This site hits its third birthday at the end of the month. Paul Mason the Newsnight neo-liberal ideologue has to take a major responsibility for it. He presented an item one evening explaining how the anti-capitalist movement was taking advantage of mobile phones with cameras and Internet access to communicate and how blogs were emerging as a means of communication and discussion. One download of Flock later, which Paul said was the indispensable blogging tool, and I was off.

To begin with the site had no real purpose. “No change there then!” comes the shout from the back. It was an experiment with technology by someone who likes gadgets or, more accurately, is willing to engage with contemporary capitalism’s tools for mass communication. The site wouldn’t have survived if it hadn’t found a bit of a response. A lot of the early material now resembles a contemporary history of the good and bad points about Respect and will probably contribute to someone’s  MA on natural selection on the European left.

Respect’s split was a bit of a watershed. In my political tradition it is taken for granted that all discussions are open and that everyone has equal access to information and opportunities to get their point across. Sites like this one and Socialist Unity plus the fact that anyone can have a blog running in less than ten minutes now make it possible for anyone who has a computer to get their point of view over to whoever is interested in it. That is a very good thing. Bureaucrats thrive on being able to control the flow of information. It’s not so easy these days.

An unintended spinoff was that people who hadn’t previously known of each others’ existences found that they agreed about quite a lot. Virtual discussions have resulted in real discussions and some of that will bear fruit in the regroupment process which SR is involved in.

One thing the site has definitely done is to give good practical examples of the ways in which different political currents are willing to argue. My disdain for the gutless wonders who hide their identities and locations behind pseudonyms to dole out abuse and distort what other people say is without limit. It would be nice to be wrong but there seem to be lots of people on the left who can’t tell the difference between a political argument and hectoring attempts to bully. Is it nature? Is it nature? Who knows. It’s certainly bloody unpleasant to moderate. Maybe there’s a deep insecurity underneath. Some people have told me that part of this site’s attraction is that there’s a very low threshold for that sort of nonsense here. That won’t change.

On the other other hand the way in which supporters of Permanent Revolution participate in discussions is spot on. They stick to politics, throw in the occasional joke and are never personally derogatory – even to the most deserving. That said, there have been times when I’ve thought that one or two of them should try to get out more.

A question that often exercises me is what do the people who find the site looking for something completely unrelated think? The review of a Jane Birkin show earlier this year draws a few people each day searching for her in connection with Hermes handbags. Unless my hunch about the bulk of this site’s regular visitors is way off the passers by must feel that they are in the virtual equivalent of a drunken row in a homeless shelter. Personal charm and good grace are not major parts of the skill sets of some participants in discussions here. As if that were not bad enough some of the discussions must strike the uninitiated as incomprehensible and esoteric as a debate between three quantum physicists. Oh if only they knew that the only motivation was a deep love of all suffering humanity!  Apart from those bastards who disagree with us.

Thanks to everyone who participates constructively in the discussions, to the people who provide me with material and to those who take the trouble to read. The next few months look like they are going to be fairly interesting so we’ll keep the show on the road for a while longer.