National Union of Students

[Das Uberdog]

You're using the old tactic of "if you say it enough times then it'll stick, even though it's totally untrue". Our ideas on eg Iran are not used to attack the left, they are used to make solidarity. Eg

http://www.workersliberty.org/node/8175

If eg Respect makes itself look stupid by opposing solidarity with workers in Iran, why is that our fault?

You idiot - what solidarity? There are fucking thousands of countries you could have focused on to discuss the issue of worker's and women's rights - how about fricking Ghana? Egypt? Nepal? China? South Korea? New Guinea? NO - you chose Iran, and you chose Iran because of the media hype and the build up to a land invasion. There is no other explanation - why else would Iran be chosen?

You knew that we wouldn't pass a motion publically criticising Iran at conference, because for the anti-war movement, that would be a tactically fucking stupid thing to do! Just because your petty clause also (shyly) stated that 'this motion does not call for military action to be taken against Iran' doesn't mean that it won't join in on the general (and bogus) chorus of general opinion currently clamouring to criticise Iranian Home Policy. And when I was slandered 'supporting the Theocratic regime in Iran' by the NUJS rep. on opposing his braindead definition of Anti-Semitism, your comrades applauded him. Your motion was to create solidarity with the left? Oh I'm sorry, I missed that part (arsewipe).

Except that this isn't true either. We oppose NOLS/UJS too. Please can you produce one, just one piece of evidence that we are soft on these groups other than "Your hostility to the Iranian regime makes other left-wingers look bad"? I'll give you one right now on the other side: SWSS etc lining up with UJS to support faith schools at NUS conference 2006 (only one vote against on the executive, but the conference voted it down!)

I don't know enough about your Mad faith-schools hype agenda, but to be honest it sounds completely irrelevant! And saying you oppose NOLS/UJS is all well and good (and you do say it on stage) but when almost all your motions and actions are designed to coincide with the interests of the New Labour bloc in order to try and split us, well. It's a fucking disgrace. Under your own admission;

... we attack Galloway? So what?

You don't fucking attack Blair! You attack Galloway with lies! THat's the fucking 'what'! AWL and Labour students come together, ardently clapping with glee like deranged retards, tongues lolling out of their mouths in a quasi religious stupor trying to lap up every bit of anti-Galloway sentiment from the air.

Galloway has never voted against abortion, he has always maintained the position that he opposes it on a religious personal level but supports the right to choose. He has never opposed the legalisation of gay marriage or the lowering of the age of consent for homosexuals, another myth touted by Buckland at conference. And yes, he was awarded the pink ribbon from the Gay Support Society (or something like that) for going out of his way to support homosexual rights. All that comes out of your mouth is slander and bullshit.

Ok, this lie can be measured factually. In fact, Sofie was elected on to the Block of 12 in 9th place (out of 12 - do you see?) not first.

Maybe she was - I took my information from the conference summary e-mailed to me from NUS after conference, on which there may have been an error with what was written or what I read. The list of candidates in the bloc was also shown in the e-mail, with Sofie coming first. I checked for alphabetical order and there wasn't any so I assumed.

It's also pretty ironic getting this from a sympathiser of Respect who called for a vote for FOSIS in the Block elections and most of whose transfers in the VP Welfare election went to a right-wing candidate while only 30% went to the ENS candidate.

Yeah, we're gonna vote for FOSIS rather than wankers who've been slating us for no reason all conference, imbecile? You can't even claim retaliation - we did nothing to you, spread no shit about you, yet we're still victim of more slander from you on conference floor than any other organisation. A vote for you is another voice on the Exec. next year spreading shit about us. It's not a happy prospect you must understand.

PS - we voted for a 'centre liberal' candidate on Welfare, not because we wanted her to win (we had stood Claire Solomon against her) - but because we would rather have broken New Labour's stranglehold on the position.

- NUS democracy (which is crucial)

- mentioned plenty in the Presidential hustings, shame it was by us and not you.

- Supporting workers fighting the government

Only Iranian workers it seems... Certainly not Pelstineans. I didn't hear about any other motions being called into question at conference.

Etcetera, etcetera. I don't want to get petty. You're New Labour's wet dream at conference... too elitistically philosophised to try posing any ideas which would actually be successful in gaining the support of the general population on the one hand, and too bothered about discrediting the left and standing candidates against us on the other to really threaten their position at all. If there's one organisation which really works to New Labour's benefit at conference it's you.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well I suppose I owe some sort of apology - but I must say that if you felt able enough to get your message of zero tolerance over towards these students then I think that the form the racism must have taken must have been in a completely different form to the kind of racist attitudes posed towards Muslims.

Apology not necessary, and yes, I suspect that as Muslims as a sector of population are now experiencing a similar (though more reinforced, especially via the media) level of institutional and cultural harassment as well as (from some sectors) social opprobrium not unlike that experienced by eastern European Jews in Britain 100 years ago.
I'm lucky, I'm big, ugly and if I get very pissed off and find it necessary I can let my barriers down and let the red mist go, so Judaeophobia at an individual level has always been something I've been able to fight against physically if I have to, whereas Muslim students, experiencing institutional racism or if not racism then mistrust, don't have that option without prejudicing views against them further. Catch-22.

On the one hand you are supported by the masses of the British population in your religion and position in society, and on the other I doubt it came to much more than name-calling...

You'd be surprised how creative vindictive ex-public schoolboys can be. I always thought the pig blood in my petrol tank was an especially sick twist.

whereas Muslim students are regularly subject to stop and search by the police, attacks and assualts on the streets, random house raids (the amount of Muslims I know in Avenham who have purportedly had their houses raided under the Terrorism Act is incredible...) and ultimately (now) the exclusion of Islamic groups from campus.

Disgusting but ultimately not surprising in a society whose govt thrives on promoting "threats" and solutions to those "threats". Before it was the Muslims it was black w/c youth, before that it was w/c youth per se. There's always a "threat" to defend against, a "threat" to provide the establishment with something to react against.

When I say it doesn't exist in a 'palatable' form, I mean it very rarely actually manifests itself in anything other than name-calling - if that! My best friend is Jewish, and he laughed out loud when he heard about that motion at NUS conference. That was before I told him about the definition malarky, too.

I think it's fair to say that a majority of Jews" are socially invisible nowadays, we wear the same clothes as anyone else, some of us look mediteranean, some of us look slavic, some of us look totally anglo, only the orthodox and those who wish to publicise their culture "stick out". And yes, a lot of abuse is just name-calling nowadays, but not all of it, and as long as idiot motions such as that are promulgated by people who haven't got the nous to spot "divide and conquer" tactics that are plain as the nose on my face, then it won't be purely name-calling.

 

[Laura Sc]

****CLARIFICATION****

I'll reply to the rest of the stuff later. For now, however:

NO, Arthur Bough is not an AWL member; he was about twenty years ago, but certainly isn't now. Moreover, we recently asked him to stop blogging on our site, which he agreed to. And lastly, no we certainly don't agree with those quotes about the Palestinians.

 

[Laura Sc]

One more point of clarification (and it is an interesting example of how many on the "left" seem to think it's okay to lie if it suits your interests).

The idea that we changed our position on Palestine to suit UJS is just laughable - and not just because our position isn't the same as that of UJS, and not just because UJS never support our candidates in NUS elections.

We changed our position on Palestine in the mid-80s after YEARS of very intensive and heated discussion in the group, much of it public. There had been individuals who favoured a two state position as early as 1978 - first of all Sean Matgamna, then Clive Bradley, both still members, and then a small but growing minority until it won a majority.

I'll see if any of the materials from the debates we had are online. If not, I'm willing to go into our office, find some of them nd post them to anyone who wants them in order to expose "Fanciful" for the liar s/he is and put the record straight.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I said:

The sheer irony of an AWLer saying that has me open-mouthed in admiration of their gall!

To which you replied

Notice how I gave repeated examples of you lying but you have failed to give a single one of us lying in return. Instead you just rely on the force of your exclamations - "sheer irony", "open-mouthed", "gall" - to cover up for the lack of facts.

I'm still waiting for you to explain yourself about these supposed repeated examples you gave of me lying when I hadn't addressed you before on this board, Laura.

Or are you too busy purveying AWL propaganda to be civil?

 

[Gumbert]

the AWL and the NUS conference bring back such memories. Not so long ago when Bush was ratcheting up the pressure for an attack on Iraq 4 years ago last month, the AWL (ex-soggys) position then was for " no to war - no to Saddam".

Now this position was inevitably voted down by the right. More importantly for the left at conference (swss) argued against this position, that it took the anti-war movement into defensive posturing over the oncoming war in Iraq, where it would have been alot better to focus on the real war criminals - Bush and Blair - instead the AWL position let these warmongers off the hook and the attempted canoodling with the right wing of NUS didnt pay off (as if they didnt know that anyway), oh such skewed radicalism! Bless...

And we see the payback now eh...

ps . good posts uberdog

see you in school geoff

 

[fanciful]

Sorry Laura, rather than calling me a liar, you should check out that facts. There's obviously nothing more I can say to convince you.
But the sordid tale is true.
And its not surprising that the rush to the right was lead by Magamna. He is the soul of the AWL and a disgusting reactionary who supports the UK/US slaughter in Iraq, as do the AWL "majority". Puke.
What kind of socialist would support such a group?

 

[Tokyo]

Sorry Laura, rather than calling me a liar, you should check out that facts. There's obviously nothing more I can say to convince you.
But the sordid tale is true.

Laura has offered to go and check the facts, and to provide evidence in support of her argument. You have offered nothing, other than a vague recollection. If there's nothing more you can say to convince anyone, you shouldn't be surprised that nobody is convinced.

And its not surprising that the rush to the right was lead by Magamna. He is the soul of the AWL and a disgusting reactionary who supports the UK/US slaughter in Iraq, as do the AWL "majority". Puke.
What kind of socialist would support such a group?

Any facts here? A quote from Matgamna saying that he supports the UK/US occupation of Iraq? Or their invasion of Iraq? Nope? That's because it is pure invective, with no basis of truth.

 

[Tokyo]

You idiot - what solidarity? There are fucking thousands of countries you could have focused on to discuss the issue of worker's and women's rights - how about fricking Ghana? Egypt? Nepal? China? South Korea? New Guinea? NO - you chose Iran, and you chose Iran because of the media hype and the build up to a land invasion. There is no other explanation - why else would Iran be chosen?

There is some truth in this. Iran is very much in the public eye, and there have been repeated threats from the US and UK, and rumours of possible invasion (unlikely, in my view). So it's a pretty important place to be talking about. And then there are a couple of possibilities. The AWL (of which I am a member) could put forward a positive programme for the working class in Iran. This would involve support for the active but threatened workers' movement in Iran, and both opposition to their own government, and to the threats from the UK and US. This is, incidentally, the position of most revolutionary socialists in Iran. Or, the AWL could collapse into a narrow position where it only opposes its own government, and has nothing to say about the very real repression meted out by the Iranian government. Personally, I prefer the first, internationalist, position.

You knew that we wouldn't pass a motion publically criticising Iran at conference, because for the anti-war movement, that would be a tactically fucking stupid thing to do! Just because your petty clause also (shyly) stated that 'this motion does not call for military action to be taken against Iran' doesn't mean that it won't join in on the general (and bogus) chorus of general opinion currently clamouring to criticise Iranian Home Policy. And when I was slandered 'supporting the Theocratic regime in Iran' by the NUJS rep. on opposing his braindead definition of Anti-Semitism, your comrades applauded him. Your motion was to create solidarity with the left? Oh I'm sorry, I missed that part (arsewipe).

Tactically stupid? Like how if before the Iraq War if people had known that Saddam and the Iraqi Government was, y'know, not all that great, nobody in Britain would have opposed the war? People are a bit more intelligent than you give them credit for. It all comes down to whether you want to propose a positive programme, or just do half the job - rightly attacking your own government, but essentially trying to apologise for the Iranian Government.

I don't know enough about your Mad faith-schools hype agenda, but to be honest it sounds completely irrelevant! And saying you oppose NOLS/UJS is all well and good (and you do say it on stage) but when almost all your motions and actions are designed to coincide with the interests of the New Labour bloc in order to try and split us, well. It's a fucking disgrace. Under your own admission;

I was active in the campaign in Conisbrough against the Government-backed initiative to turn their school into a fundamentalist Christian academy. And we won. Nobody there was saying that the Government's aim to increase the influence of faith in education was "irrelevant". I guess it doesn't affect you, but it is a significant issue.

You don't fucking attack Blair! You attack Galloway with lies! THat's the fucking 'what'! AWL and Labour students come together, ardently clapping with glee like deranged retards, tongues lolling out of their mouths in a quasi religious stupor trying to lap up every bit of anti-Galloway sentiment from the air.

Look at the AWL's paper. There are lots of articles and headlines attacking Blair. Loads of criticisms of other prominent British politicians, be they Labour or Conservative. There's not half so much on Galloway, although there are plenty of reasons to criticise him.

Yeah, we're gonna vote for FOSIS rather than wankers who've been slating us for no reason all conference, imbecile? You can't even claim retaliation - we did nothing to you, spread no shit about you, yet we're still victim of more slander from you on conference floor than any other organisation. A vote for you is another voice on the Exec. next year spreading shit about us. It's not a happy prospect you must understand.

PS - we voted for a 'centre liberal' candidate on Welfare, not because we wanted her to win (we had stood Claire Solomon against her) - but because we would rather have broken New Labour's stranglehold on the position.

This is a shame. I'd always advocate voting for candidates you support - if you see yourself as a left-winger, then voting for left-wing candidates - not adopting a sectarian approach of voting for any sort of candidate, so long as they are not left-wingers who might dare to criticise some of your policies.

Only Iranian workers it seems... Certainly not Pelstineans.

There are significant and very active unions in Iran, in urgent need of solidarity. Sadly, the trade union movement in Palestine is very weak at the moment (although, given the continued attacks by Israel on Palestinian territory, that's no great surprise), but on the rare occasions when Palestinians are able to organise as workers, we have publicised and supported their efforts.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Sorry Laura, rather than calling me a liar, you should check out that facts. There's obviously nothing more I can say to convince you.
But the sordid tale is true.
And its not surprising that the rush to the right was lead by Magamna. He is the soul of the AWL and a disgusting reactionary who supports the UK/US slaughter in Iraq, as do the AWL "majority". Puke.
What kind of socialist would support such a group?

Isn't that the point though, that for a long time now the AWL haven't been socialists in any real sense of the word, but rather a quasi-religious sect of Sean-worshippers?

people think the Swappies are laughable for viewing life through the lenses of Callinicos and Harman, how much more laughable are the AWL for viewing life through the distorting lens of Sean Matgamna's whimsical chopping and changing of position?

 

[Laura Sc]

Anyone who wants to know what the AWL really thinks and does, as opposed to the nonsense talked on this messageboard, should come to our dayschool tomrorow.

--

The case for socialist feminism: a dayschool on class, capitalism and women's liberation

Organised by the Alliance for Workers' Liberty

11-5pm, Saturday 21 April
University of East London Docklands campus, next to Cyprus Docklands Light Railway station (the DLR runs from Bank in central London, Lewisham in South London and various places in east London)

If you have any problems on the day, call Sofie on 07815 490 837

Registration £2.50 unwaged, £5 waged, including a pack of reading on socialist feminist ideas. Free creche and cheap lunch provided.

10.30am Registration

11am Opening session: the politics of women's liberation today
Speakers: Jean Lane (Workers' Liberty), Mary Partington (Feminists 4 John McDonnell)

11.45am Socialism and feminism - an unhappy marriage? What is the relationship between class, gender and other forms of oppression?
Facilitator: Laura Schwartz
Followed by breaking down into small groups for questions and discussion.

1.15pm Lunch

1.45pm Workshops

i) Against war, against theocracy: women's struggles in Iran
Speaker: Azar Sheibani

ii) How do we get the labour movement to fight for women's liberation?
Speaker: Janine Booth (Workers' Liberty and chair, RMT women's advisory committee, pc)

3pm Break

3.10pm Workshops

i) Does 'wages for housework' make sense from a socialist point of view?
Selma James (Global Women's Strike) debates Cathy Nugent (editor, Solidarity)

ii) How can we fight for women's sexual freedom whilst opposing objectification, exploitation and oppression?
Camile Barbagallo (International Union of Sex Workers), Sofie Buckland (Workers' Liberty)

4.20 Closing session: women's movements of the past and future
Speakers: Cathy Nugent, Sofie Buckland

5pm Close

 

[Sacha Ismail]

Could someone please provide one single piece of evidence for the idea that we changed our position on Palestine to win votes from UJS?

 

[fanciful]

You need only check the dates. It wouldn't even surprise me if they admitted it in their old papers. Sorry I don't buy that reactionary tripe.
As for their support for the occupation I'm amazed that you've got the cheek to deny it;

"But after 2003 we opposed those on the left who thought that the call for a US-British immediate withdrawal was the necessary, and only acceptable, concrete expression of being in favour of Iraqi self-determination. "

www.workersliberty.org/node/7157

What does it mean if you oppose the withdrawal of the occupation forces from Iraq? It means you support the occupation. It can't mean anything else.
The AWL are a reactionary organisation who in every instance support the oppressors over the oppressed, including the current slaughter in Iraq.

Even by the Lancet's figures the occupiers have murdered at least 200,000 Iraqis, or around 50,000 a year, or 1,000 a week. But this is a gross underestimate. In fact the occupiers have killed over half of attributed deaths. Around 40% of deaths are unattributed. Assuming that the occupation forces killed these unattributed deaths at the same rate, then you can double those figures.
But that's fine according to the AWL because a victory for the resistance would be ...worse.
They can't know that of course, but it makes their support for the massacre more palatable.

 

[Das Uberdog]

There is some truth in this. Iran is very much in the public eye, and there have been repeated threats from the US and UK, and rumours of possible invasion (unlikely, in my view). So it's a pretty important place to be talking about. And then there are a couple of possibilities. The AWL (of which I am a member) could put forward a positive programme for the working class in Iran. This would involve support for the active but threatened workers' movement in Iran, and both opposition to their own government, and to the threats from the UK and US. This is, incidentally, the position of most revolutionary socialists in Iran. Or, the AWL could collapse into a narrow position where it only opposes its own government, and has nothing to say about the very real repression meted out by the Iranian government. Personally, I prefer the first, internationalist, position.

To be honest, Tokie, the invasion of Iraq was seen as rather an unlikely thing to happen before it actually commenced. I remember the morning, it took me completely by surprise. I was used to all talk and no substance, and all of a sudden we have 20,000 British troopers packing their bags and off to Baghdad. Nevertheless, the threat currently posed to Iran isn't necessarily a ground invasion per say (though Iran is nearly completely surrounded, with Israel to the North and the Americans in Iraq to the South) but more likely a 'military strike' - which is what is currently being threatened. Missile attacks on silos, government structures and even on some of the new generation Nuclear power stations. AKA - catastrophe for Iranian bourgeoisie and workers alike, though of course the workers will (as always) come off worse.

Regardless, this isn't about whether or not we should support Iranian workers. We obviously should. But Egypt is going through much more turmoil and suppression at the moment, with a massive strike-wave rocking the country to it's core! And Pakistan, where the once pseudo liberal democracy is rapidly turning into a military autocracy, again, the worker's movements there are much more globally important! What about Mexico, where Oaxaca was recently forced from the hands of Appo by the state and corrupt governer, and where worker's movements are currently undermining the very foundations of the Mexican government? No - you choose Iran. Who is this going to benefit in practice? You know as well as I do that NUS has become a tool for reconciling the contradictory interests of the government with students... at least in the public eye. I'll tell you what will become of that motion; it will be perverted and distorted, and at best used to demonise the Iranian State (no worse than hundreds others in the world) to the benefit of powers that would overthrow it for the interests of neo-liberal expansion. You are being sectarian to the extent of benefitting those who you would call your enemy.

Look at the AWL's paper. There are lots of articles and headlines attacking Blair. Loads of criticisms of other prominent British politicians, be they Labour or Conservative. There's not half so much on Galloway, although there are plenty of reasons to criticise him.

You're forgetting the issue - this isn't about the AWL as a national organisation, this is about the disgrace that was the AWL student squad at NUS conference - at which a total of... zero personal attacks were made upon Tony Blair, any of the Labour cabinet or the Labour students whilst a hefty amount of floor space was dedicated to lying about Galloway. I notice how even Laura hasn't tried to justify AWL's main conference floor claim that Galloway has opposed the right to choose or that he opposed the bill legalising gay sex under 16... Not to mention that we featured in your daily bulletins and publications from your desk detailing various and eclectic unsubstantiated lies about SWP philosophy.

This is a shame. I'd always advocate voting for candidates you support - if you see yourself as a left-winger, then voting for left-wing candidates - not adopting a sectarian approach of voting for any sort of candidate, so long as they are not left-wingers who might dare to criticise some of your policies.

Criticising some of our policies. I think I've blatantly shown that what the AWL is not to 'criticise SWP/Respect policy', but to slander us, lie about us and set up clever motions which you know will be backed by the Exec. and opposed by us which will make us look bad. Well done, shitheads.

PS - it's also abit rich seeing as AWL/ENS didn't vote for us, either.

There are significant and very active unions in Iran, in urgent need of solidarity. Sadly, the trade union movement in Palestine is very weak at the moment (although, given the continued attacks by Israel on Palestinian territory, that's no great surprise), but on the rare occasions when Palestinians are able to organise as workers, we have publicised and supported their efforts.

The fact that there is no work in Palestine for Palestineans to organise around as workers again seems to slip your sight - the only resistance they have is the resistance to Israeli policy, which comes in no more a noble form than Hamas or in Lebanon, Hizbollah. Both are none corrupt organisations, anti-capitalist and though on some levels culturally backward, mass movements with the support of the majority of the population. Yet because they are not purist Socialists, they fail to attract your support and are 'just as bad' as the Israelis.

 

[chilango]

What about Mexico, where Oaxaca was recently forced from the hands of Appo by the state and corrupt governer, and where worker's movements are currently undermining the very foundations of the Mexican government?

I`m no fan of the AWL, and certainly don`t want to get in the way here

but...thats a simplistic and inaccurate account of the state of play (though well intentioned). so here`s how things are at the mo.

Parts of the state of Oaxaca remain under popular control. The APPO engaged in a strategic withdrawal from the city of Oaxaca to avoid a full on confrontation the APPO could not win. The autonomous municipalities in Oaxaca occupy a similar position to the Zapatista municipalities in Chiapas - a state of uneasy seige.

However APPO and similar formations across the country are very quiet right now.

The movement in Mexico nationally is at low ebb currently. the wave of revolutionary feeling of last year got subsumed into the PRD campaign for Lopez Obrador, who has naturally failed to do anything with it.

Much of that wave was not based in any kind of workers movement of facory militancy, though it encourage that which was. Notably the miners. Some unions split from the state controlled union structure, but this seems to have died down a lot at the moment.

We wait and see.

 

[fanciful]

But notwithstanding that quibble, Uberdog is basically right, the AWL are a reactionary clique, who in every conflict between "imperialism" and the "imperialised", support imperialism.
This becomes particularly evident in student politics as its just about the only place they have managed to retain any kind of base. They have been doing despicable deals with the UJS since at least the 1980s, when as I have explained they abandoned their opposition to a Palestine/Israel two state position, in order to do a sordid deal in the NUS General Secretary elections.
(Obviously such a lash up doesn't mean that they had to adopt an identical position to that of the UJS, just that they would abandon all principled difficulties to such a deal - and that's just what they did.)
It's not true from that of course to say they don't have any principles - they do - they support the imperialists in every war they can.

 

[Tokyo]

But notwithstanding that quibble, Uberdog is basically right, the AWL are a reactionary clique, who in every conflict between "imperialism" and the "imperialised", support imperialism.

Surely you realise this is a ridiculous claim? Try to find one example - an example with evidence, mind, not a vague claim of "my mate told me this". There isn't one. The AWL have a tradition of supporting workers and workers movements worldwide.

They have been doing despicable deals with the UJS since at least the 1980s, when as I have explained they abandoned their opposition to a Palestine/Israel two state position, in order to do a sordid deal in the NUS General Secretary elections.

And you keep saying this, but still have no evidence. So the AWL changed its position - after long internal debates - in the same year as, um, an NUS conference was held.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Anyone who wants to know what the AWL really thinks and does, as opposed to the nonsense talked on this messageboard, should come to our dayschool tomrorow.

You gotta love these propagands. "Come to our cult meeting, and you too will realise we follow the one true way"!

It was a joke when the swappies pulled this bullshit in the '80s, and it's as tired as an insomniac now we're in the 21st century.

 

[Tokyo]

Isn't that the point though, that for a long time now the AWL haven't been socialists in any real sense of the word, but rather a quasi-religious sect of Sean-worshippers?

people think the Swappies are laughable for viewing life through the lenses of Callinicos and Harman, how much more laughable are the AWL for viewing life through the distorting lens of Sean Matgamna's whimsical chopping and changing of position?

You keep suggesting that the AWL consists of blind followers of one individual. I can't imagine what gave you that idea. I've been a member of a few years now, and I can't think of a less accurate description. There are organisations which blindly follow any twist and turn their leader comes up with (e.g. the old Workers Revolutionary Party). There are organisations with no effective internal democracy, so their line is determined by a secretive central committee (e.g. the SWP).

The AWL's policies are the result of lively debates. You can see them in the paper, or the website. They also take place on mailing lists, and at the annual conference. Any position, no matter who puts it forward, is up for debate, and there's no member who is always on the winning side.

Far from being some sort of "cult", the AWL has a long tradition of internal democracy and of being open about its politics.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You keep suggesting that the AWL consists of blind followers of one individual. I can't imagine what gave you that idea. I've been a member of a few years now, and I can't think of a less accurate description. There are organisations which blindly follow any twist and turn their leader comes up with (e.g. the old Workers Revolutionary Party). There are organisations with no effective internal democracy, so their line is determined by a secretive central committee (e.g. the SWP).

Mmmm, actually I haven't suggested you're all "blind followers" at all, I've suggested you pay undue reverence to one of your ideologues. Having been a keen non-aligned watcher of Trot grouplets for the last 3 decades, your group has followed (despite claims otherwise) the same path to central control that every other bunch of Bronsteinites have.

The AWL's policies are the result of lively debates. You can see them in the paper, or the website. They also take place on mailing lists, and at the annual conference. Any position, no matter who puts it forward, is up for debate, and there's no member who is always on the winning side.

I'm afraid that your paper and website have only marginally more credibility as a journal of record than does "Socialist Worker" and the SWPs' website, so your referencing them as sources of information is somewhat risible.

Far from being some sort of "cult", the AWL has a long tradition of internal democracy and of being open about its politics.

I'd be interested to see the definition of "internal democracy" you're applying here as "proof" that the AWL is no sort of cult.

*****​

Of course, there's always a problem in debating with cult members, that they don't feel obliged toward honesty in debate, viewing "lying to the infidel" as an acceptable, and even necessary, practice.

 

[audiotech]

VP, as a matter of interest what exactly are your politics and have you actively been involved in anything, apart from rabid cynicism?

 

[fanciful]

Ridiculous claim?
You support the occupation of Iraq by the US/UK.
You support the existence of Israel.
You support the Orange Block in Northern Ireland.
You were neutral in the Malvinas war, but only I'm sure because you were a little more left in those days.
You flirted with the Nato bombing of Serbia.

Produce some evidence that you don't support imperialism - everytime.
As for the quality of debate in your organisation - how about this example from your leader Magamna.

"The fuckwit left pretends that because of the vast disparity of power between Iraq and the US/UK, and because Iraq is an ex-colony, Iraq cannot be defined as “imperialist” or “sub-imperialist”." Sean Magamna
http://www.workersliberty.org/node/3465

The reactionary Magamna, insults the left as "fuckwits", while pretending that bad language can disguise the fundamental difference between Iraq and the USA. He is more pathetic than laughable.

All in his mission to promote the reactionary pro-imperialist politics of the AWL - great organisation.

 

[ViolentPanda]

VP, as a matter of interest what exactly are your politics and have you actively been involved in anything, apart from rabid cynicism?

I've run the gamut from non-aligned keft anti-rascist to Swappie sympathiser in the late 1970s, back to non-aligned left anti-racist with an appreciation of anarchism from the mid eighties-onward.
I was actively involved in anti-NF actions in the 1970s, I've been a trade union rep (USDAW ), I spent many nights at Wapping (and many days at CND rallies, anti-racism events etc), and I still do what I can, whenever I can, within the limitations of my disabilities.

I've also been a keen politics-watcher for nigh on three decades, as well as collecting publications by left and right organisations espousing their what are nowadays called) "mission statements".

I've also worked for "the man" at various times, because as well as being a "rabid cynic", I also needed to keep a roof over my head.

 

[ViolentPanda]

BTW, MC5, as for the "rabid cynicism", when you've experienced and/or witnessed the cyclical rise and fall of the trot left for over two thirds of a middle-aged life, let alone experienced the disintegration of any association between parliamentary Labour and the ideals of socialism, or watched the sad joke of the surrender of Eurocentric ideals on the altar of American interests, then the cynicism is hard-earned.

 

[audiotech]

Been there, done that, wore the t-shirt, but there's alway's the world proletariat to warm the cockles of the heart.