I'm thinking of joining the AWL...
- Thread starter neyronal2
- Start date
Taxamo Welf
kebagels pls
I was JUST about to say that...rednblack said:
[me and RnB are on nigels payroll obviously]
But as it goes - a good showing in the unions, good community work, good positions on most things, have a couple o councillors and have a good history to them. For a trotskyist group that is (blah blah blah sheridan blah blah trafalgar riot - we know we know).
I disagree. I think this 'sensibleness' is fairly superficial. There are a fair number of credible testimonies to the unhealthy nature of their internal regime. Certainly, some of the ex-members that I know feel that their experience of the party was thoroughly exploitative and unpleasant. All my own dealings with their leadership have frankly given me the creeps. I think Nigel, who serves as a model of presenting a political position in a reasonable and constructive way online, is the exception rather than the rule (and one that baffles me completely).Taxamo Welf said:
A selection of sources:
The academic work of Denis Tourish:
Ideological intransigence, democratic centralism and cultism: a case study from the political left
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...34?v=glance&s=books&vi=slide-show#reader-link
Some of the endless debate on indymedia Ireland over this issue between prominent ex members (Dermot Connolly, John Throne, Denis Tourish), many others and current members:
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60345
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60567
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60690
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=64515
not wanting to start a fight or derail the thread or anything
*puts on helmet*
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
gurrier said:
"Credible" because you want to believe any criticism which is raised of any Trotskyist organisation along these lines. You'll have to forgive me if I don't take you entirely seriously on any of this, you have a great deal invested both politically and it seems to me emotionally in the idea that Trotskyist groups, and in particular the Trotskyist groups which dominate the Irish left are undemocratic and nasty. Such "testimonies" on the other hand leave me feeling slightly amused and occasionally irritated. I've never found them remotely convincing because unlike your self I'm extremely familiar with our internal organisation and culture. Unlike yourself I have plenty of experience of arguing for minority viewpoints within the Socialist Party. For that matter unlike yourself I've watched events like say Dermot Connolly's resignation from close up, which makes me keenly aware of just how wildly and deliberately distorted allegations of the kind you are peddling actually are.
gurrier said:
On the unpleasant part, I'm sorry to hear it. On the exploitative part, well that's a strange word to use. The Socialist Party certainly expects commitment from its members - that's part of the reason why we are like it or not by some distance the most effective organisation on the Irish socialist left. If you aren't willing to put the work and effort in then in my view there isn't much point in getting involved in a socialist organisation. If someone regards being expected to knock on doors a couple of evenings a week, to contribute financially, to spend time and effort on the sometimes tedious things which are necessary to build serious campaigns as "exploitative", then they really should never have joined the Socialist Party in the first place.
gurrier said:
I'm sure they love you too.
gurrier said:
Which I think only goes to show how little you really know about the Socialist Party. The experience of Indymedia Ireland could well give a negative impression of the way in which we put forward our political positions because much of the posting there by our members is done by a tiny number of our least reasonable activists, who really seem to have had too much time on their hands and not enough sense in their heads. But our real spokespeople like Joe Higgins, Clare Daly or Peter Hadden are consistently both reasonable and constructive. The bulk of our members, despite the few oddballs which any political organisation of our size will attract, are also both reasonable and constructive in their opinions and arguments. It would be difficult to imagine that an organisation could play the role which we have in things like the water tax and bin tax struggles or the GAMA or term time workers disputes or in a thousand and one smaller campaigns otherwise.
I've met a huge number of people through the Socialist Party and the CWI. I like some of them, I dislike others, but with very few exceptions I respect them all.
[Rednblack, Taxamo, your cheques are in the post]
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Thanks Donna! I had forgotten about that one. There is also a feature that he wrote for Irish Indymedia and a long discussion with all sorts that followed it.Donna Ferentes said:
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=62080
I'll reply to your response when I get a chance, Nigel.
Taxamo Welf
kebagels pls
Nigel Irritable said:
Safe
I would just like to add that i have no faith in any of the trotskyist organisations i have ever met - but if your going to join one...
That is all. Most groups that can boast excellent internal relationships and democracy have less than 100 ppl - thats why.
rebel warrior
Soca Warrior
What I cannot understand about the AWL's 'Marxism' is their notion that 'Third Camp' politics means equating George Bush's American Empire on the one hand - with tiny tin pot former client states of the US like Iraq under Saddam.
Tiny 'rogue states' cannot be equated to either the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany as serious challengers to the US. Any 'Marxist' who does so is therefore liable to end up as apologists for the US Empire and the Project for the New American Century.
That the AWL are often praised by pro-war commentators like Nick Cohen shows this is where they have ended up. And anyone who lets themselves get caught up in the web of lies of imperialism will almost certainly be unable to function effectively as socialists in the class struggle.
As for AWL 'honesty' see this: http://deadmenleft.blogspot.com/2004/06/honest-marxists.html
Tiny 'rogue states' cannot be equated to either the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany as serious challengers to the US. Any 'Marxist' who does so is therefore liable to end up as apologists for the US Empire and the Project for the New American Century.
That the AWL are often praised by pro-war commentators like Nick Cohen shows this is where they have ended up. And anyone who lets themselves get caught up in the web of lies of imperialism will almost certainly be unable to function effectively as socialists in the class struggle.
As for AWL 'honesty' see this: http://deadmenleft.blogspot.com/2004/06/honest-marxists.html
silentNate
1.618 xakep
Read through this thread and this was the post I agreed with mostoctober_lost said:
silentNate
1.618 xakep
Happy clappy- they had crib sheets on the last StWC march, good turnout and quite a few younger members so I'm not going to slag them too much as it did give me optimism...rednblack said:
And certain family members would disapprove
charlie mowbray
The Enforcer
Do they wear sensible shoes?Sorry. said:Nigel Irritable, the poster boy of sensible trotism
Think I might join myself, how do I go about it?
As an AWL member (one of those "nice people"), I'd obviously encourage you to join.
To pick up on a few of the points in the thread, we base our politics on support for the working class. This broadly "third camp" perspective doesn't mean that we claim that, say, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was as large a threat to the international working class as the U.S. Government. But neither is a positive alternative for workers - both are demonstrably anti-worker, and anti-union - so it doesn't make sense to support the "lesser evil" on the misleading grounds that it is in some way anti-imperialist. Saddam wasn't an anti-imperialist, just an unsuccessful imperialist!
The issue of Labour Party is an ongoing debate in the party - a benefit of our democratic structures. We're not in favour of unions supporting the Labour Party over a workers party. But in England and Wales, there isn't a real option for them to individually disaffiliate to. Rather, an immediate disaffiliation can lead to them withdrawing from politics. Instead, we call for the unions to fight to a break with Labour. If this happens, it will be the basis for a genuine mass workers party.
I think decribing the paper as "dishonest" is a little disingenuous. It's true that a small number of activists write a lot of articles in some issues, and then sometimes use pseudonyms. A far wider range of people - members, sympathisers, international co-thinkers and people engaging us in debate - contribute less often, but often write the most thought-provoking articles. Additionally, people occasionally use pseudonyms when writing about workplace issues where making their identity public could endanger their job, and it's well known that Sean Matgamna is also known as John O'Mahony (quite why he alternates I've never known).
It's true that the group is somewhat smaller than it was fifteen years ago, but it is growing at a fair rate at present, with in particular lots of young members joining (and if you don't believe me, that's not something I was saying two years ago when membership levels weren't really changing).
The group's activities vary from area to area, depending on the size of the local group and the most immediate issues. For instance, in Sheffield, we have recently been involved with "No Sweat" campaigns, with saving a school in nearby Conisbrough from being taken over by Christian fundamentalists and campaigning for solidarity with unions in Iraq, among other things.
As you're thinking of joining, why not do what I did - put your questions to people in the AWL, and talk to members of other groups about their activities and positions.
And if anyone else (Chuck?) is interested, take a look at our website and e-mail or call to get in touch with your local group.
To pick up on a few of the points in the thread, we base our politics on support for the working class. This broadly "third camp" perspective doesn't mean that we claim that, say, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was as large a threat to the international working class as the U.S. Government. But neither is a positive alternative for workers - both are demonstrably anti-worker, and anti-union - so it doesn't make sense to support the "lesser evil" on the misleading grounds that it is in some way anti-imperialist. Saddam wasn't an anti-imperialist, just an unsuccessful imperialist!
The issue of Labour Party is an ongoing debate in the party - a benefit of our democratic structures. We're not in favour of unions supporting the Labour Party over a workers party. But in England and Wales, there isn't a real option for them to individually disaffiliate to. Rather, an immediate disaffiliation can lead to them withdrawing from politics. Instead, we call for the unions to fight to a break with Labour. If this happens, it will be the basis for a genuine mass workers party.
I think decribing the paper as "dishonest" is a little disingenuous. It's true that a small number of activists write a lot of articles in some issues, and then sometimes use pseudonyms. A far wider range of people - members, sympathisers, international co-thinkers and people engaging us in debate - contribute less often, but often write the most thought-provoking articles. Additionally, people occasionally use pseudonyms when writing about workplace issues where making their identity public could endanger their job, and it's well known that Sean Matgamna is also known as John O'Mahony (quite why he alternates I've never known).
It's true that the group is somewhat smaller than it was fifteen years ago, but it is growing at a fair rate at present, with in particular lots of young members joining (and if you don't believe me, that's not something I was saying two years ago when membership levels weren't really changing).
The group's activities vary from area to area, depending on the size of the local group and the most immediate issues. For instance, in Sheffield, we have recently been involved with "No Sweat" campaigns, with saving a school in nearby Conisbrough from being taken over by Christian fundamentalists and campaigning for solidarity with unions in Iraq, among other things.
As you're thinking of joining, why not do what I did - put your questions to people in the AWL, and talk to members of other groups about their activities and positions.
And if anyone else (Chuck?) is interested, take a look at our website and e-mail or call to get in touch with your local group.
hmm, website
I just tried to view the website and it said "fatal error"
It then went on to explain that someone had written the code wrong for the mySQL database and so it couldn't show the page.
I suggest a simple html page at the front of the website so that when database problems arise, there's still some website left.
I just tried to view the website and it said "fatal error"
It then went on to explain that someone had written the code wrong for the mySQL database and so it couldn't show the page.
I suggest a simple html page at the front of the website so that when database problems arise, there's still some website left.
Mr_Smin said:
Have you tried emailing or pm-ing Tokyo with this info or the AWL?
Taxamo Welf
kebagels pls
well m/c parents and teachers use the term 'bolshy' quite a bit to describe uppity kids IME.
Taxamo Welf
kebagels pls
it wasn't even going iirc.
Me and my mate were their obvious market (she was even in the AWL) but they didn't give it to us. We were 17. maybe thats too old for bolshy...?
Me and my mate were their obvious market (she was even in the AWL) but they didn't give it to us. We were 17. maybe thats too old for bolshy...?
Taxamo Welf
kebagels pls
she must have revived it
PS the more i see this thread name the more it pisses me off. I know its the same guy but every time i see it in the forum i think 'someones joining the AWL?!'
PS the more i see this thread name the more it pisses me off. I know its the same guy but every time i see it in the forum i think 'someones joining the AWL?!'
Tokyo said:
What is your position on Workers Power? According to their members on here they led strikes against the war in Iraq , have more Asian members than the SWP and one of their RMT members is the key bloke in pursuading Bob Crow to call a conference to form a new mass workers party.
Chuck Wilson said:
I know some Workers Power members personally and get on well with them. We worked alongside them in the Socialist Alliance and in the early days of the No Sweat anti-sweatshop campaign, and I try to keep up to date on what they are doing. I don't believe for a minute that they have more Asian members than the SWP (a higher percentage, probably); they were as active as any other left wing group in calling for strikes against the war and had some success in leading school student strikes (other groups, including us, did much the same).
We have various political differences from Workers Power; the key one is our analysis of imperialsm. Our perspective indicates the need to support independent workers' organisations, even where they are weak, against not only the big imperialists, but also against smaller would-be imperialists and other anti-worker forces. So in Iraq, for instance, we call for support for the growing union movement, against not only the US-UK occupation but also the Islamist resistance. article on our position
I'm sure that someone from Workers Power can explain their position better than I could, but, for instance in Iraq, it leads them to support the Islamist resistance almost uncritically, and tend to ignore the workers' movement. They also have a few less well-known policies which I find it difficult to understand, such as supporting the nuclear ambitions of capitalist countries on the grounds that they may in future fall into the hands of workers. Workers Power are also often accused, with some justification, of making calls which they have no means of following through, such as for walkouts against the Iraq War or calls for a Fifth International.
My view of Workers Power, in summary, is that they are an honest organisation with some good militants, but that their analysis of world events is often severely mistaken.
Similar threads
