Previous answers don't sufficient make analytical use of the meeting space being a Party or Party Controlled meeting (Hand in your party card, Comrade). This answer attempts to supplement that lack of use.
The theme of Totalitarian Control over the Polish Communist Party is interesting. Despite many people believing that "Communist" parties controlled the fraternal states in Central Europe they didn't. The Polska Partia Robotnicza was a communist party which merged with the PPS to form the PZPR in 1948, as a result of the Soviet party purging the PPR.
Poland had a long local tradition of revolutionary nationalist and left politics dating from the 19th century. Poland was part of the Russian and German revolutions in 1916-1923, and ended up with a local nationalist state. The communist movement in Poland ended with a Moscow aligned interwar party, which was miniscule and poorly represented actual workers movements for communism. As is true in a lot of central europe the social-democratic party in the form of the PPS ended up being significantly communist, in the sense of having a fraction of workers who desired self-liberation under workers control. During WW2 the membership who would become the PPR didn't know (as in they had a massive faction fight) about whether Poland ought to become a member state of the USSR or not.
Actual Polish communism as of 1947 is spread across the PPR (with multiple factions), factions in the PPS (both Moscow aligned and working class aligned), and self-organisation amongst workers whether formally aligned with the PPS PPR both neither or formally aligned but not actually taking the party seriously. Being a communist is complex.
The book, therefore, is making fun of lower middle class intelligentsia who have jumped on the winning band wagon and are making useless cultural shitfights over other lower middle class intelligentsia's pathetic choice of dog names from South American "internationalist" culture. Rootless cosmopolitanism was a "theme" in Moscow aligned Communism at the time: basically it was a dog whistle for anti semitism in the Soviet Union. But formally it was an attack on cross-cultural or multi-cultural modernism or futurism, particularly by lower middle class intelligentsia. If you have ever attended a membership meeting of the left you'll be familiar with the prating self-interested interpersonal fights in the book. If you have ever been a right wing local society member (Elks, Rotary, Masons, etc.) you too would be familiar. The narrative voice is being attacked for no good reason, by a policy that the attackers do not understand, where the formal ideological justification is emergent Soviet anti-semitism, and none of them are involved in the actual struggles of who will control Polish society. None of these people are '56ers, factory embedded, etc.
From a theoretical, or historiographical, perspective this is the way that day to day nomenklatura society organises the divisions of spoils, following Sheila Fitzpatrick on every day stalinism in the nomenklatura. I've read accounts of similar meetings in Yugoslav, Soviet, Hungarian governing party local membership groups. I've read similar meetings in lower middle class white collar local party membership groups in the west. I've seen similar purity politics play out in lower middle class organisations of the left. Part of the joke, left unspoken, is that working class communists don't have this problem set: purity politics don't matter when the issue is to get a supervisor's arm ripped off "by accident" in the lathe; purity politics don't matter when you're trying to keep the surface and air viral load low because the bosses don't give a shit. Part of this sequence is an attack on the middle class nature of Polish Communist politics as the author saw them.
- Ðilas (Soviet, Yugoslav)
- Fitzpatrick (Australian take on the Soviet Situation)
- Hammer and Sickle and the Washing Up (Australian party life)