam7 February 2013 13:07

Nick Grant slightly misjudged his defence of the leadership on the 
Socialist Teachers' Alliance e mail discussion list. (I hope I don't get 
him into trouble by revealing that he was discussing party matters on an 
external list.) He coyly referred to rumours of a recent unpleasantness 
and linked to the excruciating "Is Leninism finished?" article by Alex 
Callinicos saying that it made any further reference to the matter on 
the list superfluous, even though no one had mentioned it before him

This extract from one reply is an indication of how persuasive his line 
of argument was to anyone not willing to trash their reputation for 
Delta. It would have been much less humiliating for him, Delta and Alex 
Callinicos if he hadn't tried to be helpful

"Very, very few women ever make false allegations of rape. What then is 
the probability of a woman who is a class conscious revolutionary 
marxist doing so, and against a leading national figure of her party??? 
I would say it is infinitesimally small and that as a general principle, 
and in the absence of any compelling evidence that the woman is 
deliberately seeking to damage the accused, that our response should be 
to believe the woman. In pretty much every abuse scandal from Cyril 
Smith to Jimmy Saville the common thread has been that the victim has 
been disbelieved while powerful men have abused with impunity. How is 
this case any different? And why should we collude in keeping quiet 
about it? "

More information about the Marxism mailing list