The AWL, Israel and Iran
(This is a guest post by David Broder, formerly of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty and a vocal “minority” advocate in recent political debates on Iraq, Israel and Iran – VP)
The furore over the recent article by the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty’s Sean Matgamna excusing an Israeli attack on Iran has now died down. The four pages splashed across Thursday’s Solidarity belie the silence that has fallen. There have been hardly any comments on the AWL website about the issue for a week; except for a short piece by Matgamna proving that the CPGB have upset him in the recent Punch-and-Judy, the articles in Solidarity are all old reprints from the website discussion; the statement circulated between around a dozen AWL minority comrades did not make the paper; and the discussion bulletin promised for August 17th never materialised.
This was hardly surprising – the participants in the discussion all had totally different parameters for debate and therefore the argument ran into the ground without any new conclusions being drawn. This despite the one glaring similarity between the Matgamna position and the so-called “kitsch left” position, namely that neither side is aware of the difference between the interests of the working class and their ‘national’ ruling class and therefore have no option but to line up behind the “lesser evil” bourgeoisie, whether that be the “anti-imperialist” rulers of Iran or Israel, which Solidarity labelled “the most democratic society on Earth”.
The level of debate was appalling. Sean Matgamna – who admitted at our North London AWL branch meeting when challenged that he could not name a single Iranian trade unionist and was unaware of strikes taking place in Iran – simply assumed that the Iranian rulers were all al-Qaedist suicide bombers and that they were developing nukes. Anyone who knows me will know that I am no apologist for the Iranian regime, but you have to take the dynamics of the situation seriously. Khatami has repeatedly criticised “hard liners”, preaching moderation, civilian nuclear energy only, and Iran-US negotiations. A brief search on Google reveals that Iran’s “Supreme Leader” Khamenei issued a Fatwa against the development, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons in August 2005, unlike Mohsen Gharavian – a disciple of Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi, who is close to Ahmedinejad – who in February 2006 said that it was permissible to use them. I would certainly not advocate alliance with sections of the regime opposed to Ahmedinejad or support for “reform” Islamists, but they are a real factor in the situation.
Furthermore, the argument was characterised by ridiculous personal attacks. On the AWL website Mark Osborn wrote that “in an ideal world [Workers' Power's] Richard [Brenner] would be well balanced and a foot taller”, called Bill Jefferies “Bill Braincell” Ben Lewis “Benny Boy” and made a Welsh/sheep-shagger joke about the CPGB’s Mark Fischer. Tom Unterrainer wrote that “when it comes down to it HOPI will strain every sinew to excuse and defend the actions of Iranian clerical fascism against the Iranian working class”, without any explanation. If only the AWL leadership really did devote as much time building links with Iranian socialists as they did to squabbling with the rest of the left, their position would be a little more credible. Not that any of the Iraqi socialists they would talk to refuse to call for “troops out now”; similarly, I doubt the Iranians would be too delighted if the Israeli jets came and the AWL “refused to condemn” it.
You might be wondering why I’m moaning about all this: of course, none of this behaviour is new. After the close vote on Iraq at the AWL conference in May, Mark Osborn had loudly heckled that the group was full of “Maoist youth”. Last summer there was a pathetic fight between the CPGB and AWL, with lengthy, rambling personal attacks in both papers and the bizarre spectacle of the AWL’s Paul Hampton picketing the CPGB’s Communist University holding a cornflakes box and making chicken noises. I can’t quite remember what the dispute was about: I’m sure some trainspotters of the “blogosphere” will. Solidarity has just as much bumpf about left groups as any other paper.
While I had generally disliked the culture of AWL internal debates, which are usually characterised by a few people rallying around the EC and blandly asserting that their critics are “ill-educated” or “outside the tradition” without any explanation, what really changed my mind about the possibility of “reforming” the AWL was a specific incident that took place at the group’s office, where I have worked on-and-off, two weeks ago.
It started when I received a phone call from Tom Unterrainer that morning. As soon as I had said “hello” he said “I hear that you’re organising a faction”. Tom said that Sean and him were concerned about my recent “behaviour” in the Israel-Iran debate and wanted me to come to the office and discuss it with them.
Unsurprisingly, at the “meeting”, Sean repeated the age-old claim that I had pieced together a “rotten bloc” of minority comrades who I allegedly “actually” disagreed with.
But, much worse, in a series of paranoid slanders I was also repeatedly accused of supporting and goading on “kitsch left” attacks on the AWL; questioned on what links I have with the CPGB (a group I left over the question of Respect more than four years ago, aged 15, having been a member for barely two months) and Workers’ Power; and questioned over my motivations for having a personal friendship with Ben Lewis, who is in the CPGB.
In a breathtaking accusation of disloyalty, they asked what meetings I had had with the CPGB and Workers’ Power. Even to ask the question is an open expression of mistrust. (Thinking back, I once did go to meet Luke Cooper and Richard Brenner from WP, and did go to the Communist Students conference… in both cases having sought the AWL Executive Committee’s permission in advance!)
In this vein, I was asked how come the CPGB and I “use the same formulations to polemicise against [Sean]“. By “same formulations” they meant: I recently criticised Sean for “excusing” an Israeli attack on Iran, then a few days later the Weekly Worker had a headline criticising Sean with the word “excuse” in: as if the mere word “excuse” were some new invention of mine.
So not only was I accused of having been provoked the whole debate (since it was I who wrote the first response to Sean’s article on the website: apparently the article itself was not the cause of the row), thereby giving some sort of passive encouragement to the “kitsch left” to attack Sean: but I was also accused of active collaboration with the CPGB and Workers’ Power.
The one thing not up for discussion at the “meeting” was the politics of Sean’s article: Sean said he did not want to discuss it since my response was “not political” but rather “a stream of personal attacks”. He couldn’t cite any specific personal attack though, which made me think that they can’t have been particularly hurtful, and he turned down my offer to show him the article so that he could point out where all the personal attacks were.
Indeed, at this “meeting”, after repeatedly expressing my objections, I was mandated by these two Executive Committee members to produce a statement repudiating the CPGB and Workers’ Power and affirming my loyalty to the AWL, which Sean would then “vet” and make “suitable” for publication. When I sarcastically commented that rather than “vetting” the statement, maybe Sean should write it himself and put my name on it, he paused and then said – apparently entirely sincerely – to Tom, “I’d prefer to do that, but then he’ll claim afterwards that he was forced to do it”.
Indeed I was forced to do it. But I didn’t – to write a “statement of loyalty” and stick it up on the AWL site would have been grotesque. The culture in the AWL is not “Healyite”, but this was along those kind of lines.
I instead wrote a message to the AWL’s email list explaining what had happened and why I wouldn’t do it, which was met with a cavalcade of responses from all the usual suspects, most of them claiming that it was in fact I who was acting undemocratically since I should have written my response to Sean on the National Committee email list rather than publicly. Quite why I am to blame for “starting” a discussion for writing the second piece in it (you see, without a second post it wouldn’t have been a discussion, just an article… although it was entitled “discussion article”, which implies that it should be both…) is beyond me.
In a bizarre rant, Sean said that the cause of the problem was that… “David has bought into some commonplace anti-Bolshevik mythologies: he clearly does not agree with the organisational norms of the AWL, or of the political tradition that we trace back to the Russian Revolution and the Bolshevik Party. He sees or construes things – in this case the ‘meeting’ – to fit the anti-Bolshevik caricature of organisations like the AWL.” I was furthermore an “anti-Bolshevik” and a “centrist-anarchist”. People took sides on the “meeting” according to their views on Israel and Iran.
A discussion bulletin had been mooted, and the “meeting” was meant to be discussed at the next National Committee. Of course, there is no way in which Sean Matgamna and his ally Tom Unterrainer could have been censured by such a meeting.
There is, indeed, no prospect of replacing the EC of the AWL with another set of people, and that stymies all other discussions. If Dan Randall’s “troops out” motion had got a few more votes at the group’s conference and secured 51%, that would not have changed anything, since the same people would write the same articles about Iraq, perhaps calling their pieces “discussion articles”. The same people would be in charge of educationals and set the tone of all debate and discussion, and indeed even if the AWL had voted for “troops out of Iraq” Sean’s piece would still have appeared and had all the same outcomes, including the heretic-hunting “meeting”.
All debates are in any case largely between people on the leading committees of the group and have little input from the rest of the membership: I was amused by the suggestion that I am just angry at not being on the AWL EC, given that any vote on that committee on any issue would have been 6 against 1. In this case, Sean Matgamna decided that he disagreed with the conference policy on Iran and thus wrote an article saying we should not oppose an Israeli attack against that country: now it is universally believed that this is the AWL position, there is a moratorium on discussion, and so he has got his way.
With all that in mind, Chris Ford and I agreed that it was pointless to continue fighting in the AWL. There are lots of dedicated and intelligent comrades in the AWL who I was reluctant to break with: but they also will hit a brick wall (and the same kind of behaviour) if they attempt to fight the leadership. The only real alternatives are to leave or to bury yourself in your “own” campaigns and activism while semi-ignoring the “big politics” spouted by the AWL leadership. The latter is of course pointless – you can be a perfectly good activist or union militant without advocating any of the ideas expressed by the AWL.
Presumably all AWL “dissidents” want to advocate independent working-class politics, re-examine the state of our movement and the tasks of the working class and articulate a vision for a communist society. They will have much more chance of doing that with Chris Ford, myself and others who were not in the AWL than they will by remaining in that organisation.
Dave said,
August 23, 2008 at 10:06 am
David, I hear you’ve just celebrated your 20th birthday. Well, if it’s any consolation, some of us were getting treated like this by Trot sect gurus before you were born. That’s precisely the tragedy; the British far left never learns.
I am saddened to read of your experiences, as I had imagined the AWL were somehow ‘better’ than this.
Are you the SWP in disguise? said,
August 23, 2008 at 11:41 am
This is the kind of behaviour I´d expect from the SWP. I thought the AWL were supposed to be pluralist, and allowed its members to make public criticisms. This is very worrying… the Left never learns indeed.
modernityblog said,
August 23, 2008 at 12:41 pm
the British Left is very, very English, even if not all of its leaders are.
johng said,
August 23, 2008 at 3:03 pm
This sounds just like a blog discussion with Jim Denham and Modernity. Perhaps they should form their own organisation and compete with the AWL.
johng said,
August 23, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Particularly amusing (and charecteristic) were the revelations about the complete ignorence of any actual political developments in Iran, the absence of any real solidarity work (hardly surprising: which socialist organisation in the ME would work with people who would refuse to condemn an Israeli attack on Iran, or on the other hand can’t work out whether they support a US occupation of Iraq or not) and the method of argument (Jim, your wasted you should be on the CC), which appears to involve accusing people of not being Marxist if they refuse to support all these things. The Bolshevik method? Why even pretend.
Juvenile Dwarf said,
August 23, 2008 at 3:30 pm
“I am saddened to read of your experiences, as I had imagined the AWL were somehow ‘better’ than this.”
This is a good one. I’m slightly astounded that people ever fell for the redundant formalism of the AWL’s commitments to “pluralism” and “internal democracy”: it’s been clear that the evil, eeeeeevil SWP are significantly more democratic than this freakish microsect.
Jim Denham said,
August 23, 2008 at 3:47 pm
The treatment that Comrade Broder has recieved is extraordinary and in stark contrast to the democratic traditions of most of the British Leninist left, eg the exemplary tradition of internal democracy within the organisation (the SWP) that ‘Jouvenile Dwarf’ is a member of; some questions that I demand answers to:
1/ Was Comrade Broder allowed to produce a position paper and/or a resolution and/or amendments at the AWL’s national conference?
2/ Was Comrade Broder allowed to stand for the National Committee of the oganisation?
3/ Was Comrade Broder allowed to address branches and/or aggregates of the AWL, in support of his position?
4/ Were Comrade Broder’s documents circulated to all members of the AWL prior to voting at the conference?
5/ Was Comrade Broder even allowed to address the National Conference of the AWL?
6/ Was Comrade Broder allowed *any* access to the public prints (or website)of the AWL to put forward his positions?
7/ Was Comrade Broder allowed to even express his disagreement with the AWL majority in public?
8/ Was Comrade Broder even offered the opportunity to form a faction?
9/ *Why* was the Comrade expelled?
Until the AWL can offer *any* answers to *any* of the above, democratic socialists will have to follow ‘Juvenile Dwarf’’s lead, and look to those exemplary pluralists of the SWP for lessons in the rights of minorities within a democratic centralist organisation.
Jim Denham said,
August 23, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Oh, and Father John: the AWL could clearly take some lessons from the SWP, in building links with Iranian trade unionists as well, eh? Like “Why do you pro- imperialist scum object to being killed, tortured and imprisoned by the heroic, anti-imperialist government?
And as for those Iraqi, pro-imperialists calling themselves trade unionists: they won’t even lay their lives down willingly on behalf of the heroic resistance!
P.S: Off hand, I’d have difficulty remembering the names of Iranian trade unionists: but I *do* remember taking action in their support when the IFTU called for it.
modernityblog said,
August 23, 2008 at 4:02 pm
you’d think that after the recent events that SWPers might have learnt something? doesn’t seem as if they have?
JohnG, have any more Left Listers defected to the LibDems? or do they feel more at home with the Tories?
Juvenile Dwarf said,
August 23, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Learned to have a good chortle at this sort of thing, certainly. It still beggars belief that anyone could take all the AWL’s “pluralist” mumbo-jumbo seriously: perhaps they all also believe that the Soviet Union, circa 1936, was a shining beacon of democracy and freedom for the world. Just look at its lovely constitution.
Nuke Matgamna said,
August 23, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Well done David for escaping the AWL cult seemingly still sane and having done what was possible to oppose Matgamna Madness.
These self-serving cults were a product of the glacial politics of the Cold War. Now that the world has changed and is changing rapidly they are lost and are throwing their hats in with various ruling classes. The AWL has gone Zionist and the SWP has joined Putin’s Party.
With these gouplets gone Trotskyism has a chance of being retrieved from the Gramscian-Stalinist pit they buried it in.
Jim Denham said,
August 23, 2008 at 4:23 pm
I realise, Juvenile, that you’re not really in a position to answer my nine questions at #7, above: but until we have answers, you might be well-advised to keep schtum… Sean MtG, myself and literally hundreds of others have been expelled from the SWP (and IS) over the years, without *any* minority rights…let alone the right to form a faction.
Juvenile Dwarf said,
August 23, 2008 at 4:36 pm
You’re addressing me, Denham? I’m afraid I simply couldn’t give two hoots about your self-serving list of demands (a rhetorical device that is, in your trembling hands, becoming somewhat stale). Broder has decisively revealed the AWL’s formal “pluralist” commitments for what they are: an opportunity to proclaim Matgammna “the genius of the new society, great leader of world communism, the shining light of the masses” (etc etc from memory). Mind you Stalin had his own army, he didn’t have to try and badger someone else’s to bomb things.
Personally, I find it somewhat questionable that an tightly-knit, ideologically-motivated organisation of less than 10,000 members should think itself big enough to sustain *permanent* factions. There’s a case to be made, but it’s a little feeble. By the time you get to an organisation of 50, like the AWL, you’re beyond satire. I mean form your own organisation, go and build and organise if you think you’re right. Just get out a bit more, really.
johng said,
August 23, 2008 at 4:37 pm
The funniest thing about this (aside from uncle jim reproducing all the methods COMRADE Broder, exemplery fellow that he is, complained of, managing to imply I’m an anti-semitic clerical fascist of both shi’a and catholic kinds in one sentance, despite the fact that the SWP probably has had considerably more contact with Iranian oppositionists then the AWL have ever dreamt of) is the line about Sean stating ‘in that case he’ll pretend we forced him’. Now there is a man who knows ALL the TRICKS. For naifs like Modernity whose never been on the left let me explain what this wierd little sect’s MO is. Behave in the most screechily offensive manner imaginable (preferably accusing all and sundry of anti-semitism, supporting the bombing of a number of distant countries of which they know nothing, etc, etc and then plaintively bewailing the absence of ‘democracy’ and ‘pluralism’ if someone tells them to fuck off. One can see the attraction for Modernity come to think of it, an attraction sadly not shared by most of the left). Sean, a man whose held just about every and any position its possible for a Trot to hold, and then some, is clearly rather suspicious about the possibility of such methods being used on him. I won’t respond to modernity as he’s someone who thinks its possible to be ‘provoked’ into bombarding civilian population centres, and, after all, I have friends round where I live. Obviously the business of taking loyalty oaths is like something out of catch 22. I think once things reach that stage a parting of the ways is rather better. Its hardly human rights abuse. Its just, unlike with serious politics, very, very funny in this case.
Jason S. said,
August 23, 2008 at 4:42 pm
I wish I could say I was surprised about Cde. Broder’s treatment, but it’s par for the “Bolshevik” course, apparently. I used to think that the AWL represented the healthiest tendency on the UK Left. Shows what I know.
David should write a pamphlet: “Right-Wing Leninism, A Senile Disorder.”
Jim Denham said,
August 23, 2008 at 4:43 pm
So, Juvenile: you’re actually *not* in favour of faction rights for minorities? So don’t you think your professed symapthy for Comrade Broder is just a trifle…well..bollocks?
As for Father John G. Coughlin, that man of God and religion and post-modernism…what fucking point is he trying to make, apart from suggesting that the Stalinist ex-Marxist sect of anti-semites he’s a member of have anything whatsoever to with proletarian democracy? Now *that*’s good for a laugh…
Jim Denham said,
August 23, 2008 at 4:58 pm
B.t.w: I’ve just re-read Dave’s statement, and note that he claims that Sean MatG “avocates” an Israeli attack on Iran. Given that Dave is a well-educated, bright lad, I’m not going to allow him the excuse of ignorance, stupidity, or not being able to read and/or understand, properly: *WHERE*, Dave, does Matgamna *advocate* such an attack? Quote chapter and verse, please.
runia said,
August 23, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Jim,
The answers to questions 1-8 are yes, David wasn’t expelled but resigned, and this may all mean that being criticised by the SWP for undemocratic behaviour is hypocritical and ridiculous(hardly setting yourselves high standards) but how does any of that excuse the alleged treatment of David by Sean and Tom?
I came across the fact that David had resigned and his accusation first in a comment on the AWL site and now I get here and see it fleshed out.
As an ex-AWLer myself I find this quite shocking and very disturbing.
One thing which, to me, marked the AWL out on the trot left was its (genuine) relative pluralism, rationality and democracy.
If David’s account of his treatment is accurate this is Healyism Jim, unashamed, paranoid, bullying Healyism.
You should get Sean to stop reading Cannon and get back to Schachtman,, or better still pension him off.
Or maybe its always been like this under the surface. During my membership there was never as close a faction fight on any issue as there was this year on Iraq and no almost 50/50 votes at conference on any issues. All major dissenters numbered no more than 5 or 10 people. Is a pretence of plurality and democracy maintained when the leadership isn’t threatened, but once it is Sean’s Healyite paranoid bullying comes to the fore?
What I would like to hear is someone who defends David’s alleged treatment by Sean and Tom(Jim?) to confirm whether David’s accusation is true, if they consider it a half-truth and distorted or if it is a lie.
I have drawn the conclusion in the last year or so that the ‘acceptable face’ of Bolshevism, Trotskyism, is not as nice and cuddly as it seems, the excesses of the Bolshevik Party, the terror of the Cheka, the shooting of deserting soldiers ordered by ‘the old man’ himself could not be explained away by the pressures of the civil war but are inherent in the vanguardist, Bolshevik method of organisation.
Trotsky was right in 1905 that the party substitutes itself for the class, the central committee substitutes itself for the party, and a dictator substitutes himself for the central committee.
Juvenile Dwarf said,
August 23, 2008 at 5:03 pm
*What* sympathy for Comrade Broder? He should never have joined in the first place.
[Although it does seem, form the little I bother to find out about these groupuscule tiffs - and, believe me, Denham, life is much, much too short - to have been a much better sort of socialist than, say, the slobbering lout you appear to be. I say "much better sort of socialist": I mean "actually a socialist", of some sort, rather than a foamy-mouthed cheerleader for pre-emptive strikes and spittle-flecked fantasist of mass murder. Like Max Shachtman, without the charm, talent, or wit. Or political credibility. Or sobriety.]
Juvenile Dwarf said,
August 23, 2008 at 5:06 pm
“Is a pretence of plurality and democracy maintained when the leadership isn’t threatened, but once it is Sean’s Healyite paranoid bullying comes to the fore?”
Lawks! Do you think? Gosh!
(Sorry, shouldn’t, but well… it’s one of those questions that answers itself, really, isn’t it?)
runia said,
August 23, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Johng has not got a leg to stand on, as he well knows.
He is a member of an organisation which for most of its existence jumped from one political opinion to another based on the whim of its eccentric and infallible leader.
This was carried through by enforcers/thugs who made sure that the members followed the line back in the branches.
I hope Jim will address David’s accusations and largely ignore the SWP hypocrites.
davidbroder said,
August 23, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Jim,
I didn’t say that Sean advocated an attack on Iran. He explicitly said he didn’t.
All I said was that the expressions he uses to avoid doing so were weasel words and implicitly justified/excused an attack, although not actually calling for it.
David
runia said,
August 23, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Juvenile Dwarf is well-named.
His/Her haughty tone is ill/advised given his/her apparent membership of an organisation worse than the AWL in all the respects David alleges.
davidbroder said,
August 23, 2008 at 5:22 pm
by the way, I’m now involved in a new project called ‘the commune’
website: http://www.thecommune.wordpress.com
Nuke Matgamna said,
August 23, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Matgamna doesn’t advocate an attack because it would destroy what little reputation Israel has in the world not because Iranians will die but he will justify it when it happens. He is more Zionist than the Zionists.
the commune - new website/nouveau site-web/novo sitio web/nuevo sitio web « La Bataille socialiste said,
August 23, 2008 at 5:27 pm
[...] (to find out why I left the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, visit http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2008/08/23/the-awl-israel-and-iran/) [...]
Jim Denham said,
August 23, 2008 at 5:33 pm
David: having re-read your piece, I agree that you don’t accuse Sean M of “advocating” an Israali attack on Iran. You say “Sean would not oppose” such an attack. The article you’re referring to *starts out* by opposing such an attack. So, I repeat: a young comrade of your education and brightness cannot claim to be unable to read and/or understand. You may disagree with Sean’s article (you clearly do)…but why *lie* about what he actually says?
Finally: what do you have to say about my nine questions at #7,above?
runia said,
August 23, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Jim,
What do *you* have to say about David’s account of his Healyite treatment at the hands of Sean and Tom?
Jim Denham said,
August 23, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Runia: I don’t claim that Sean is always friendly and good mannered. What I ask you, Dave and other serious comrades (ie not the hysterical assholes like Dwarf and anti-semitic nutters like Father Coughlin): how have anyone’s (lincluding Dave’s) democratic rights been abused here? I just don’t geddit. Being nasty to someone, calling into question their loyalty, and pointing out that they’re not really in the Marxist tradition, is not the same as denying them democratic rights. And the accusation of “Healyism” (a sect that regularly used physical violence, remember) is simply…ludicrous. As well as slanderous/libellous.
Juvenile Dwarf said,
August 23, 2008 at 6:07 pm
…As well as slanderous/libellous.
Brilliant, just brilliant! So screeching and baseless denunciations of random SWP members, in the most vile terms possible, are fair comment… but Runia’s (not unreasonable) suggestion that Matgamna has behaved like a political cult leader is “slanderous/libellous”.
You’re just the gift that keeps on giving, aren’t you, Denham? (It’s the narcissistic absence of any sense of irony that really tickles me in all this.)
Jim Denham said,
August 23, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Dwarf (who opposes the rights of minorities to form factions-so much for your sense of democracy!): Runia said ‘Healyite’. The Healyites were notorious for physically assaulting minorities and dissidents. Do you wonder that I object to the comparison? Never mind your bollocks about a “lack of irony” … you’re a member of the SWP. aren’t you? Now *there’s* an irony for you…”comrade”…
paul m said,
August 23, 2008 at 6:39 pm
I can’t see what Broder has to complain about, other than not agreeing with Sean Matgamna. He posted an article on the AWL site attacking SM, when the usual approach would be to resolve these things in a structured democratic manner.
As Jim says, from my experience many years ago, things can get heated, people loose their tempers sometimes. Broder is, as far as I can tell, a young man and maybe isn’t used to this kind of thing. I don’t know. The cornflake incident does seem a bit odd…however…
to compare the AWL to the brutal regimes of the Militant, SWP and the WRP is rotten shocking nonsense.
runia said,
August 23, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Jim,
“Being nasty to someone, calling into question their loyalty, and pointing out that they’re not really in the Marxist tradition, is not the same as denying them democratic rights.”
This is as near to answering my question about whether you accept David’s version of events as true you have got. Are you saying it is a fuss about nothing and David is being unnecessarily precious?
“And the accusation of “Healyism” (a sect that regularly used physical violence, remember) is simply…ludicrous. As well as slanderous/libellous.”
1. As I knew nothing about this until today, I’m concerned to establish the facts, which is why I asked you if you factually accept David’s version of events. Note I have been careful to use the word ‘alleged’ throughout.
I have no particular reason to doubt what David says, but would like a comment from someone on the other side on his account of events.
2. I’m not for a moment suggesting that Sean is equivalent to Healy.
Healy was a rapist and a violent thug who spied on Iraqi communists and other dissidents for payment from Saddam Hussein.
However, just as one can be a theocratic bully without torturing people like the Spanish Inquisition did, one can act like a Healyite without committing all or even most of the crimes of the repulsive man himself.
These are the relevant points in David’s account in the original post:
David strongly and publicly opposed Sean in replying to what was, after all, a ‘discussion document’ and he gets lumped together with the infantile antics of the CPGB(PCC). His response was argued in good faith (I actually broadly agree with you and Sean against David politically on the issue).
He is then ‘invited’ to a meeting with the sect guru and the main national organiser to be questioned about whether or not he is a spy from CPGB(PCC) or Workers’ Power and asked to sign a loyalty statement.
Now come on Jim, calling in to question someone’s loyalty is not the same as demanding of them to sign a loyalty statement to be published. You know enough about Stalinism and Stalinoid organisations to know the difference.
That is what I mean by Healyism.
runia said,
August 23, 2008 at 6:54 pm
“Among the last survivors were three men named Jones, Aaronson, and Rutherford. It must have been in 1965 that these three had been arrested. As often happened, they had vanished for a year or more, so that one did not know whether they were alive or dead, and then had suddenly been brought forth to incriminate themselves in the usual way. They had confessed to intelligence with the enemy (at that date, too, the enemy was Eurasia), embezzlement of public funds, the murder of various trusted Party members, intrigues against the leadership of Big Brother which had started long before the Revolution happened, and acts of sabotage causing the death of hundreds of thousands of people. After confessing to these things they had been pardoned, reinstated in the Party, and given posts which were in fact sinecures but which sounded important. All three had written long, abject articles in The Times, analysing the reasons for their defection and promising to make amends.”
http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/6.html
modernityblog said,
August 23, 2008 at 6:56 pm
power eh? talking about it going to people’s heads?
runia said,
August 23, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Paul,
It is shocking, as I said in my first comment at #18.
I was and am shocked.
Do you think that being accused of being a spy and asked to sign a loyalty statement is an attempt ‘to resolve these things in a structured democratic manner’?
Jack Haslam said,
August 23, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Jim,
Sean’s piece was a classic of what the Americans call ‘dog whistle ‘ politics i.e. giving out a message while studiously denying you’re giving out that message. It is entirely predictable that it would provoke the kind of reaction that it did from AWL members who thought that the AWL was really opposed to an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
This type of exercise in verbal gymnastics has become increasingly prevalent in recent years. It isn’t healthy and it doesn’t provoke politically enlightening discussion.
As for moral guardians of labour movement internationalism the GPGB , do they still get most of their funding from that lad who’s family made a fortune out of dry cleaning?
Juvenile Dwarf said,
August 23, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Denham – your drunken late-night offers of “debates” I always assume are close to threats of physical violence, so “Healeyite” certainly seems apposite. You’re frequently drunk and verbally violent, apparently aiming to incite physical violence (eg calling socialists “pro-Nazi”, fascists, etc.) “Healeyite” it is.
JohnG is vile said,
August 23, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Congratulations to JohnG. This is the first time I’ve seen him express himself on a blog when he wasn’t defending some manifestation of anti-Jewish racism.
Jim Denham said,
August 23, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Runia and Jack: I wasn’t centrally involved in what went on, and I have no intention of painting myself into the corner of appearing to defend every last detail of what happened with regard to Dave Broder…BUT…
I’d refer you to my comments at #7, above;
…And I repeat that the allegation of “Healyism” *is* slanderous/libellous. I simply don’t understand what runia means when s/he says “one can act like a Healyite without commiting all or even most of the crimes of the repulsive man himself”… how? By being nasty? But Healyism *means* physical violence and rape: that’s what it is! It doesn’t just mean “nasty” or “rude”, any more than the term “Stalinism” means just being bureaucratic and intolerant of oppositions, or “Nazi” means being right-wing and not liking Jews.
runia said,
August 23, 2008 at 7:31 pm
“how? By being nasty?”
No, by paranoid accusations of spying and demanding public humiliation in the form of a ‘loyalty statement’.
Jim Denham said,
August 23, 2008 at 7:36 pm
runia: you’re changing the terms of the debate here. I have long felt that Dave B wasn’t behaving like a loyal oppositionist. Whether it was right to demand a “loyalty” statement from him, I’m not so sure about, but even at its worst, that demand wasn’t a denial of his democratic rights: just the AWL taking steps to protect itself as an organisation. Not unreasonable, surely? As far as I’m aware, even Dave B himself has not claimed he was “public(ly) humiliat(ed). ” Indeed, he was allowed to publicly disagree with the AWL majority.
As I say: maybe I’m missing something here, but what’s his beef, exactly?
runia said,
August 23, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Jim,
I’ve not changed ground at all. I offended you with my choice of words, and maybe Healyite is too strong. Either way, I now regret using it as it has taken us on a tangent.
The public humiliation would have been if he had agreed to this:
“I was mandated by these two Executive Committee members to produce a statement repudiating the CPGB and Workers’ Power and affirming my loyalty to the AWL, which Sean would then “vet” and make “suitable” for publication.”
If this is true, and you have now said you don’t know if it is which is fair enough, that’s a fairly substantial piece of beef.
Jim Denham said,
August 23, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Dwarf: you really are a loon if you think that offering to publicly debate someone is “close to threats of physical violence”… (#38, above)…on the other hand you *are* a member of the SWP, where genuine debate is probably thought of in that light…
Nuke Matgamna said,
August 23, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Two bald men fighting over a comb. Yound David was forced out, there is no doubt about that. I wonder if Mark Steel was given a similar ultimatum by the SWP when his contribution to internal debate was taken up by others.
Jim Denham said,
August 23, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Runia; I’m glad that you’ve accepted that “maybe Healyite is too strong”. That allows us to continue to have a rational debate, which I welcome.
I suppose what I’m saying (in a nutshell) is this: if David Broder had said something like:
“The politics of the AWL majority, as expressed by Sean Matgamna in his disgraceful article on Israel and Iran, are so awful that I can no longer remain a member of this organisation”, then I wouldn’t agree with him, but I could understand him and respect his personal integrity.
What I do *not* understand, or respect, is his attempt to make out that he’s been denied his democratic rights. I refer you and other readers (including David himself) to my (rhetorical) questions at #7, above.
I also note that (so far, anyway) none of David’s supporters within the AWL have seen fit to follow him.
runia said,
August 23, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Jim,
I have addressed your comment #7 and I have said what I think the problem is as well as I can; repeatedly.
There’s not really much else to say.
Nuke Matgamna said,
August 23, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Well, certainly if David had remained in the AWL after an Israeli strike on Iran being justified by Matgamna he would have been finished as a Marxist. I think what David discovered was that you cannot argue for Marxist politics in the AWL or, rather, you can but its pointless.
Jim Denham said,
August 23, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Fair enough, runia: you have, at #18, above given your answers to my questions. So I take it that you agree with me that David simply doesn’t have a case on grounds of democracy?
What else, indeed, is there to say? Unless you think being subjected to …*rudeness*… is grounds for leaving a Marxist organisation?
David Broder said,
August 23, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Jim,
I didn’t say that I was expelled, I said that I had decided to leave. I agree that AWL comrades have the democratic rights that you mention – but these count for an awful lot less if they are married with a certain culture, behaviour patterns, leadership cliques etc.
I don’t think being mandated to write a “statement of loyalty” after being accused of being a mole for some other group is just a question of “rudeness”. It’s plain weird.
Clearly the manner in which the discussion is had (loyal presentation of arguments, regard for truth, mutual trust) is a precondition for meaningful, honest, democratic discussion.
My reason for leaving is not just a lack of democracy – that is far from the case. It is a combination of significant disagreements with the politics of the AWL leadership; significant disagreement with the way they argue for those politics and the way they invoke “tradition” – as they call it – against their critics; personal attacks; the culture of the group’s leadership; and the sort of behaviour I describe in my post.
Obviously, the ‘real’ reason I left the AWL is the political questions posed. (If it wasn’t, we’d never have had the row in the first place)
Darren said,
August 23, 2008 at 11:43 pm
JohnG,
your glass house seems to be very draughty this time of year. It must be all those broken windows.
David Broder said,
August 24, 2008 at 12:05 am
I hardly think the SWP can weigh in “on my side” in this one, given that they outstrip the AWL by miles on every one of the problems the latter has.
Jim suggests that I could instead have written “The politics of the AWL majority, as expressed by Sean Matgamna in his disgraceful article on Israel and Iran, are so awful that I can no longer remain a member of this organisation”. This is somewhat true, but not the only question.
Not only do I mean that Israel/Iran is not the only question – to be honest, given my criticisms of Trotskyism, in a sense I was rather out of place on the NC of the AWL, which is unflinchingly Trotskyist and claims to represent the logical continuation of Trotsky’s supposed “real” views (had only he lived to voice them…)
But also in the sense that if I believed that Sean Matgamna was just another member of the AWL, and had happened to write a rubbish article with no working-class politics, it would have been much less important and could have been dismissed.
But in reality, of course, he is not just another member. He is the most prominent member. When he writes terrible articles like this, almost all the AWL-majority people stand up for him uncritically, and then he engages in personal attacks and behaviour like our “meeting”, he is pushing through a change in “the line”, not just starting a discussion. That is totally out of order. It is not a meaningful “debate”, since you can’t agree any common ground or share any parameters of discussion.
Gingersnapsh said,
August 24, 2008 at 12:07 am
If I were ever to leave the SWP and join another hard left organization – it would probably be a split Left Faction of the AWL. But I most likely would never do that. Also I don’t think splits are the way to solve these things…..
The split in Respect for example was believed by some as a possible step to success.
For some of those on the right it was a chance to get rid of the blockers and ultra-leftists, for some of those on the left it was a chance to get rid of the businessmen and oppurtunists. Both sides got their wish and in the end there was no party left!
My thoughts on the AWL: Don’t split – Impeach Magmatmanaaamananamanama. Surely he’d be happier on his own anyway?
Alan Laurence said,
August 24, 2008 at 12:52 am
On first reading of DB’s original post I assumed he had already left the AWL, was working for another group and this was his parting shot. Why else would he want to write as he did? Even a youngster would surely know that declaring a leading comrade ‘dishonest’ amongst innumerable other personal attacks is out of bounds: why would a responsible member want to do this?
DB knows that the AWL is permanently under attack for its ‘third camp’ politics and the attitude of any responsible member is never, ever to give comfort to the bollock-brain left who would paint the organisation as late-Shachtmanite. But that’s exactly what he did – and now he whines for being expected to make amends for his transgressions, for his invitation to any and every shit-head leftist to come a-wooing. He is a very naive boy to write for an external audience in the tones he adopted and not expect to be called to account and viewed with suspicion.
(And expecting a comrade to behave responsibly towards his organisation is nothing to do with what will happen to him if he doesn’t. That DB thought he would get away with it is evidence that the AWL is extremely tolerant.)
I tried to give DB the benefit of the doubt, read him again, attribute his tone to nothing more than a young chap trying to look like an experienced comrade and take him at face value. Not possible: it’s impossible to uphold such a charitable view when DB asks in apparent seriousness of SM position on an Israeli first strike, ‘How can you say there is “good reason” to do something but not “endorse” it?’ Being confused by such a position and yet hanging onto it for his political life just isn’t possible from one so bright as DB. That studied dumbness from an apparently bright lad together with his apparent disregard for the role of the AWL and its tradition is enough to trigger doubts about his loyalty even amongst the most benign leadership.
It’s a similar story with his faux naïve leaving-whine.
‘In a breathtaking accusation of disloyalty, they asked what meetings I had had with the CPGB and Workers’ Power. Even to ask the question is an open expression of mistrust. ‘ …Again what did DB expect? Did he really think he could externally factionalise and not be asked his intentions? And then DB sells the pass and admits to having planned to leave the AWL. He has set up a new organization with ‘Chris Ford, myself and others who were not in the AWL’. New organizations don’t grow on trees. They need planning. And planning the new organization with non-awl members is an admission of external factionalising: of disloyalty. It’s not convincing to declare yourself insulted at accusations of disloyalty and yet 5 minutes later reveal a new organization.
There is another explanation for DB’s behaviour . Maybe he wasn’t always planning to leave. Perhaps he just doesn’t know the day of the week – and he’s just as dumb as his inability to understand the discussion article which started all this suggests.
resistor said,
August 24, 2008 at 1:35 am
As I watch another exciting marathon, can I add my intrusion into your collective grief.
Perhaps Matgamna isn’t a Healyite but Healy-lite
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Oh my aching sides
miles davis said,
August 24, 2008 at 3:35 am
Well this, from Alan Lawrence, is pretty good evidence for the unhealthy internal culture that Dave B alleges:
‘DB knows that the AWL is permanently under attack for its ‘third camp’ politics and the attitude of any responsible member is never, ever to give comfort to the bollock-brain left who would paint the organisation as late-Shachtmanite. But that’s exactly what he did – and now he whines for being expected to make amends for his transgressions’
Strewth…
Jack Haslam said,
August 24, 2008 at 8:13 am
I think Alan Laurence is clearly a mole from the CPGB trying to discredit the AWL.
It has always been the case that within the AWL people don’t get upset about a few personal attacks and a bit of verbal abuse during the course of a vigorous debate.
Is this dispute a first on the left? Does anyone else know of another example of a proper internel dispute that has generated this level of heat about something that hasn’t happened yet?
I wouldn’t trust the weekly worker, but the little bit in their account about how the AWL leadership decided to act after the student ‘broad’ group voted for troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan makes perfect sense.
paul m said,
August 24, 2008 at 8:32 am
I think Broder has to think honestly about this. He sys he’s nor a Trot, slags off the leadership on the AWL website, plays footsie with nutters in WP and WW, and no doubt plays a role in whipping up a bit of ultra-leftism amongst the youth.
When one has been around the block a few times you see the pattern. So the leadership asks you to sign a so-called loyalty oath. They want a meeting to ask you is you still want to be a member.
No.
Goodbye.
Alan Laurence said,
August 24, 2008 at 8:48 am
Miles, Jack,
Im not in the AWL nor even a sympathiser. I dont think my posts suggests there is anything sinister in the AWL. Its equally possible my reading of the situation is all wrong – I’ve no information other than what’s on this site,
It seems reasonable to me that a member of an organisation which is under permanent hostile fire – and sometimes existential fire – is expected to be extremely cautious in his criticisms. DB was far from cautious -indeed he was reckless and dishonest.
Why would any organisation put up with that?
johng said,
August 24, 2008 at 9:04 am
Broder is now ‘dishonest’. Meanwhile Jim viciously slanders and bullies anyone who disagrees with him in manner absolutely identical to the one Broder talks about. Its actually the sheer irrationality of the way the AWL conducts its arguments (tell a lie about an individual and organisation, usually of the most grotesque kind, then when they defend themselves, accuse them of defending the lie told about them-essentially the AWL method in a nutshell).
Steve Peterson said,
August 24, 2008 at 9:10 am
David B is a youth who is out of his depth.
His comments on this site are not a critique of the AWL’s politics, but mostly a little (inaccurate, strange) whine about “culture”. Part of the problem here is David’s own culture – his wild response and running off out of the group are explainable by the fact that he doesn’t really know what he thinks, how to express it.
One of the factors in his disgruntlement with the AWL is that recently he has begun to realise that other AWLers think that far from being a ‘leading theoretician’, David still has a lot to learn.
His description of both the Matgamna article (excusing an Israeli attack) and internal pressure on him are radically inaccurate.
Now he’s run off.
He has left a group he has been a member of for some time without raising his disagreements on the NC, or in the paper, or after speaking at AWL branches on the matter. He left after just a couple of weeks “debate” while the discussion is continuing in the AWL. He left after having only produced short little snippets of wild criticism. He has not produced any substantial critique of anything the AWL has done or said on Iran.
No one demanded a loyalty oath from him. He was asked two things: to come out sharply against the deranged comments attacking the AWL on our website; he was asked how he saw the debate – what his views were. This really is chickenshit.
His resignation letter, signed by one other member (Chris F) makes only one political point. He states they have “philosophical differences” with the AWL. But David has not raised this before we have no idea what he’s talking about.
Chris F is an oddball and David – up until leaving with him – had little time for him.
No mention of Iran, Iraq, Bolshevism.
A little exchange on this gossip site is no way of conducting a proper political struggle where the lines can be drawn clearly. So David’s little snipes here – where he can find people who are only too willing to agree with him without him having to argue anything (because they hate us for political reasons) – do not help. All they do is make him feel a little bit better, getting a little bit of body-warmth from members of kitch left groups.
Wretched.
Voltaire's Priest said,
August 24, 2008 at 9:21 am
Whereas the SWP would simply expel its own equivalent of a Broder. But hey John, why let the truth get in the way of a good narrative?
Watching the SWP members on this thread prattling about internal democracy is one of the funniest things I’ve seen in a while. Lessons on democracy from the organisation that has none. Har Har Har.
Nuke Matgamna said,
August 24, 2008 at 9:30 am
Yes, you can say what you like in the AWL as long as you are prepared to ship massive amounts of abuse. David, now that you are out welcome to the world of being branded an anti-semite, fascist, holocaust denier just because you disagree with Jim Denham and S Matgamna.
miles davis said,
August 24, 2008 at 9:36 am
‘He left after having only produced short little snippets of wild criticism.’
Oh c’mon. I read Dave B’s reply to Sean M and I defy anyone to show how it was in any way ‘wild’. Dave played the ball and not the man, and he grounded his argument in appeals to the Third Campist politics his group was supposed to uphold. For the grave sin or making a seinsible, cogent reply to an article which was supposed to invite discussion, he was called in to a meeting with the leader of his group and asked to sign a loyatly oath! You might disagree with his argument, but the attepts to make out that it was abusive or irrational won’t wash. Maybe Dave should have styed on and fought inside your group – equally, though, maybe he concluded that he’d wasted enough time. Really, some of you AWL people need a sense of proportion. You seem to write the whole of the rest of the British far left (and probably groups like the Greens too) as the ‘kitsch left’, and present yourselves as some sort of besieged True Church, guardians of the flame of Trotsky (or Schachtman). Really, though, as this incident surely shows, you’re no different to any of the others.
miles davis said,
August 24, 2008 at 9:39 am
And when I say ‘no different to the others’ I mean that in a positive as well as negative sense. You have the same failings and the same strengths of other small groups trying to articulate scialist politics in a society where there is a level of low class struggle and only a little interest in socialism.
Voltaire's Priest said,
August 24, 2008 at 9:52 am
“Nuke”, change the record. You’re not a fascist but you are really quite thick, repetitive and deeply boring.
Alan Laurence said,
August 24, 2008 at 10:06 am
Miles,
DB joined in the criticisms of the AWL that the kitch-left make. He did so in public – he played to the gallery. Why would any organisation, Trotskyist or not accept that?
DB seems to have been in the AWL for a few years and yet he says of SM’s position, ‘How can you say there is “good reason” to do something (an Israel first strike) but not “endorse” it?’ . DB must be able to think that through. He’s come across nuanced positions in the past.
Ive never met DB. People say he’s bright. When someone bright adopts a dumb position one is entitled to ask why.
Its the same business with the ‘loyalty oath’. Strip away the Hollywood gloss and the ‘poor litle me’ whining and it seems all DB was asked to do is publically distance himself from the consequences of his reckless post.
I’m not a Leninist and have never been in the AWL but I can see DB is pressing all the buttons that non-Leninists like to have pressed. Personally, I’m not buying it – DB would not have been treated much differently had this been a row in a non-political organisation.
DB doesnt seem to have understood the importance of defending the boundaries in an organisation has always to fight for position and space and always under the most severe pressure from heresy hunters.
Andrew Coates said,
August 24, 2008 at 10:16 am
I hardly think Broder is out of his depth: he produced a well-written explanation of his position. All small socialist groups (are there any other kind?) have this kind of dispute, inside and outside our ranks. At his age I recall we (IMG) had sharp differences with a certain Workers’ Fight who accused us of being insufficiently anti-imperialist in our position on Ireland. Now I wonder how that policy developed in the AWL?
I would prefer it if at least somebody would find the time to make clear why they, the AWL, disagree with the HOPI line on Iran. This is based a class analysis of the Theocratic State, support for the workers’ and student movement, democracy, secularism, feminism, and backing for the oppressed layers of Iranian society, and the external threats to launch attacks on the country. The latter come from the US and Israel. (I hope I haven’t left anything out!).
What’s kitsch about that? It’s not as if it repeats some dusty line from The History of American Trotskyism.
David Broder said,
August 24, 2008 at 10:21 am
The AWL NC isn’t so big that there’s anyone on it whose name I don’t know, so I’m puzzled as to the identity of “Steve Peterson”… but at a guess maybe I should turn round and look through the window to see if Paul Hampton is picketing my house with his cornflakes box and his chicken noises.
His totally wrong characterisation of the meeting with Sean and Tom is in that sense unsurprising – there were three people in the room, and definitely no “Steve Peterson”.
“Steve’s” characterisation of my reasons for leaving – some sort of wounded pride – simply has no basis in reality, which is why he makes no attempt to give evidence, background detail, etc to explain it.
But I’m surprised that “Steve” is unaware of my political disagreements – as any AWL-watcher/WW reader will know I have of course repeatedly written articles, spoken at branch meetings and conferences, put motions to AWL NC etc. on the Middle East. These are hardly “short little snippets of wild criticism”. There is a difference between disagreeing with someone and construing everything they say as “wild”, “apolitical” or “personal attacks”, or indeed as non-existent, in order to ignore it.
On a separate note, last summer in response to a set of 23 questions by Paul I wrote 12,000 word piece on the Russian revolution: Paul claimed to have written a response, but I certainly haven’t seen it. When I wrote asking why he was telling people that he wrote a response when he hadn’t, he just wrote an email saying he didn’t want to talk to me any more. What he meant was that Trotsky wasn’t up for discussion, since you’re either in “the tradition” or not.
His characterisation of the resignation letter is bizarre – it wasn’t exactly subtle.
I don’t understand why “Steve” writes the phrase “leading theoretician” in quote marks – when did I ever say I was that? Nevertheless, I don’t accept the accusation that I am “out of my depth” debating Sean Matgamna et al.
It is neither true that Chris F is an “oddball” (what does this mean? I thought that this kind of thing is what a personal attack is) nor that I ever had “little time for him”. Since I became N London organiser two years ago Chris and I have had a close and ongoing political collaboration. We have a lot of common ideas on workers’ management, the Bolsheviks, imperialism, etc.
The fact that the AWL leadership merely continue with a series of lame personal attacks to cover up for/excuse/”refuse to condemn” each other’s behaviour doesn’t exactly help their case.
Alan Laurence said,
August 24, 2008 at 10:25 am
Andrew,
We disagree about the quality of the poltiics in DB’s posts. It doesnt matter because so far as I read it that isnt the key issue.
I agree entirely with you that reading factional struggles through the pages of Canon is foolish and limiting and a bad habit of the AWL. But they dont seem to be doing that right now.
DB over-stepped the mark – his attack on the AWL leadership showed no responsibility for the well being of the organisation. He played to the gallery. Why should the AWL let him do that?
johng said,
August 24, 2008 at 10:32 am
It might be repetetive but its absolutely true. any disagreement will produce accusations of anti-semitism, fascism, and the rest. this is simply the normal method of the awl’s relationship to all other organisations on the left. If an organisation is not hostile to them, they’ll produce a new loyalty oath: will you refuse to denounce Israel if it bombs Iran for instance? Those who dissent are then denounced in peculiarly vile terms and everything returns to normal. The true church must be isolated. its what gives the illusion of a uniquely moral vision. similarly everyone else must be a third world nationalist, a stalinist, or, more recently, an anti-semite or a nazi, otherwise what is the justification for the existence of the sect? All this shows is that the organisation is as internally irrational as it has always seemed from the outside. mad as a box of frogs. which is why most are incredulous at the self image that the AWL and some of their supporters seem to have. The only exceptions are those on the right who treat them as useful idiots, and around whom the politics of the AWL revolve as a kind of loyal opposition: Harry’s Place, Engage etc and the gamut of people whose response to the wars of the recent past was to lurch sharply into the camp of imperialism. When Jim isn’t denouncing socialists as nazies he’s dividing the world up into democratic and non-democratic camps, Islam having replaced Stalinism in his peculiar version of Shactman light. The recent intra-imperialist conflict between the US and Russia has highlighted the deep nostalgia for the cold war that lies behind almost all of the AWL’s positions. Without Stalinism where are they? Hence the desperate attempt to paint the whole left as Stalinists and reproduce cold war imagry about contemporary imperialism and the lefts response to it. Who else does this? Well its just the standard rhetoric of the American right. The long march of the AWL legal marxists into the camp of reaction continues. Sadly, however, the low rent nature of the enterprise makes it unlikely that any great careers will be built, and the ideology of the war on terror around which the AWL base their entire analyses of contemporary politics is by now so discredited, that their attempts at iconaclystic subversion of the lefts common sense increasingly looks like witless buffoonary (Especially as their Kenny Everret moment on Iran looks set to be immediately followed by the real thing: “Lets bomb Russia”). It comes as a bit of a shock to discover that Dave Broder is only 20. I thought he represented some sensible old guard. Obviously there is no such thing in the AWL.
johng said,
August 24, 2008 at 10:37 am
Perhaps the best description of the AWL’s politics is ‘Kitsh Shactmanites’ (box of frogs).
miles davis said,
August 24, 2008 at 10:38 am
I don’t understand how Dave Broder’s criticism of Sean M’s article could possibly be mistaken for the position of a group which gives political support to the Iranian regime and would support an Iranin weapon programme. Nor did Dave make any of the provocative criticisms of Sean M that some other Trotskyists did – he didn’t call him a CIA socialist, say he advocated nuking Iran etc Dave actually disassociated himself from these people.
How, then, can Dave be accused of ‘playing o the gallery?’ Here’s a link to Dave’s reply in case anybody wants to refresh their memory:
http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2008/07/28/discussion-article-what-if-israel-bombs-iran
I’d like to hear which os Dave’s substantive points is actually wrong. His statement seems to me very cogent – and very much in the tradition of Third Camp politics.
Nuke Matgamna said,
August 24, 2008 at 10:54 am
good analysis johng but then you went and spoilled it all by saying something stupid. As the AWL characterises all who would condemn Israel for attacking Iran as upseakable things you characterise all who oppose the Russian imperialist invasion of Georgia as liberal bombers and ethnic cleansers even when they explicitly oppose such a thing. Woe betide anybody in the SWP who goes against that line.
I see Putin is opening an office of his party in Israel.
vp: `You’re not a fascist’
Wow, progress.
Voltaire's Priest said,
August 24, 2008 at 11:08 am
Nuke. What are you talking about, you moron? I’ve never called you a fascist. Called you a moron though. Moron.
John – given that the SWP’s standard line is to denounce any and all with whom it disagrees as “racist Islamophobes”, I think Darren’s line about glass houses and stones remains poignant here.
Nuke Matgamna said,
August 24, 2008 at 11:18 am
VP: Oh, sorry twat.
Nuke Matgamna said,
August 24, 2008 at 11:28 am
Anyway, getting back to the discussion proper. I think there is something in the SWPs charge of `racist islamaphobes’. The AWL have crossed class lines on Israel and their chauvinist support for western imperialist democracies. On the Georgia question the SWP are simply wrong as usual but the techniques for dealing with dissenters is similar in both cases.
Voltaire's Priest said,
August 24, 2008 at 11:44 am
western imperialist democracies
Ha. Ha. Haa. Talk about formulaic.
Please do tell me though how the SWP and AWL have similar internal regimes? They simply don’t.
Furthermore do also tell me how having a 2-state position on Israel (as the AWL and CPGB both do) makes on a “racist islamophobe”? One rather suspects both that you don’t know what you’re talking about, and that you would actually agree with any allegation made by anyone against the AWL, purely because you don’t like ‘em.
Nuke Matgamna said,
August 24, 2008 at 11:47 am
I can’t stand them. But to answer your question, Matgamna’s justification of an Israeli attack on Iran shows an at least chauvinist attitude as he is more worried about Israel’s reputation than the lives of Iranian workers.
Voltaire's Priest said,
August 24, 2008 at 11:50 am
So now we’re going from denouncing the AWL, per se, as “racist islamophobes”, to specifically saying Sean has “at least” a chauvinist attitude on Israel. Not the same thing at all. Unless of course you’re just a random AWL-hater as I said above, in which case you’d believe any insult or accusation without substantiation.
Anyways, what’s with the hating the AWL? Did Mark Osborn take your lunch money when you were at school or summat?
Nuke Matgamna said,
August 24, 2008 at 12:00 pm
No he didn’t. I just don’t like people who call themselves socialist when clearly for them the main enemy is abroad or at least outside `the West’. And what further substatiation do I need other than what is publicly out there.
Dr Paul said,
August 24, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Re Andrew Coates’ comments #68. It is because most AWLers would agree with the Hopi platform that Sean Matgamna is leading such an intemperate attack upon it. He is no different to other left-wing ganzer machers when dealing with awkward or difficult questions — he resorts to distortion and slander.
As for the Matgamnaites’ attacks of yore on the IMG for being insufficiently anti-imperialist (or to put it in contemporary Matgamnaese, insufficiently kitsch); one can accuse the AWL of political forgetfulness — Matgamnesia, perhaps.
voltairespriest said,
August 24, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Nuke; I think there’s more to your emotional attitude than that; you don’t hate a group because of a political disagreement.
Dr Paul; I actually agree. I think Sean’s position was losing ground, and he knew it. Hence the intemperate article and also the bizarre treatment of Dave Broder. Mark of desperation and all that.
modernityblog said,
August 24, 2008 at 12:32 pm
a few points:
Sean M original article was crude, poorly worded and ripe for criticism.
Dave Border’s response was sharp, reasoned and very pointed.
Sean M’s response was aimed primarily at the CPGB and their stupid mischaracterizations. It was a wasted opportunity rather than take up Border’s intelligent points Sean M retreats into the world of sectariana, who cares what the CPGB thinks? if they’ve taken the trouble to deliberately lie and mislead over the article they are not worth debating.
Sean M should have conceded that his article was poor and a first stab at getting to grips with the issues. Had he or his supporters had any wits then they would have jointly written a better with Border, incorporating his perceptive analysis.
The handling of this issue shows why the British Left is so poor, the various leaderships are incapable of handling criticism, even when it is plainly clear that their ideas are crude, ill thought through and limited. Rather than admit that, they would attack their critics, even recently we’ve seen such political manoeuvres from Blair/Brown, the SWP/Respect and now bits of the AWL leadership.
encouraging debate is great but only if the organisation and people involved are capable of using that any criticism generated to improve their thinking, not just taking up static positions and shouting at each other, which we’ve all seen before, it leads no where.
So you use debate and discussion to improve your thinking and politics, don’t assume because someone is a “leader” that they know all, which clearly isn’t true. Admitting when you’re wrong is the only way you sharpen up your ideas.
I’d suggest that the AWL leadership:
1) learn to use the web more, there are many active Iranian trade unions (see Labourstart) they are the hope for the Iranian people.
2) read the Economist, it provides fairly intelligent coverage of the Iranian leadership.
3) get a few comrades to specialise in Iran, its complexities, its history and maybe even learn some Farsi!
4) don’t assume they know it all just because they been around since the time of Gerry Healy!
5) Grow thicker skins and admit when they’re wrong, with some style, not bitterness.
6) Try to get out of the sectarian gutter, it is not a nice place and has nothing to do with the working classes.
voltairespriest said,
August 24, 2008 at 12:44 pm
I think that last point is the most important one. I can in many ways understand the AWL’s instinct for a dogfight – in order to remain independent of the swamp that is the UK left they’ve had to dig their heels in on a number of occasions and have been under constant attack from the likes of the SWP because they won’t simply submit to the “trend of the day” (currently communalism), and insist on working-class politics.
However, that having been said, you can see a worrying sense of entitlement on the part of Sean and various of their older cadre to carrying the day in debates. Sean is just plain wrong about Israel-Iran (actually much of his politics on the ME region is bloody dreadful), and growing numbers of AWL members knew it. There have been lapses into Healy-style denunciations before (I recall an “indusrial relations” pamphlet that was in actuality no more than an attack on two ex-members of the AWL), and it seems to me that the Broder episode risks going the same way.
modernityblog said,
August 24, 2008 at 12:56 pm
indeed Volty,
I get the impression that Sean & Co can’t see any problems with the original article?
which is strange, you might think they’d ignore the Worker’s Weekly, but think about genuine criticism as a way to improve their views?
the alternative is, I suppose, to assume that once having written something, that’s it, in stone, infallible and forever correct….which is a weird way of looking at a complex and ever changing world, for someone interested in politics.
David Hirsh said,
August 24, 2008 at 1:46 pm
To campaign against anti-Jewish racism is “…to lurch sharply into the camp of imperialism…”.
- John Game
“…anti-Semitism can be distinguished from other essentializing forms, such as most forms of racism, by its populist and apparently antihegemonic, antiglobal character.”
- Moishe Postone http://www.engageonline.org.uk/journal/index.php?journal_id=16&article_id=69
Jack Haslam said,
August 24, 2008 at 1:52 pm
The politics here are entirely to do with the internal life of the AWL and nothing to do with the outside world. The ‘line’ contained in Sean’s article is so contradictory that it couldn’t possibly form the basis of talking to anyone in the working class about the issues.
Could you imagine it:
Joe Bloggs: ’so, your opposed to a military attack on Iran?
SM: ‘yes’
JB: ‘but it says here that you wouldn’t condemn it?’
SM: ‘yes’
JB: ‘So you’re in favour of it really but can’t say so?’
SM: ‘No, we have a nuanced positon’
JB: ‘Yes I know, you’re in favour of it, but won’t say so’
SM: ‘No, that is an outrageous slander!!!!!. We’re against it’
JB: ‘So why won’t you condemn it?’
SM: ‘Because Israel has good reason to attack, and has the right to defend itself’
JB: ‘Hold on, you just said you would oppose an attack, but now you say Israel has the right to defend itself and you wouldn’t condemn it for exercising that right.’
SM: ‘Yes, that’s clear isn’t it? Are you some kind of kitsch left fuckwit’
The entire episode was a very successful exercise in asserting political control. The ‘troops out’ tendency within the AWL are neutralised.
The meeeting that Dave has reported on was clearly designed to have one of two outcomes. David Broder would knuckle under, or walk. Either way the leadership would win.
resistor said,
August 24, 2008 at 2:14 pm
David Broder, “I love The Party”
Sean Matgamna, “Yes, but does The Party love you?”
johng said,
August 24, 2008 at 2:18 pm
er no to campaign against anti-jewish racism is not to lurch into the camp of imperialism, i never said any such thing. the attempt to attribute this as a quote to me demonstrates just how seriously anyone should take Engage or how much credence anyone should give to them as an organisation that campaigns against anti-Jewish racism. The campaign of Engage is directed soley at equating Palestinian solidarity with anti-semitism, and attempting to connect growing disquiet about Israels treatment of the Palestinians with the same. This is not the same thing as campaigning against Anti-Jewish racism, and the extent to which they do so is entirely accidental.
Back on-topic I don’t actually think the key question here is the internal regime of the AWL. Its their appallingly rotten politics, an entirely seperate question. And of course the SWP does not condemn those who oppose the imperialist machinations of Russia (we oppose them ourselves). We simply oppose those who equate US imperialism and its clients with democracy and all the rest of the rubbish. And no we don’t denounce anyone who opposes the SWP as ‘racist Islamophobes’. We denounce those people who are and who make concessions to it.
johng said,
August 24, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Voltaire rejects sectarianism by claiming the UK left is a swamp. Modernity’s mournful attitude to the ‘left’ apparently includes Brown/Blair. Incidently I’ve admired Postone’s theoretical work and found that piece pretty sad.
modernityblog said,
August 24, 2008 at 2:51 pm
JonhG wrote:
“The only exceptions are those on the right who treat them as useful idiots, and around whom the politics of the AWL revolve as a kind of loyal opposition: Harry’s Place, Engage etc and the gamut of people whose response to the wars of the recent past was to lurch sharply into the camp of imperialism.”
not that he can remember what he wrote recently
johng said,
August 24, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Modernity you can’t appear to read accurately. I nowhere equate campaigning against anti-Jewish racism with lining up with imperialism. I equate attempting to equate palestinian solidarity with anti-Jewish racism with lining up with imperialism, an entirely different thing. This relates to what I argued elsewhere is a revisionist attempt to redefine anti-semitism not as hostility to Jewish people but hostility to the actions of the Israeli State. As I argued this is a seperate question from whether hostility towards the Israeli State can sometimes take an anti-semitic form (it can), and in such cases Engage might accidently find themselves campaigning against anti-Jewish racism. However their main purpose is to equate hostility towards the Israeli State with anti-Jewish racism and this is an entirely seperate question.
modernityblog said,
August 24, 2008 at 3:10 pm
JohnG,
you attacked Engage, who’s purpose is to challenge contemporary antisemitism.
Not that you’d know that…
btw, how many times did the SWP invite Gilad Atzmon to Marxism xxxx?
David Hirsh said,
August 24, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Of course you equate campaigning against antisemitism with lining up with imperialism.
Engage is a campaign against antisemitism. That is all we do. We have never had positions on, for example, responding to the wars of the recent past. The only thing Engage has ever done is campaign against antisemitism. And you denounce us in cod marxist terms as “lurching sharply into the camp of imperialism”.
John Game pretends that we can’t tell the difference between Palestine solidarity, which we have always supported, and antisemitism, which we oppose. But of course, using the Livingstone Forumlation, John Game is the one who is incapable of making the distinction. http://z-word.com/on-zionism/antisemitism-and-anti-zionism/anti-zionism-and-antisemitism%253A-decoding-the-relationship.html?page=2
John, everyone knows now that to pretend that antisemitism is the same of criticism of Israel is an evasion. You can’t get away with it anymore. Bad luck.
Yes, Postone opposes antisemitism too. As did Marx. As you don’t.
modernityblog said,
August 24, 2008 at 3:16 pm
JohnG wrote:
“Modernity’s mournful attitude to the ‘left’ apparently includes Brown/Blair.”
I should have realised that SWPers are present and the need to explain things, slower
my point concerning Blair and Brown is that they are professional politicians, and they use bureaucratic measures or political armtwisting to get their way, but ultimately it fails.
No matter how many votes Blair or Brown won in the House of Commons, by using three line whips, they couldn’t persuade people of the validity of their politics.
And this is a common feature of today’s world, any fan of Tony Benn’s diaries will remember how we characterised the Blairites <i<as indulging in student politics.
This attitude is often seen from the SWP packing meetings (see socialist unity threads for grim details and examples) and pushing through things, to union conferences where the votes are stitched up and the wider membership doesn’t have a chance to vote on contentious issues (UCU pro boycott shenanigans is an example), and in the end what people do is what Dave Border, they walk.
They walked away from StWC, Respect and other lash ups, where the political leadership manipulate things and feel so content but are increasingly presiding over smaller and smaller organisations, all because of their own mismanagement.
And let us not forget that 30 plus years of the SWP and they are still ineffective, still detached from the working classes and still incredibly small, which should be a lesson to us all.
so Blair and Brown, in the final analysis, don’t look too difference from Rees and German: they are all shifty politicos with their own agendas
Shorter version for thick SWPers:
political manipulation leads to pyrrhic victories and in the end is self-defeating.
Chris S said,
August 24, 2008 at 3:26 pm
It seems like the AWL members and their hangers on have proved that they do just rally round whatever mad position Matgamna et al decide on and descend into personal insults, lies etc against anyone in or out of their scabby organisation. This whole affair proves the WW right. We have said from the beginning Matgamna’s article was more about attacking the creeping “Kitsch” left than starting a discussion.
It is a shame what has happened to David for simply exercising democratic rights that the AWL go to lengths to claim they uphold.
Yet the most funny part of this discussion is members of the SWP talking about democracy etc. They have one faction in their organisation the CC and that faction knows as much about internal democracy as Stalin.
Alan Laurence said,
August 24, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Miles,
DB didn’t write a cogent rebuttal of SM. He snaked his way around buzz-words as though he were looking for friends or votes.
Here are three examples of where DB was politically reckless/disloyal/rude/offensive/deserving of a right slap. Each of them suggests DB had no concern for his own or the Awl’s integrity.
But first a word about DB.
DB is scornful because SM doesn’t know the name of Iranian TU leaders or the details of recent class action. He makes too much of this – its offered as proof-positive that unlike himself, SM doesn’t know what he is talking about. I’ve seen this before when well educated middle class chaps have been given the hairdryer treatment by SM. They struggle to hide their outrage at loosing to the formally undereducated Irish prole.
That case isn’t proven against Db – but its one to watch out for.
These cases are far more solid
Case one:
DB calls SM a liar:
‘No doubt, Sean intended his “discussion article” to provoke debate. Certainly, it does facilitate discussion when comrades are honest and make their views clear. But the article… instead dishonestly zigzags between empathizing with Israeli hawks and using figleaf, weasel words to avoid openly ‘advocating’ an Israeli strike against Iran in advance’
It’s not really on to complain when those you’ve called a liar demand you account for yourself.
Case two:
DB twists SM to make his point.
DB takes Sean’s statement… ‘An attack on Iran will most likely lead to great carnage in the Middle East and beyond as supporters of Iran resort to suicide bombings in retaliation. There might well be large scale Iranian civilian “collateral” casualties. An attack would strengthen the Iranian regime and license a smash down on its critics, including working class critics, inside Iran. It would throw Iran back into the worst chaos”.
…and twists it to say,
‘The only part of the article citing reasons why Sean would be critical of an Israeli bombing raid on Iran…this paragraph is interesting in that its main argument is simply that an attack could well be counterproductive for Israel because of how Islamists would react. Note that the opening sentence tells us that the cause of the carnage would in fact be that “supporters of Iran” would retaliate!’
No honest reading of SM allows for DB’s interpretation of the paragraph.
Case three:
Playing to the gallery.
Here DB pretends to struggle with a mildly complicated position – that appreciating there ‘good reason’ for an action does not necessitate ‘endorsing’ the action.
DB’s trouble is that he didn’t adequately sub-edit his text before posting. In his haste DB shows us that he does understand what being said before denouncing what is being said as an impossible thought…
‘…Sean confuses what is “rational” in the interests of Israeli imperialism and great-power realpolitik with what is “rational” in the interests of humanity. ‘
But later DB writes, ‘Sean does not want to “advocate” or “endorse” an attack: but this is just playing with words, and clearly given the tone of the piece and the fact that he is so keen to defend the rationale for an attack…the article can only be read as offering justification for Olmert et al. How can you say there is “good reason” to do something but not “endorse” it?’
DB knew what was being said – on the level of humanity Sm is against a bomb, but on the level of realpolitik SM understands why it might happen. But either for factional or emotional reasons DB couldn’t work out a response – so he lies and appeals to a hostile reader to back him up through reframing a mild paradox as a definitional impossibility.
DB knows the AWL has always had trouble presenting a nuanced position. He knows the caricatures that the shithead left peddle. And he’s just offered himself as the originator of another. So why on earth does he moan when people object?
Nuke Matgamna said,
August 24, 2008 at 4:40 pm
There you are David, it didn’t take long did it? One moment you were a comrade now you are a lier and a shithead according to Alan. Alan, Modernity, Runia et al none of these are members of the AWL but are Zionists yet they appear to be putting up the staunchest defence of Matgamna.
Voltaire's Priest said,
August 24, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Voltaire rejects sectarianism by claiming the UK left is a swamp.
Contrary to whatever they may have taught you at SWP boot camp, telling the truth is not “sectarian”.
Bennett said,
August 24, 2008 at 4:47 pm
JohnG “The campaign of Engage is directed soley at equating Palestinian solidarity with anti-semitism, and attempting to connect growing disquiet about Israels treatment of the Palestinians with the same”
John. Apolgoies if i’m wrong , but i gathered from our last discussion at Soc Unity that you are a 6th former ,or perhaps involved in a 6th form debating society. So will you show one of your teachers the Engage forum and perhaps he / she can explain to you the difference between antisemitism and Palestinian solidarity work ?
Also maybe ask a teacher to explain the phrase “sweeping generalisations”
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/
modernityblog said,
August 24, 2008 at 4:47 pm
reading lessons? Nuke M?
I think Broder is largely right.
SWPer’s version:
him right, Matgamna wrong, wrong.
Nuke Matgamna said,
August 24, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Reading lessons Modernity?
`DB knows the AWL has always had trouble presenting a nuanced position. He knows the caricatures that the shithead left peddle. And he’s just offered himself as the originator of another.’
`No honest reading of SM allows for DB’s interpretation of the paragraph.’
johng said,
August 24, 2008 at 4:54 pm
I’m well aware of the difference between anti-semitism and palestinian solidarity work. the debate (sixth form or otherwise) is whether Engage are.
modernityblog said,
August 24, 2008 at 4:58 pm
“Reading lessons Modernity?”
shorter SWPer version:
me Modernity, him Alan Laurence
not same person, try again
PS: Volty could you create an Open thread just for those thick arse SWPers, that way they don’t ruin threads here and go over the same crap time after time.
Voltaire's Priest said,
August 24, 2008 at 4:59 pm
John – the answer is that most of them are, whilst there are others I’d be less sure about.
Bennett said,
August 24, 2008 at 5:01 pm
JohnG. Sorry , if i came across as patronising , i too was once a sixth former.
Bennett said,
August 24, 2008 at 5:03 pm
So John G. Can you show me where on the Engage forum , let’s say the front page where there are several articles , how these articles are aimed ” soley at equating Palestinian solidarity with anti-semitism” ?
modernityblog said,
August 24, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Volty,
why not give JohnG a guest slot ( less than 400 words) on:
“why the SWP are the greater fighters against anti-Jewish racism”
and we could clear up this topic once and for all?
johng said,
August 24, 2008 at 5:04 pm
I’m sorry David but I beg to differ. Both in the revolting attempt to argue that I don’t oppose anti-semitism (as well as the entire gamut of organisations which actually exist attempting to promote solidarity), the claim that you support Palestinian solidarity (which Palestinian solidarity organisations do you support?), or that your site simply represents a campaign against anti-Jewish racism. It represents a reaction to the crisis akin to that of the journal you link to democraziya (http://www.democratiya.com/default.asp) which represents precisely the lurch towards imperialism that charecterised a section of the lefts response to the wars of the last five or six years (in that particular case I watched the evolution of the founder at first hand: he used to be someone I regarded as a comrade).
TomU said,
August 24, 2008 at 5:07 pm
David is clearly upset by the meeting with Sean M and myself. But his characterisation of the meeting is inaccurate in a number of ways and suggestive of a political mode of operation alien to myself and the AWL.
1.David was not summoned to the AWL office. I’d heard he was forming a faction (more on that below) and asked him to come and talk about it (unreasonable?). There was no threat of ‘discipline’, no compulsion involved. David could have refused to come – he didn’t.
2. David was not accused of political betrayal, working with the CPGB and Workers Power or anything of the sort. In fact, more than once during the discussion, we all noted that David is politically a million miles away from both organisations. It’s true that I had a few ripe words to say about his friend and leading CPGBer Ben Lewis. It’s true that he was asked if he’d discussed the article with CPGB members. If this amounts to being accused of political betrayal (when David’s friendship with CPGBers has been an established fact since he joined the AWL) then I guess we’ve been persecuting him all along!
3. David was not “mandated” to write a loyalty oath. The word “mandate” suggests that some ‘disciplinary’ procedure was threatened. He was not even “politely asked” to sign a “loyalty oath”. “Loyalty” and “oath” never came into it. He was asked to write an article attacking the ridiculous ‘Weekly Worker’ front page accusing Sean of advocating a nuclear attack on Iran. We thought that such an article from David would have some impact in discrediting the fictitious/libelous rantings from that quarter given (a) his past membership of the CPGB and (b) his vocal opposition to Sean’s article. David initially agreed, then changed his mind. Fair enough.
4. When asked if he was forming a faction, David said “no”. He did confirm that Chris Ford and himself were circulating a statement to be printed in the next edition of our paper – something they were well within their rights to do, something that they were free to do. Had we received such a statement, we would have printed it.
5. I actually suggested to David that – given the strength of his opposition to Sean’s article – he should form a faction. This little fact may not be convenient for the overall picture David is trying to paint, but it is a fact. Members of the AWL are free to form factions. Even if he couldn’t find anyone apart from Chris to join a faction, both of them could have continued with a free debate on the political issues. They chose not to do so.
The real reasons for David leaving the AWL are his political disagreements with us. I’m sure the substance of these disagreements will be played out in full on the pages of his new website and magazine.
Anyway, good luck to him.
Tom Unterrainer
voltairespriest said,
August 24, 2008 at 5:07 pm
You mean Alan Johnson, John? There, you see – you and the AWL do have stuff in common after all!
modernityblog said,
August 24, 2008 at 5:13 pm
JohnG has an awful habit of going on and on, even when the thread doesn’t relate to the SWP
Iran and the subject matter are decidedly more interesting than hearing SWPers apologise for Tamimi or Nasrallah’s racism. btw, was Jenna Delich a member of the SWP (or one of their front organisations)? one can only wonder? that would explain a lot?
Bennett said,
August 24, 2008 at 5:14 pm
John G. Perhaps you can explain with specific examples (there must be lots of them if what you say is true) how you arrive at the view that Engage’s campaign is one that
soley equates ” Palestinian solidarity with anti-semitism” ?
John , it’s a long time since id took my A levels but i’m sure it’s still the case that you have to back up each point that you make with examples.
BTW. What are school dinners like nowadays ?
paul m said,
August 24, 2008 at 5:16 pm
I think Tom’s closed this one off, but I would remind John G of my experience of his beloved SWP over the years.
I have been harassed, threatened physically, thrown out of meetings; seen female comrades pushed about by six foot aggressive shouting men. Get your own fucking house in order before you type a word about any other group.
johng said,
August 24, 2008 at 5:27 pm
paul m and i should listen to you because exactly?
well yeah voltaire, that one thing. I actually can’t fault Alan Johnson for his consistancy. It seemed the logical position for someone with his politics to take. He realised that this was incompatible with being a Marxist, and I don’t really understand why the AWL don’t (he wrote very interestingly on the way in which it is simply impossible to honestly argue that there was not a long tradition of anti-imperialism in the Marxist tradition, and that it was neccessary to explicitly break from this. Can’t remember which piece it was in). I have learnt, by hanging about here though, how someone who was in many ways a very nice person, could launch into these moralistic tirades which had little to do with anyone’s actual position. I conclude he learnt this, if not other things, from the AWL.
Oh and Bennet I never suggested that Engage associate Palestinian solidarity wholly with anti-semitism. I simply suggested that they regard all actually existing Palestinian solidarity organisations as such. This is not because they are bad people or anything, its because the central premiss of the argument is the revisionism about anti-semitism I referred to. If you redefine anti-semitism as being about hostility to Israel as opposed to the Jewish people (suggesting perhaps that this is a distinction without a difference) this is neccessarily where you end up.
I believe that the struggle for justice for Palestinians is a struggle between Palestinians and the Israeli state that oppresses them. In other words that this is a struggle where sides have to be taken (I believe that incidently about just about any struggle for justice or emancipation I have ever heard of). This would probably be enough to have me branded as an anti-semite. I obviously do not accept this definition of anti-semitism.
David Hirsh said,
August 24, 2008 at 5:41 pm
John G. This week we have been concerned particularly with two cases of antisemitism.
One was Holocaust denial by your own party. One of your official documents described the Holocaust without mentioning Jews. Evidently this was a mistake. But where is the apology from the SWP? Where is the explanation? Only you, flitting around the blogs claiming that it was an innocent error. Such a mistake is only possible in a party which doesn’t take antisemitism seriously. Any other party would have included Jews in its description of the Holocaust.
The other was the UCU’s circulation of David Duke’s website. I’m guessing that you will claim that this “mistake” has nothing to do with the antisemitism to be found in the UCU.
Both of these have nothing, zero, to do with Palestine. But you find yourself unable to recognize the significance of these “errors”.
You also find yourself unable to recognize and to oppose antisemitism when you see it. Like these two examples. So yes, it is entirely accurate to write that you don’t oppose anti-semitism.
I agree with you that this fact is revolting.
johng said,
August 24, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Oh and to indulge in mischievous misquotation: “Its not ’sectarian’ to tell the truth. it just is the case that the whole left are a bunch of crypto-stalinist/nazi opportunists aside from us’.
hmm.
johng said,
August 24, 2008 at 5:53 pm
David,
The idea that this was anything aside from a botched computer error is ridiculous. It is of course true that anyone who consiously omitted Jews from an account of the Holocaust would be anti-semitic. Since this has never ever been a tradition within the SWP (although the minimisation of anti-semitism in accounts of the Nazies did have a purchase within a section of Stalinism), since you actually know this, and since you actually know that its not the case that this was in any sense an attempt to move in that direction, to accuse the SWP of Holocaust Denial demonstrates as perfectly as anything could, that you are not mainly concerned with fighting anti-Jewish racism but of labelling that section of the left most associated with Palestininian solidarity as anti-semitic. I would apologise to anyone who was genuinely offended but I will not apologise to those who don’t really want an apology anyway, are not really offended, and simply, as a commentator stated on HP, regard it as a laugh, because they hate the SWP.
The incident on the UCU list (I should say that I’ve never taken part in that list) concerns an individual who linked to a David Duke site for an article. It may be that this person is an anti-semite. It may be that she didn’t know who David Duke was. I don’t know enough about the person to know which, but certainly I would regard this as a bad thing and on left wing sites I do go to, anyone linking to a David Duke site would be told in no uncertain terms the nature of their mistake. The reaction would probably tell us which was which. However the reason why you are interested in the UCU activist list is because its the place were discussions about the boycott have been most lively. Which is clearly NOT unconnected to the issue of Palestinian solidarity, or solidarity organisations more generally.
David Hirsh said,
August 24, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Good. There we have the evidence. John Game is unable to recognize and oppose antisemitism.
Only to apologize for it, to fail to think about it with any seriousness and to apologize for it.
And to launch a counter-attack alleging the bad faith of the Jews who oppose it.
Nuke Matgamna said,
August 24, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Hirsh, what twisted logic. It discredits you.
Bennett said,
August 24, 2008 at 6:28 pm
test
Bennett said,
August 24, 2008 at 6:30 pm
John G
You now say “Oh and Bennet I never suggested that Engage associate Palestinian solidarity wholly with anti-semitism. I simply suggested that they regard all actually existing Palestinian solidarity organisations as such”
So you are saying that ENgage regarding all actually existing Palestinian solidarity organisations as antisemitic.
Which i find strange. Here is a list of some of the Palestinian organisations that Engage has posted positive articles about , or Engage has asked people to support.
See what i’ve done John. I’ve responded to you ludicrous accusation and smear with specific examples – try it sometime John.
I’ve also posted titles and links to specific articles.
Keep wriggling John (it’s quite sexy)
(i’ve broken iot down into parts as i don’t think it will allow so many links in one comment)
Gush SHalom
Gisha
Durham Palestine Educational Trust
Let Khaled Study
One Voice
Parents Circle
Bereaved Families for Peace
The Abraham Fund
End the siege
Combatants For Peace
West-Eastern Divan orchestra
Sponsored Walk For Durham Palestine Educational Trust : Please Donate
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=2000
johng said,
August 24, 2008 at 6:30 pm
David,
You do not represent Jews. You represent an organisation set up to oppose debates about how the UCU ought to respond to the discrimination against Palestinians in those territories under illegal occupation by Israel. Why you chose to go about this not with debate but with allegations of anti-semitism, is your business and you have a perfect right to pursue your own campaign. But you know as well as I do that the SWP has no record of minimising the Holocaust or the centrality of the extermination of the Jews in the Holocaust, nor any intention of moving in such a direction. So yes I accuse you of bad faith. Because the accusation is made in bad faith.
As to the allegation that the UCU is promoting David Duke (when actually on an internal mailing list someone, maliciously or not, linked to an article on a David Duke site, certainly, as I stated, grounds for concern) I would simply say that one of the things I’ve found a bit shocking about Engage, is the fact that it frequently publishes posts made by individuals which are, to say the least, pretty horrifying examples of Anti-Arab racism. This despite a fairly rigerous monitering of posts. This is not something I would normally choose to highlight, as I think it has a lot to do with the bitterness of the conflict in Israel/Palestine, and that it does not serve the interests of the left or of anti-racists generally, to focus on enmity between communities, both of whom, in this society, suffer discrimination.
But the completely bizarre attempts you are making to label not just me, but the SWP, and not just the SWP, but the UCU, and not just the UCU but all those who show real political solidarity with the Palestinians as anti-semites means that it is impossible to not, at least, to draw your attention to the fact that you might have a bit of a problem with some of the posts you publish on your site. I hope you are capable of reflecting on the matter.
Bennett said,
August 24, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Gisha on Palestinian students trapped in Gaza
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/index.php?actu=30
Bennett said,
August 24, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Against anti-Muslim racism
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=2001
Bennett said,
August 24, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Israeli academics speak out for Palestinian academic freedom
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/index.php?actu=20
Bennett said,
August 24, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Palestinians and Israelis must be able to meet to talk peace – Benjamin Pogrund
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=495
johng said,
August 24, 2008 at 6:34 pm
You have provided a list of NGO’s Bennet. Perfectly worthy and I have no problem with them. My argument was about political solidarity organisations. That is organisations which were set up to show solidarity with the political struggle of the Palestinian people against the oppression and discrimination against the Palestinian people practiced by the Israeli State since its inception. Understand that I by no means regard it as compulsory for anyone to take sides in that struggle, whether Palestinian, Israeli or none of the above. What I do find objectionable is to assert that anyone who does is an anti-semite.
David Hirsh said,
August 24, 2008 at 6:34 pm
“I would simply say that one of the things I’ve found a bit shocking about Engage, is the fact that it frequently publishes posts made by individuals which are, to say the least, pretty horrifying examples of Anti-Arab racism”
There are no racist posts on Engage. Please give evidence or withdraw the allegation.
Bennett said,
August 24, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Why is the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel Supporting
Settlements in the West Bank ?
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/index.php?actu=30
Bennett said,
August 24, 2008 at 6:37 pm
ADL is wrong to endorse a new boycott campaign – David Hirsh
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=456
Bennett said,
August 24, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Allow Khaled al-Mudallal to study at Bradford!
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1452
Bennett said,
August 24, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Let Khaled Study
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1459
Bennett said,
August 24, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Gush Shalom appeals against facilitating settler radio
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1477
Bennett said,
August 24, 2008 at 6:39 pm
One Million Voices Palestine performer refutes statement made by boycotters
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1484
Calls across the wall – Parents Circle – Family Forum
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1489
Bennett said,
August 24, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Conflict and Reconciliation: Israeli-Palestinian Bereaved Families for Peace
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1495
After Rabin – Uri Avnery
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1511
Bennett said,
August 24, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Keep wriggling John.
Bennett said,
August 24, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Sari Nusseibeh responds to those who characterized him as an antisemite
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1578
Students and the blockade of Gaza
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1589
Bennett said,
August 24, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Rebuilding alliances, rejecting boycott
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1591
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1593
Barenboim becomes a Palestinian citizen
Bennett said,
August 24, 2008 at 6:43 pm
John G – “shocking” , “bizarre” , “unbelievable”
Let’s have a look at Bully’s prizes tonight on Bullseye.
I think from now on JohnG should be known as the SWP’s very own Jim Bowen.
Bennett said,
August 24, 2008 at 6:44 pm
JohnG “What I do find objectionable is to assert that anyone who does is an anti-semite.”
Proof please Jim.
Bennett said,
August 24, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Johng: “…the claim that you support Palestinian solidarity (which Palestinian solidarity organisations do you support?)…”
Johng – please admit that this allegation was false. We support more concrete Palestine solidarity than you do.
Instead of posing and talking big about excluding israelis from campuses, we propose solidarity.
Bennett said,
August 24, 2008 at 6:46 pm
JohnG “super , smashing , remember you don’t win anything for 2 in a bed”
But Jim Bowen was working class.
Bennett said,
August 24, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Apologies to David Broder for the smash and grab but i couldn’t let Jim Bowen come out with such crap.
David Hirsh said,
August 24, 2008 at 6:53 pm
“You do not represent Jews. You represent an organisation set up to oppose debates about how the UCU ought to respond to the discrimination against Palestinians in those territories under illegal occupation by Israel.”
I have never claimed to represent Jews.
But your allegation that Engage, an organization that campaigns against antisemitism in the labour movement, is in fact a dishonest conspiracy to “oppose debates about how the UCU ought to respond to the discrimination against Palestinians” is an antisemitic canard.
You offer no evidence for this claim of bad faith and there is no evidence for this claim of bad faith.
It is an allegation of Jewish conspiracy.
tim said,
August 24, 2008 at 7:23 pm
JohnG.
You seem to have noticed that anti semitism within the Palestinianmovement and its supporters undermines that cause.
Yet when presented with the opportunity distance yourself from anti semites you seem to consider it inconvenient to do so.
You have a long history of that.
Are you part of the anti semitism which undermines Palestinian Solidarity?
David Hirsh said,
August 24, 2008 at 7:32 pm
We’re waiting for John Game to:
1) apologize for the unfounded allegation that Engage does not support Palestine solidairty
2) apologize for, or provide evidence for, the allegation that Engage publishes racist posts.
3) withdraw the allegation that Engage is in fact a conspiracy to close down free speech which routinely employs a bad faith allegation of antisemitism.
Withdraw all three allegations, John Game, or provide evidence.
Neither Rees nor Matgamna said,
August 24, 2008 at 8:20 pm
1. The leadership of the AWL (and the likes of Denham, hic) are irredemable sectarians and anti-Arab racists. The likes of Dan Randall should follow David Broder’s example and leave before they become damaged.
2. SWP members have accused me of being ‘racist’ and ‘Islamophobic’ for questioning the popular frontism of the Respect project and their pandering to reactionary Islamists. Useful for shutting down debate (it didn’t work in stopping me though), like the accusation of ’sectarianism’ for daring to debate with them.
JohnG – could you please explain which ‘computer error’ led to only ‘thousands’ being killed in the Holocaust, and why nobody picked up on the fact that Jews (6 million no less) were not included as victims?
Bennett said,
August 24, 2008 at 8:28 pm
From Harry’s Place about the SWP Holocaust Denial:
Rob Palk writes in the comments:
I went to the LoveMusicHateRacism festival and one of the speakers made a large speech about the ill effects of racism which likewise mentioned the the gay and socialist victims of the holocaust without mentioning any Jews. Struck me as odd at the time.
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/08/19/swp-make-six-million-jews-disappear/
More “lurching sharply into the camp of imperialism” I guess.
Jester said,
August 24, 2008 at 8:37 pm
No-one is accusing the SWP of holocaust denial. The leaflet agrees it happended. I just doesn’t mention Jews. Accident?
It is to be remembered also that the SWP published a letter by a nazi thinking it was a legitimate comment from an “anti-Zionist”. Accident?
It is to be remembered that the SWP were amongst the first to make the equivalence between the death camps and Israel with a cartoon of an Israeli in a camp uniform replete with star. Accident?
It is to be remembered that, more recently, the fact that the SWP published an interview with an academic who claimed the 2005 boycott of Israel was down to a secret cabal of Zionists acting behind the scenes and funded by the Israeli emabassy. Accident?
It is to be noted that the SWP now accuse Hirsh of using (objective incidents of) antisemitism to close down debate on the UCU list (from which he has been banned for years) about Palestinian solidarity. Accident?
My, what a lot of “accidents”
Bennett said,
August 24, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Not to mention this, in support of the antisemitic Hamas from John Molyneux, an SWP “theorist”:
“To put the matter as starkly as possible: from the standpoint of Marxism and international socialism an illiterate, conservative, superstitious Muslim Palestinian peasant who supports Hamas is more progressive than an educated liberal atheist Israeli who supports Zionism (even critically).”
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=2007
Bennett said,
August 24, 2008 at 9:04 pm
And don’t forget the pro-war, antisemitic “Cairo Conference” which the SWP plays with.
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1804
Steve Peterson said,
August 24, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Hey David how do you think the discussion is going on this little gossip site? Pleased? Bit of a mess, eh?
But beats having to explain yourself, precisely, exactly, to comrades doesn’t it.
Beats having to write coherent documents.
The people who agree with you do so because they hate the AWL. None of these people are going to question you too closely, are they.
Those that comment against you, can be ignored, if you feel like it.
You’re acting out of personal pique.
But do you feel a little better now?
You see grown-ups would feel it necessary to justify (politically David, not just “getting back at the AWL”) allowing this sort of “discussion” to take place – and the “debate” you helped initiate on our site.
So, David, how do you think this is going? Try to be political, big boy.
Jester said,
August 24, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Johng states,
”
The campaign of Engage is directed soley at equating Palestinian solidarity with anti-semitism, and attempting to connect growing disquiet about Israels treatment of the Palestinians with the same.”
He has been asked to substantiate the claim.
This may help him answer that request.
I look forward to his reply.
This is the original Engage’s founding document,
“Engage was set up in response to the Association of University Teacher’s decision to take steps towards an academic and cultural boycott of Israel
Engage opposes Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. We are in favour of the foundation of a Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel. We believe that Israel is not an illegitimate state. We are for reconciliation between Israeli Jews and Palestinians.
Engage wants to debate, inform and organise around three themes:
1 . Engage opposes the idea of an academic or cultural boycott of Israel.·
Israel is not ‘illegitimate’ in the sense that the white apartheid state in South Africa was. It is the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza that is illegitimate, and the discrimination against Palestinians that is illegitimate, not the existence of Israel.
· Engage opposes an academic and cultural boycott that treats Israeli Jewish thinkers, artists, teachers and musicians as though they were responsible for the sometimes brutal actions of the Israeli government.
· Engage opposes any kind of selective boycott that would impose some sort of political test on academics.
2 . Engage aims to encourage, facilitate and publicise positive links between Israeli, Palestinian, British and global academia. Engage is for closer engagement, not boycotts.
· Engage wants to bring together academics and cultural producers in solidarity against the occupation.
· Engage wants to encourage links between Israeli, Palestinian and UK academics and students.
3 . Engage stands up against antisemitism in our universities, in our unions and in our students unions.
Opposing the sometimes brutal actions of the Israeli government and army is not antisemitic. But sometimes anti-Zionism is antisemitic.
· Zionism is not racism. Zionism is Jewish nationalism and it is not fundamentally different from other forms of nationalism. Nationalism often leads to racism, but nationalism is not the same thing as racism.
The ‘Zionism=Racism’ (or Zionism=Apartheid) claim is problematic because it understands Jewish nationalism to be necessarily and incurably much worse than any other nationalism on the face of the earth.
· Why does AUT pick on Israel? Why does AUT not boycott Russian, Chinese, Sudanese, Saudi Arabian, North Korean, US, British academia? The only legitimate way of explaining the focus on Israel would be to claim that Israeli academia is the least free in the world, that the Israeli state is killing more people than any other state, that it is denying more human rights than any other state.
Given that none of these claims is remotely true, Engage believes that the choice to boycott Israeli Jews rather than anyone else in the world is effectively antisemitic, as the only academics boycotted because of the bad actions of their state are Jewish ones. This is true even if those arguing for a boycott do not feel that they are antisemities, do not feel a hatred of Jews, or do not intend to be antisemitic. This is even true if some of those proposing the boycott are themselves Jewish.
· Engage opposes the harassment of Jewish students and Jewish academics. Jews have as much right to be nationalist as anybody else. And Jewish nationalism has a plurality of traditions, some actively and consistently anti-racist, others shamefully racist and Islamophobic, most somewhere in between. Jews have the right to call themselves Zionist.
· Engage opposes Holocaust denial in all its forms. One current form of Holocaust denial that seems to be considered acceptable on our campuses is the identification of Israel’s occupation with the Holocaust.”
Of course, he may “know” differently, in which case, to clear up this mess once and for all and to avoid any further misunderstanding. maybe we could be furnished with such knowledge.
Until then, johng’s statement quoted above has all the legitimacy of a nasty, little slur from a nasty, little, sect .
David T said,
August 24, 2008 at 9:57 pm
I think you’ve hit on JohnG’s meaning here.
Unless you support Hamas, you don’t support the Palestinian People.
Right John?
resistor said,
August 24, 2008 at 11:25 pm
‘The ‘Zionism=Racism’ (or Zionism=Apartheid) claim is problematic because it understands Jewish nationalism to be necessarily and incurably much worse than any other nationalism on the face of the earth.’
No, just as bad as White Afrikaaner nationalism.
http://www.humanrightsdelegation.org/press_item.asp?id=10&page=2
‘This is like apartheid’: ANC veterans visit West Bank
INDEPENDENT, by Donald Macintyre, 7/11/2008
http://www.humanrightsdelegation.org/press_item.asp?id=9&page=2
‘Worse than apartheid’
Ha’aretz, by Gideon Levy, 7/11/2008
David Broder said,
August 25, 2008 at 1:59 am
the credibility of #154 can be judged well enough from the fact that “steve peterson” not only ignored my post which was a direct response to him, and wrote another in a weird tone (”gossip site” “big boy” etc.) but continues to post under a pseudonym for fear of being taken up on what he has said!
Toby Esterhase said,
August 25, 2008 at 6:20 am
I’m not convinced that Johng actually knows anything or understands anything about antisemitism.
He seems to be a clever young postgrad but he doesn’t read. He doesn’t read the literature on antisemitism and he doesn’t read Engage.
He just responds viscerally. He is annoyed that he is thought of as antisemitic because he does not feel that he hates Jews.
He is like a Police Federation rep from the 1980s. Full of righteous indignation but unable or unwilling to actually understand what is being said about him.
And he is even unable or unwilling to substantiate his allegations.
Engage, by contrast, is absolutely jam packed full of substantiations to its allegations. You might not agree with them but they make their arguments, they present their evidence, the analyse – for hundreds of thousands of words.
In the circles johng moves in it is enough to declare that an allegation is “revolting” for it to be set aside.
paul m said,
August 25, 2008 at 7:10 am
He also seems happy to ignore the corrupt internal regime in the SWP.
Alan Laurence said,
August 25, 2008 at 8:20 am
158: too late, youve had your 15 minutes.
Nuke Matgamna said,
August 25, 2008 at 8:32 am
Well David, you certainly seem to have incurred the wrath of the cruise missile `left’.
paul m: what is worse, ignoring the `corrupt internal regime in the SWP’ or the murderous villainy of Zionism? You know, the gay community carved out a piece of the states for themselves around the San Fransisco area but they did it by purchasing property from those who were willing to sell i.e. in a civilised manner and, you don’t have to be gay to live there. More and more jews are distancing themselves from Zionism as a betrayal of judaism and humanity and the more isolated it gets the more vicious it becomes. Engage’s `support’ for Palestinians is completely fake as long as it supports Zionism. It is only worried about the bad publicity that results from the excesses of Zionisms far right wing without understanding the logic of the ideology.
Zionism is an ideology and a legitimate target for criticism without being branded an anti-semite by a bunch of murderous bastards. There are many kinds of Zionism including Christian. It is another word for colonialism.
Tim from HP is an ethnic cleanser even though the Palestinians are of the same ethnicity. Now THAT is what I call self-hating. Listen to Roland Rance on the over-arching strategy of Zionism. No wonder Tim hates him. Jews and Palestinians will live together again when Zionism is defeated.
Steve Peterson said,
August 25, 2008 at 8:47 am
As I was saying David: you set up this discussion. How would you justify it politically. Come on now. Are the political lines between you and the AWL clarified now? Are they really?!
… Less of a split from the AWL, more like a young man going to his bedroom.
Nuke Matgamna said,
August 25, 2008 at 9:11 am
This is how the AWL treats its youth cadre. Patronising twat.
Voltaire's Priest said,
August 25, 2008 at 9:39 am
David how do you think the discussion is going on this little gossip site?
Hey Steve, chided though I have been for descending below Athenian standards of debate in the past, kiss my gossipy little arse.
VP xxx
modernityblog said,
August 25, 2008 at 11:42 am
maybe someone will posts David Hirsh’s comments #120, #146 and #148 as a post to remind JohnG that he can’t run away from this.
Steve Peterson said,
August 25, 2008 at 11:43 am
NM: no this isn’t how the AWL “treats its youth cadre”. This is how someone in the AWL relates to a kid who has run off without proper explanation. Our youth cadre are still in the AWL (and not impressed with David). The idea it is adequate to explain your exit by a silly little posting on this site is absurd. Proper political people write long documents, organise for their views, speak, struggle etc rather than “getting their own back” by posting here, surrounded by political enemies who run to his defence for the wrong reasons. Makes him feel a little better, but is the political equivalent of throwing his toy on the floor.
NM: socialists shouldn’t use the word “twat”.
Voltaire’s P: no thanks to the offer of your arse.
modernityblog said,
August 25, 2008 at 11:50 am
I’d suggest that AWLers and mates of Sean stop digging, that hole is getting bigger and deeper, and it ain’t doing you any favours.
johng said,
August 25, 2008 at 11:58 am
David Hirsh, posts which assert that the Palestinian population in 1948 were simply migrants who came to Palestine as a result of economic development sponsered by the Zionist movement in mandate Palestine, posts which assert that Palestinians left Israel as a result of ‘radio broadcasts’, posts which assert that Jordon is Palestine etc, etc. All of these well worn themes are part of the narrative of Palestinians as propaganda, a narrative which is racist toward Palestinians Arabs. They are also, very unfortunately, part of the common sense of sections of Israeli nationalist opinion, and despite being disproved over and over again, are endlessly recycled. They are also endlessly recycled by posters on Engage, sometimes argued with, (as are rather more directly unpleasent Islamophobic commentry).
I have stated that Engage is not an organisation set up to oppose anti-Jewish racism but an organisation set up to campaign against measures taken in solidarity with Palestinians, which argues that such measures are motivated by racism and anti-semitism, which is held to reflect wider deformities on the left. I have also argued that Engage does not advocate solidarity with Palestinian nationalism and its struggle, but rather suggests that those sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians should conduct ‘practical’ campaigns centring on the welfare of Palestinians. This is fine, and its perfectly legitimate to argue that it is not ‘helpful’ to support Political campaigns to expose the treatment of Palestinians by the Israeli state, but instead to ‘engage’ constructively to build links between Palestinians and Israeli’s on a one to one basis. This is perfectly legitimate. What is not perfectly legitimate is to argue that anyone who disagrees that this suffician, is either an anti-semite, or a tool of anti-semites (especially as this is simply not true).
The exchanges above, far from refuting anything I said, actually confirm it. It is extremely dishonest not to be open about the reality that the battle Engage is waging centres around the Israel/Palestine conflict and the lefts response to it (it is in other words not simply an organisation campaigning against anti-Jewish racism). And that the central motivation is to argue against viewing the Israel/Palestine conflict as one where the norms of political solidarity with the oppressed ought to apply, as in other cases, and to label any such arguments as anti-semitic. Its not an argument I agree with, and indeed, it is an argument which can only lead to rancour and division and the complete eclipse of rational discussion about either the Israel/Palestine conflict, or Anti-Semitism. Both of which I regard as important issues.
My own interest in the Middle East stem from my teens when a close friend who was born into a family on the Christian side of the conflict in Lebanon became gradually disillusioned with his politics and everything they stood for. I lived through those changes with him and will always remember one morning when we both heard the news about the massacres of Palestinians in their refugee camps subsequent to the departure of Palestinian fighters. It was a turning point for him. I then found myself going to university during the 1980’s and these events became more real to me, as a very large number of those Palestinian fighters ended up in London universities, having nowhere else to go. As was more generally the case, hearing their side of the story made me further question the kind of narrative I had been bought up to believe about Israel (I visited the country when I was much younger and generally speaking my politics were probably sympathetic to Zionism). This is not an unusual story by any means and it is nothing whatsoever to do with anti-semitism.
I have been asked to ’substantiate’ my arguments. Given that nobody here has substantiated the absurd allegation, that on the basis of anything I have actually said, I could be classed as an anti-semite, that seems to me sufficiant demonstration of the case I made.
David Hirsh said,
August 25, 2008 at 11:59 am
“Proper political people write long documents…”
How could we forget?
voltairespriest said,
August 25, 2008 at 12:02 pm
And yet “Steve”… a presumably more senior AWL comrade posting from behind a pseudonym (yes I’m aware I use one too but it’s more habit than subterfuge these days), picking on a young comrade like a school bully, hardly makes for edifying viewing, now does it? One imagines that if he had produced an internal document only to be the recipient of “little boy” (or “maoist youth” ) barbs, then he’d have probably walked out anyway.
Incidentally, those of you who seem to think Jim’s such a loose cannon will notice that he has precisely not sought to do that in the course of this debate… just saying, like.
paul m said,
August 25, 2008 at 12:18 pm
What’s bullying about SP’s posts? Or indeed TU’s account of the Broder’s exit from the AWL.
Broder is playing up to the idiot left for sympathy and trying to put the boot into the AWL.
One thing the AWL has always had is an argumentative approach to politics, which I’ve always liked. Compare them to the pompous toads of the IMG, the Milmoonies and fake prols of the SWP.
voltairespriest said,
August 25, 2008 at 12:24 pm
An argumentative approach to politics, I completely agree with. I’m not for pulling punches in the course of a debate and as such I frequently rebuff requests for censorship of harsh language or off-colour statements on here. You’ll notice I haven’t deleted anything Steve said, so much as ticking him off a little.
I do, though, have a thing about the “little boy” thing. It’s picking on a characteristic (his age) rather than on anything he actually said. What if he was a woman? Black? Gay? Would those things be fair game? I rather doubt that Steve would say so, and I don’t think so either. So what’s the difference when it comes to age, then?
modernityblog said,
August 25, 2008 at 12:41 pm
we are still waiting for a comprehensive and logical reply to David Hirsh’s point:
“148 David Hirsh said, August 24, 2008 at 7:32 pm
We’re waiting for John Game to:
1) apologize for the unfounded allegation that Engage does not support Palestine solidairty
2) apologize for, or provide evidence for, the allegation that Engage publishes racist posts.
3) withdraw the allegation that Engage is in fact a conspiracy to close down free speech which routinely employs a bad faith allegation of antisemitism.
Withdraw all three allegations, John Game, or provide evidence.”
johng said,
August 25, 2008 at 12:51 pm
1) The assertion is not unfounded as I have demonstrated.
2) I have provided the evidence. The arguments are outline are to be found on the Engage server on a regular basis.
3) The bad faith allegations I stand by, particularly as they have just been made against myself.
johng said,
August 25, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Of course I never used the word ‘conspiracy’ or even implied it. More evidence perhaps of at least Modernities consistant bad faith. I outlined what I see as the politics behind the revisionism about anti-semitism and suggested the reasons I disagree with those politics. This is the norm in any debate about anything whatsoever, and I would suggest, is rather more restrained then the recourse to insult and rancour that seem to be what passes for engagement in the case of this particular argument.
modernity said,
August 25, 2008 at 1:06 pm
JohnG wrrote:
“Of course I never used the word ‘conspiracy’ or even implied it. More evidence perhaps of at least Modernities consistant bad faith.”
I shall let David Hirsh take up his own points, but JohnG should notice (but he won’t) that I do not (got that: do not) use the word “conspiracy”, I am merely re-posting the original post #148
that’s why it is in quotes and italic, to distinguish it from my own words, sigh…so basic
johng said,
August 25, 2008 at 1:12 pm
I notice that David Hirsh seems to want to regard disagreement with his politics as evidence for charges about allegations of a ‘Jewish conspiracy etc’. Utterly ridiculous. It is perhaps evidence only of the fact that David Hirsh seems unwilling to engage in sensible argument about the divisions that exist as a result of the Israeli-Palestine conflict.
johng said,
August 25, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Well then David Hirsh is being ridiculous rather then you. Seeing as you see fit to re-post his absurd allegations against me thats your affair.
paul m said,
August 25, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Broder’s age is an issue, insofar as he’s shown a level of inexperience and ultra-left ism often associated with youth in left-wing organisations. I’ve never met the guy, but he does come across as being a bit too big for his boots.
I remember being a ‘leftist’ on the Troops Out of Ireland debate in the 80s, under left public opinion.
modernity said,
August 25, 2008 at 1:24 pm
a word for would-be academics such as JohnG
as far as I understand it, evidence, in terms of David Hirsh’s request, is providing links, citations, web sites, extracts which back up the arguments
it is NOT just a re-assertion of the previous arguments, that’s called repetition
shorter SWP version:
evidence means links to the words of others
Darren said,
August 25, 2008 at 1:30 pm
By posting his comments behind a false name, ‘Steve Paterson’ has zero credibility on this thread.
Love how ‘Steve’ and some others on this thread are using Dave Broder’s youth against him. Would this be the same AWL who – if they actually recruited someone over the age of 21 – would plaster it all over the front cover of Solidarity?
Hypocrites.
David Hirsh said,
August 25, 2008 at 1:37 pm
John Game: “Of course I never used the word ‘conspiracy’ or even implied it. ”
Your claim, John Game, is that those Jews who raise the issue of contemporary antisemitism are doing so in bad faith. We are lying, you say. We are pretending to be concerned about antisemitism but are really concerned only with Jewish communal self-interest and with defending Israeli human rights abuses.
You are unable to relate to the truth of what we say, but you relate to us only “as Jews”. And “the Jews” who you relate to us as is an antisemitic construction.
You do not claim that we are mistaken, but that we know we are wrong and are pretending that we don’t know it. And it is not just one of us, but all of us, who act in bad faith in the same way.
This is a charge of conspiracy. It is a very serious charge and John Game should understand that it is a charge with a history and with a particular menace.
Engage is not just any old organization. It is an organization which campaigns against antisemitism.
To charge antiracists and Jews who oppose antisemitism with being part of a conspiracy is serious.
John Game cannot produce any evidence for this or for his other charges.
He says that Engage publishes racist posts. He has not given any evidence. He cannot produce a racist post.
He says that Engage does not support Palestine solidarity. He has been proved wrong. In fact Engage has supported more solidarity and joint work with Palestinians and with the peace movements in the Middle East than he has. But he clings onto his claim.
And he claims that Engage – all of the people who support Engage seperately – hurls the insult “antisemite” instrumentally in order to protect Israel from legitimate criticism. Again, with no evidence.
David Hirsh said,
August 25, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Jews and antiracists who John Game believes are following a common plan to pretend to be concerned about antisemitism but are actually only concerned to protect Israel from legitimate criticism:
David Hirsh
Jon Pike
Stephen Soskin
Josh Robinson
David Seymour
Robert Fine
Adrian Cohen
Jane Ashworth
Linda Grant
David Aaronovitch
Howard Jacobson
Maureen Lipman
Sean Matgamna
David T
John Strawson
The Chief Rabbi
Jim Denham
Eve Garrard
Norman Geras
Alan Johnson
Paul McGarry
Moishe Postone
Ben Cohen
Josh Cohen
Kirsten Campbell
Philip Spencer
Brian Brivati
etc
etc
etc
johng said,
August 25, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Again, David I never made any such allegation(s). Either you have not read anything I have said or on the other hand, you don’t understand what I have said. Engage was set up to campaign against initiatives for Palestinian solidarity in the AUT. Its arguments were that such initiatives were anti-semitic. I disagree, and disagree further with attempts to argue that any disagreements with Engage about this are evidence that the person who disagree’s is advancing some kind of claim about a Jewish conspiracy. It is absurd. If you cannot engage in a rational debate with someone who is critical of your politics, has advanced perfectly reasonable concerns from the standpoint of those who advocate solidarity with Palestinians about your stance, this is really not to do with me it is to do with you. I too could produce a long list of names of people who disagree with the kind of stance that Engage is advocating with respect to Palestinian solidarity. I don’t however see what purpose this would serve. Generally speaking I prefer to engage in rational discussion with those with whom I have political disagreements.
Geoff Collier said,
August 25, 2008 at 1:57 pm
I was amazed to read that David Broder is only about 20. Back in May I passed a lone Solidarity/Workers Liberty seller outside my university trying to build for a public meeting on May 68 with DB as the main speaker. He gave the impression that Broder was old enough to have been there.
But my main question is about the other participant in this split, Chris Ford. Is he the same bloke who was on the editorial board of Revolutionary History in the early 90s? If so, he can’t be the normal run of the mill youngster that you find in the AWL. I thought he was a member of the Revolutionary Democratic Group – when di he join the AWL?
And is this the first use of the Commune as the name for a political group since the crisis in the French Section in 1936?
Jester said,
August 25, 2008 at 1:57 pm
“And that the central motivation is to argue against viewing the Israel/Palestine conflict as one where the norms of political solidarity with the oppressed ought to apply, as in other cases, and to label any such arguments as anti-semitic.”
Johng insists that Engage sole purpose is to label legitimate criticism and legitimate political action as “antisemitic”.
So, let’s see,
The idea that Zionists control the world press for their own interests is not objectively antisemitic, but is merely “labelled” so by Engage to silence political solidarity with Palestinians.
The idea that Jews and Nazis are two sides of the same coin is not objectively antisemitic, but is merely “labelled” so by Engage to silence political solidarity with Palestinians.
The idea that Hamas-sponsored tv shows argue that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a legitimate work is not objectively antisemitic, but is merely “labelled” so by Engage to silence political solidarity with Palestinians.
The idea that there is a secret cabal at work to defend “Zionist” interests is not objectively antisemitic, but is merely “labelled” so by Engage to silence political solidarity with Palestinians.
The idea that no “criticism” of Israel can ever, ever, be antisemitic is not objectively antisemitic, but is merely “labelled” so by Engage to silence political solidarity with Palestinians.
The idea that US foreign policy is the product of a tightly organised Lobby is not objectively antisemitic, but is merely “labelled” so by Engage to silence political solidarity with Palestinians.
The idea that Jews exploit their own history of antisemitism to protect “ZIonist” interests, is not objectively antisemitic, but is merely “labelled” so by Engage to silence political solidarity with Palestinians.
All these arguments have been presented at some time in debates on Israel and Palestine on the left at some time or another (some in the SWP’s own paper and organs).
Johng’s knows not of what he speaks.
David Hirsh said,
August 25, 2008 at 1:59 pm
You don’t understand the point. This is not a list of people who disagree with you. This is a list of people who you allege are involved in a conspiracy
1) to pretend that they think there is a problem of antisemitism on the left
2) to do so in bad faith in order to provide ideological cover for Israel to continue to murder and oppress Palestinians.
You think that we are all
1) wrong and
2) we know we’re wrong and
3) we persist because we are trying to do a political job – dishonestly and in concert
johng said,
August 25, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Its also worth stressing that a number of the names on the list (David Aronovich, Norman Geras leap out here) are individuals whose politics the bulk of the anti-war left have disagreements with all down the line (and vice versa), and whose political take on the world is one which fits rather well with my initial description of that section of the left which reacted to the wars of the last years by lurching sharply into the camp of imperialism (with a fair bit of moderate regret expressed later as the whole thing turned into a disaster). One of the things they seemed to have believed was that the left was getting into bed with Islamists and, in addition, anti-semites on that basis. Disagreements with their perspective had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that they happened to be Jewish, nor were disagreements ever explained on this basis. These were so to speak Eustonite matters. To disagree with Eustonite claims, and indeed, to regard them as disengenuous, has nothing whatsoever to do with making allegations of a Jewish conspiracy, and nor does the claim that Engages political position appears to be related to this strand of opinion. It is as I have emphasised absurd.
johng said,
August 25, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Again David Hirsh I have at no point suggested that anyone is involved in a conspiracy, Jewish or otherwise, and I would suggest you withdraw the allegation or substantiate it.
David Hirsh said,
August 25, 2008 at 2:16 pm
You still don’t understand the point John Game.
The charge of Jewish conspiracy is that people pretend to have all sorts of politics – capitalist, socialist, etc. but in reality, they are fighting for a Jewish communal self-interest.
Your charge is that people who oppose antisemitism do so in bad faith – they pretend to do so – they are lying.
They all profess different politics but they all lie about the fact that they oppose antisemitism.
Your charge is of conspiracy. It is that people with all sorts of different politics are pretending – altogether – that they are opposing antisemitism. When what they are really doing is protecting israel from criticism.
It doesn’t matter what the chief Rabbi or Norman Geras think – or what they say they think – because you know better.
You know that when they talk about antisemitism – it is a cover for Jewish self-interest.
Jester said,
August 25, 2008 at 2:20 pm
“Engage was set up to campaign against initiatives for Palestinian solidarity in the AUT. Its arguments were that such initiatives were anti-semitic.”
Really?
All initiatives?
Please could you list”all” these numerous inititiatives (AUT, NATFHE, UCU) that Engage has “lablled” antisemitic?
After all, how can we have a “rational” debate without its ground in empirical reality?
johng said,
August 25, 2008 at 2:38 pm
David HIrsh has himself explained that this is why Engage was set up. And David you continue to make allegations which are not supported by anything I have said. At no point have I suggested or even implied that my disagreements with Engage’s approach have anything whatsoever to do with Jewish communal self-interest, indeed I have explicitly stated the exact opposite. I have also suggested that Engage’s main concern is with the Israel-Palestine conflict and the lefts response to it. This is fairly explicit in terms of the emphasis on the Labour movement, and the recent rise of campaigns for solidarity action with Palestinians. I regard this as a mistaken set of politics, and it is not at all unusual to find that mistaken politics leads to disengenuity. In this case the claim that the left is motivated in this endeaver by anti-semitism and that this is part of a wider phenomenan dubbed ‘the new anti-semitism’. I disagree with this theory and this attempt to revise the definition of anti-semitism. I have also suggested elsewhere that there are genuine difficulties when people whose identity has come to be bound up with Zionism are upset and offended by the growing concern with Israel’s actjons against the Palestinians. This is understandable both because identity crisis of these kinds are always painful, and also because of the existence of anti-semitism. However it is neccessary to be clear that the kind of offence caused by changing perceptions of Israel is not the same thing as anti-semitism and you need to deal with the difference (as do those of us on the other side of the argument).
johng said,
August 25, 2008 at 2:41 pm
And to re-iterate, it has never even occured to me that my disagreements with Norman Geras or David Aronovich have the slightest thing to do with the fact that they are Jewish. It is a completely mystified and ridiculous allegation. I disagree with their very explicitly articulated politics both on the wider crisis we face and on the question of Israel/Palestine. In terms of these arguments its always been clear to me that the latter flow out of disagreements about the wider crisis and have little to do with the Israel/Palestine crisis per se. Your allegations therefore couldn’t be more wrong.
Alan Laurence said,
August 25, 2008 at 2:42 pm
John,
What do you think a-s looks like today?
johng said,
August 25, 2008 at 3:04 pm
oh and a final point of clarification. There are a range of reasons why many would oppose the idea of a boycott, and also many reasons why many would support it. It is surely not controversial to suggest that it is a polarising position for a range of people with different views and interests in politics. To suggest that someone who supports the boycott and regards the arguments mounted against it as either mistaken or disengenuous, and the arguments coming from one of its prominant representives as particularly disengenuous, is making an allegation of a ‘conspiracy’ simply because many who have signed up to engage have different politics is as silly as suggesting that the only reason people would oppose a boycott is because they wish to see the Palestinian people destroyed. It is an argument without any logic or sense. I have suggested that I think your arguments are wrong bordering on disengenuous. The usual response is to make points suggesting why you think this is not so. Not to make these increasingly wild allegations about the assumptions or politics of anyone who disagrees with the politics of the campaign you helped set up.
Jester said,
August 25, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Like most of his ilk, Johng’s pontifications are premised on half-truths and lies.
At every turn in his evasions he has been asked to produce evidence for his claims, (The most recent the question of “initiatives” in the UCU).
He is unable or refuses to do so.
Why am I not surprised.
Alan Laurence said,
August 25, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Maybe we are all too generous to JG. Its possible he simply does not know what he is talking about.
David Hirsh went down this line when he said JG reminded him of a Police Fed rep in the 70’s who protested his non-racism without knowing what racism beyond the calling of names.
John – can I again ask you…what do you think a-s is? And as a starter can you do better than willywobblywelie who thought it was dislike of Jews.
johng said,
August 25, 2008 at 3:27 pm
for goodness sake Jester. I simply made the claim, a claim made by David himself, that the origins of Engage lie in opposition to a Palestinian solidarity initiative in the AUT. Why this is considered a ‘half truth’ I have no idea. There are many ways certainly of showing solidarity to the Palestinians. For myself boycott has never been a principle, but opposition to arguments trying to suggest that such an idea is rooted in anti-semitism is. And it is this central claim that I object to. Why this should be considered a dreadful sin, a half truth, or anything else I have no idea. I just disagree with you. Thats not unusual.
johng said,
August 25, 2008 at 3:29 pm
The best account of anti-semitism I have seen is in volume 1 of Hannah Arendt’s Origins of Totalitarianism. If you have’nt read it I’d suggest its a key text with many lessons for today.
Alan Laurence said,
August 25, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Good start – how would you define a-s today?
modernity said,
August 25, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I doubt that JohnG has read any specialist scholarly works on antisemitism, or would have the introspection necessary to see the connections made in many of the above points.
shorter SWP version:
it is possible for someone to articulate (unconscious) racist sentiments without realizing it.
johng said,
August 25, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Oh for those who haven’t read the book the claim is that anti-semitism in its modern form is a variety of racism co-incident with the rise of both modern capitalism and the modern nation state, trapping Jews between aristocratic and newer forms of reaction. Most modern anti-semitic stereotypes either in the shape of attacks on ‘rootless cosmopolitans’ or on the other hand vast financial conspiracies undermining the nation have their origins in this period, being largely unknown before this period (when anti-semitism took the shape of religious bigotry, ideologies occassionally taken up by peasents who found it safer to attack Jews then the nobles with whom they were closely associated in medieval Europe). Today though anti-semitism is straightfowardly a form of racism, distinguished mainly by its long history and intimate connections with the ideological battles of recent European history. I liked Arendt’s account because she got the balence right in stressing the longetivity of the tradition as well as its changeability. The anti-semitism of the late 19th century involved quite novel prejudices, inseperable from the social transformations of the period. The Nazies in her view took this legacy and transformed it into something so demented and unconnected to social reality as to be inexplicable (this was her ultimate view of what she dubbed totalitarianism as well). I’m unsure of this latter analyses which occurs in later volumes.
johng said,
August 25, 2008 at 4:02 pm
It is of course possible to have unconsious racist sentiments. This is however true of us all. I don’t believe that the rise in criticism of Israel is connected to a rise in unconcious or consious anti-semitism although its hardly surprising that those who are anti-semites would want to utilize this. It seems to be a minority of such scumbags that have moved in this direction (although they’re probably harder Nazies ideologically) and when they do they try desperately to conceal their real agenda. Most in Europe however prefer for the moment to attack Muslims as this is more popular, but the fascist organisations in particular are more then simply anti-immigrant organisations, and their success in scapegoating one community would very likely lead them to scape goat others. They require irrational critiques of the system in order to survive. Whilst attempts can be made to reproduce important aspects of anti-semitic ideology and apply them to the new scapegoat (the enemy within, culturally unassiminable, dual loyalties, attachment to a religion which is not a religion but a conspiracy etc, etc) they always need, at some level, a deeper, more internal kind of enemy, and the social prejudices associated with anti-semitism over the late 19th and 20th centuries remain a central template. It is therefore the case that despite the fact that anti-semitism is not today a main tool of establishment reaction (in the way that for instance anti-immigrant and, in particular, anti-muslim sentiment is) it would be very foolish to imagine that this means that it cannot still play a large role within populist and fascist formations which may become a serious threat again in the near future. Its also true that the more they reproduce and make acceptable these kinds of ways of thinking about other groups, the more persuasive they can be in articulating such prejudices in relationship to Jews (which has a larger pay-off for them ideologically). The rise of Islamophobia, intrinsically frightening anyway, was made more frightening by this fact. The speed with which these ideas could spread, and the kind of diseased thinking involved, demonstrates how easily and deeply rooted these memes are in European culture.
Alan Laurence said,
August 25, 2008 at 4:05 pm
so,
‘Today though anti-semitism is straightfowardly a form of racism, distinguished mainly by its long history and intimate connections with the ideological battles of recent European history. ‘
Please tell me what this striaghtforward form of racism looks like.
Bennett said,
August 25, 2008 at 4:10 pm
JohnG “Engage was set up to campaign against initiatives for Palestinian solidarity in the AUT. Its arguments were that such initiatives were anti-semitic.”
Engage was set tp to campaign against an academic boycottof Israel. There are many alternatives to a boycott for those who want to do solidarity work. JohnG has been shown to be either stuoid or a liar. He has been given examples of Engage promoting solidarity initiiatives but he dismisses them. JohnG fails to back up his accusations and should stick to debating with his sixth form colleagues.
Bennett said,
August 25, 2008 at 4:11 pm
JohnG completely fails to understand what antisemitism is. He has no idea , which is why he has to waffle and make unsubstantiated allegations.
Bennett said,
August 25, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Remember JohnG posted criticisms of Hirsh’s paper on antisemitism and then admitted that he hadn’t read it. Unbelievable !
johng said,
August 25, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Oh dear. Look I think people who claim to instruct others in scholarly literature on anti-semitism really ought to do a bit more reading themselves. Ah Bennet yes I remember now. Silly me. And I actually thought this was a serious discussion.
Bennett said,
August 25, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Just a reminder of what JohnG said earlier in this thread
“JohnG “The campaign of Engage is directed soley at equating Palestinian solidarity with anti-semitism, and attempting to connect growing disquiet about Israels treatment of the Palestinians with the same”
Emperor Gane has no clothes.
Alan Laurence said,
August 25, 2008 at 4:18 pm
John,
Never mind about that – what do you think contemporay a-s looks like. What are its characteristics?
Bennett said,
August 25, 2008 at 4:18 pm
JohnG – How can one have a serious discussion with somebody who criticised a paper that he hadn’t read ?
modernityblog said,
August 25, 2008 at 4:25 pm
as a public service, and for those slow witted pro-boycotters who are unable to tell if material posted at David Duke’s web site is or is not antisemitic filth, I have produced a small and simple guide:
“For UCU Activists – How To Avoid Re-posting from Neo-Nazi, Ku Klux Klan or White Power Web Sites.”
http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/2008/08/25/for-ucu-activists-how-to-avoid-re-posting-from-neo-nazi-ku-klux-klan-or-white-power-web-sites/
Alan Laurence said,
August 25, 2008 at 4:26 pm
ok John,
I think these are antisemitic arguments: do you agree?
Jews are powerful and the Jewish Lobby has great influence often to the detriment of the host nation.
The Jews do not have the right to a nation state while every other nation/people does have that right
Jews are responsible for the troubles of the world or region
Jews are responsbile for what their enemies think
Jews shout ‘antisemitism’ to deflect criticism
Jews are all responsible for Israel and Israel Jews should be punished for the actions of their Government.
There is no need to entertain the possibility of antisemitism
Jews whinge
johng said,
August 25, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Anti-Semitism today takes the same form it has since the late 19th century. On the one hand an emphasis on the rootless cosmopolitan (dual loyalties etc) on the other hand the belief that Jews are involved in behind the scenes financial operations directed at controlling the fate of nations. A third, and somewhat older element, is the idea of a backward parochial religious consiousness incompatible with modernity and liberal values, but, at the same time, capable of utilising liberal values for their own particular ends (this form is very rare today and to imagine what it looked like its perhaps best to go to the comments thread of HP whenever muslims or multiculturalism are discussed. It allows you a peek into the mental world of the mid-19th century anti-semite with just a change of target). At a lower level of course this is reflected in all kinds of revolting derivitives, deeply unpleasent, but not actually the motivating force of anti-semitic ideology.
In the context of the US the peculiar ethnic structure of its domestic politics mean that there is a Jewish lobby, in the same way that there is an Italian lobby, a Cuban lobby, and an Irish lobby, all of which have played large and acknowledged roles in recent American history. I would regard, for example AIPAC, as directly comparable to the Cuban lobby. Discussions of the lobby system in US politics are not in and of themselves anti-semitic, but the key thing here is exactly what is alleged about particular lobbies. I don’t believe that Mearsheimer’s thesis is directly anti-semetic I just think its wrong. The belief that US foreign policy is set by the various ethnic lobbies which play a central role in American politics misunderstand the nature of American foreign policy in my view. However such a misunderstanding is based on taking on faith the role of democracy in setting US foreign policy something I do not accept. Mearsheimer wants to argue that the policies advocated by AIPAC are not in the national interests of the US. This ignores entirely global US strategy. If anti-semites utilize the book (as they will and do) this does not neccessarily make the book anti-semitic. Their central claim is about the relationship of US foreign policy to Israeli foreign policy and whether these interests co-incide. This is not a traditional anti-semitic theme. The traditional theme is that Jews are inherently anti-national and wish to control the fate of nations. However claims that Jews are all powerful certainly is an anti-semitic theme. The notion that AIPAC, like the Cuban lobby, is a powerful force in US politics is not. Its a fact. Just not a determining one.
And no I don’t believe that claims that the Jews are not entitled to a nation like other nations have much to do with anti-semitism (its never been a central plank of anti-semitism) especially as its not a claim made by anyone at all I have ever heard of. The difficulty with Zionism is not that it makes claims that Jews are a nation but that it located a nation-state where there was already a people and displaced them. There is a long tradition of Jewish socialists who argued against the conception of Jews as a nation (and socialists more widely don’t like the idea that all ethnicities, religions or even nationalities are best off having their own state: I was rather amazed by a recent post on Belgium on HP which seemed to me to draw out perfectly clearly why most socialists would be hostile to this logic) but again its certainly not the tradition of anti-semitism to argue this. They regarded Jews as inherently anti-national.
Yes the notion that Jews are responsible for the troubles of the world are anti-semitic. The notion that the Israeli State bears a heavy responsibility for the fate of the Palestinians is not however. The notion that Jews are all responsible for the actions of the Israeli government is certainly anti-semitic although its not traditional anti-semitism. Yes not entertaining the possibility that there is anti-semitism or that Jews whinge are certainly anti-semitic.
Bennett said,
August 25, 2008 at 5:12 pm
JohnG “Yes the notion that Jews are responsible for the troubles of the world are anti-semitic.”
Therefore i take it that you would regard Clare Short’s remarks as antisemitic ?
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=38
culinaryarts said,
August 25, 2008 at 5:29 pm
JohnG, you mention ‘dual loyalties etc’: what, if not accusations of dual loyalties, are your claims that concerns raised about antisemitism are raised in bad faith to prevent solidarity with the Palestinians?
antisemitic scum
johng said,
August 25, 2008 at 5:31 pm
No not really, although as is usual with Clare Short its a meaningless bit of wind. US geo-political strategy in the middle east has been a major disaster for the world. The Israeli-Arab conflict is also a major cause of destabilisation and suffering in that area of the world over the last decades. It is not anti-semitism to recognise this. Nor is the claim that US policies have worsened the situation, up to and including, bolstering the most hawkish elements in the Israeli polity. In fact such a statement is incompatible with anti-semitism if you think about it.
johng said,
August 25, 2008 at 5:33 pm
I have not made any allegations about dual loyalties at all. However I should make it clear that I have absolutely no problem with people having dual loyalties whether they are Jews, Muslims or any other group. No cricket tests for me.
culinaryarts said,
August 25, 2008 at 5:42 pm
you have claimed that Jews and antiracists arguing against moves which they interpret, rightly or wrongly (rightly, in my belief, but my point here does not depend on it) as attempts to exclude Jews (or ‘the bad Jews’) from the political sphere, as people who are arguing in bad faith, in attempt to prevent solidarity with the Palestinians and protect Israel from criticism. that is an accusation of dual-loyalties.
antisemitic scum.
culinaryarts said,
August 25, 2008 at 5:43 pm
for the record, i have no idea why the combination of inverted comma and close-bracket has been transformed into a yellow face.
Jester said,
August 25, 2008 at 5:50 pm
You stated
“Engage was set up to campaign against initiatives for Palestinian solidarity in the AUT. Its arguments were that such initiatives were anti-semitic.”
You then stated later
“I simply made the claim, a claim made by David himself, that the origins of Engage lie in opposition to a Palestinian solidarity initiative in the AUT.”
Note the shift from a blanket accusation (when challenged) to a specific “initiative”.
That is why it is a half-truth; one of many that pepper your comments.
As to your recommendation of Arendt. Of course you are right, but for all the wroing reasons.
Arendt dismissed any notion of “scapegoat” clearly in the Introduction (you use it in your own account of antisemitism and Islam,ophobia)
You claim that Arendt saw modern antisemitism as the product of Jews being caught between the aritocracy and the “aristocratic and newer forms of reaction.”
Whilst I appreciate your need to force everything into the confines a vulgar Marxism, Arendt never referred to the ascending bourgeois class as a “new form of reaction”. As with Marx herself, she was far more than aware of the equivocations of modern bourgiois society than youur crude reading acknowledges.
It is also worth noting that you do not mention the sections of the book on “left antisemitism”; the place of intellectuals, academics and students in preparing the ground for both antisemitism and totalitarianism. I note also you do not mention her powerful critique of the left’s refusal to engage with antisemitism at the time of Dreyfus Affair until it was almost too late.
“Anti-Semitism today takes the same form it has since the late 19th century.”
So, unlike any other social and political concept, “antisemitism” remains frozen in time at the moment of its birth! It doesn’t develop in either form and content in relations to the social world to which it is attached? Now, that’s what you call a sharp Marxist analysis. Strange, I always throught that was called “positivism”, but not the first time Marxists have fallen for that trick (see the Second International).
However, that this is the case is hardly surprising because the SW’s line has not altered since the 1940’s comments of “L. Rock”. So, whilst the rest of the world moves on, Jews and antisemitism (and antisemites) stay frozen in stone.
Wrong, yet again!
Jester said,
August 25, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Oh, and most of those Jewish socialists who you mention were murdered by the nazis at the same time your predecessors were getting your analysis of it all so very, very, wrong. Just like your getting your analysis of antisemitism so very, very wrong now.
Come to think of it, this is the tradtion in which your “mistakes” of not mentioning the Jews at your recent anti-BNP acticities attaches to.
paul m said,
August 25, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Back on topic, I spotted this by Bill J from PR.
Now Bill tends to repeat over and over again three or four lines about the AWL, on the AWL’s site. It’s tedious beyond believe, but this is a great read.
According to BJ Broder was ‘kicked out’ of the AWL. Not true, from Broder himself. Sean M is largely responsible for the SWP internal regime and PR and only PR have thought about why Marxism is marginalised. Bill Braincell indeed.
Bill’s stuff starts here:
It is a bit disappointing that having been kicked out of the AWL, you’ve simply rejected the “left”, on the grounds that you (and your mate) have the answers. Somehow, these answers (it turns out mainly recycled versions of stuff that’s been around for ages) have not been noticed by the left, so its your job (and your mates) to enlighten us all.
Forget it. The reason this stuff hasn’t found an audience is simple. It’s not the answer.
Why not take a few weeks to think about where you go next rather than embarking on a project which cannot succeed?
The AWL’s faults go back deep. They are inextricably linked to Matgamna’s Healyism. Matgamna has had an entirely pernicious effect on the British left. He was responsible to a large degree for the scale of the SWP’s bureaucratic intolerance, through his intervention into the IS in the late 1960s. Since then, he’s chewed his way through many more innocent (and better) people, who have come into contact with him.
Today he’s a wretched cynic, who doesn’t believe a word of what he started out with, but is left holding the remnants of a really sorry bunch of Zionists and war mongerers.
You were unfortunately just the latest of his victims.
PR were victims of a similarly intolerant bureaucratic regime, one indeed inherited from Matgamna, Dave Stocking and co, did to us what Matgamna had done to them 30 years previously.
It wasn’t tragedy but it was farce.
There are lessons there, to reject bureaucratism certainly. To re-look at what has passed for Trotskyism on the left. But not to give it all up in the search for immediate and easy answers, on the grounds that these bureaucrats really reflected the revolutionary tradition. They didn’t. And they don’t.
johng said,
August 25, 2008 at 6:18 pm
I’m afraid your wrong on all counts. Arendt’s critique of the scape goat theory was designed (quite correctly) to point to the need to explain why it was that Jews (and not say, redheads or bicycle riders) were singled out for persecution. It was not enough, in other words, to point to economic crisis as a sufficiant explanation for anti-semitism. I absolutely agree with this, and for various reasons, its key to wider explorations of communalism and parochialism I’m interested in. It was neccessary to point to the specific social history of both the Jews as a people and the social transitions of the 18th and 19th centuries to explain the genesis of anti-semitism. A major part of this alternative explanation to the standard liberal one was an account of the complex relationship between aristocratic and bourgoise reactions to the developing institutions of the national state, global markets and resulting social changes, and how the previous history of the Jews led to them becoming a target for various forms of bigotry. Of course Arendt had an extremely ambivulent relationship to the bourgoise world of modernity. It is after all from this world that Stalinism and Nazism emerged (one way or another) the subject of her book, even though she regarded both as the absolute negation of that world. Whilst she points to the values of 19th century civilization as an alternative, its also clear that she regarded this as a world with feet of clay). She was also very concerned in her book to reject arguments which attempted to suggest that either Marx or the socialist movement in general were complicit in anti-semitism (although she did speak of the failures of the French movement in this respect). This led Jaspers to accuse her of having written a defence of Marxism, and is one explanation for the books poor reception in cold war America despite the apposite title (for more discussion on this see the edited collection ‘Arendt in Jerusalem’ a symposium on Arendt held in Jerusalem, I think, in the 1990s). In any case a complex thinker not easily reduced to soundbites for demolishing imaginary adversaries on Shiraz Socialist. Its best to encourage others to read her and make their own minds up. You are quite correct of course that I did not mention every single thing she said.
Are you denying that the key staples of even contemporary anti-semitism revolve around the idea of the rootless cosmopolitan on the one hand, and the financial speculater controlling the destiny of nations on the other? And do you deny that these are the essential ingrediants first put togeather in the late 19th century? I’m unclear why you accuse me of imagining that these things are frozen in aspic simply because I refer to themes which are still essential to anti-semitic propaganda. On the issue of whether or not Engage advocates solidarity with Palestinian organisations or whether it was mainly set up to combat what was percieved as the anti-semitism of the lefts reaction to the Israel-Palestine conflict I think I’ve been fairly clear about my beliefs here. You disagree with them. Fine.
In fact Culinary I did not argue that all people who argue against the boycott because they think it is anti-semitic are arguing in bad faith. I said I think they are wrong, its something I would argue against, and something which Engage argues for. I argued that Engage was set up in relationship to this argument and that it was bad faith to suggest otherwise (something which it seemed to me David was initially doing but he seemed at one point to concede this). I also suggested that David’s argument that I or the SWP were Holocaust deniers on the strength of a badly put togeather petition seemed to be in bad faith (on the basis that he seemed to prefer to ignore all contrary evidence, of which there is rather a lot. Certainly if I thought this was the case I would leave the organisation. Strangely though, the possibility that this might be the case never so much as crossed my mind. Probably something to do with a long record of combating Holocaust Deniers and anyone who minimises the Jewish component of the Nazi extermination program).
paul m said,
August 25, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Forgot this from Bill.
“There are good objective reasons why Marxism as a theory is marginalised – I’ve read around it somewhat – and its scarcely an exaggeration to say that only PR have attempted to develop an assessment of those reasons.
johng said,
August 25, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Jester its also true that most of the Zionists they argued with perished in the Nazi Holocaust. I’m unclear what that is supposed to tell us. Neither side of this argument either predicted the rise of the Nazis’ or, as it happened, were able to avert the catastrophe, six million Jews being exterminated despite the existence of both Socialists and the Zionist movement. The only response to the Nazies was to smash them. Tragically neither the socialist movement or the Zionist movement were capable of doing this, and even had a Jewish State been established earlier, without the Nazies being smashed, it would have changed nothing (the Nazies would of course have arrived in any such state). Therefore its never been clear to me that these events proved the Zionists as against the socialists wrong. It proved everybody wrong. About many things. Today the first priority is to ensure that such a thing never happens again. I’m very unclear that the establishment of an Israeli state has much to do, positively or negatively, with the question. However that is not intended as an argument for or against Zionism. Its just suggesting that your argument there is not particularly convincing.
johng said,
August 25, 2008 at 6:29 pm
“He was responsible to a large degree for the scale of the SWP’s bureaucratic intolerance, through his intervention into the IS in the late 1960s”
Well can you imagine?!!!
modernity said,
August 25, 2008 at 6:32 pm
so how does that 19th century analysis describe Soviet antisemitism, or the purges of Jews in the East bloc from the late 1940s onwards?
No aristocratic and bourgeois reactions around then? in 1960s Poland?
Steve Peterson said,
August 25, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Paul M: thanks.
In fact, apart from the various and obvious untruths in Bill J’s remarks it is worth pointing out that Dave Stocking wasn’t expelled from an AWL forerunner (the I-CL) but, just like David Broder, he ran off too.
Anyone seen David? Probably past his bedtime…
culinaryarts said,
August 25, 2008 at 7:04 pm
anyone else wondering whether Steve Peterson is Mark Osborn or Paul Hampton?
Bennett said,
August 25, 2008 at 7:05 pm
JohnG
So you think it’s not antisemitic to see Israel as the major cause of unrest in the world ?
Unbelieveable , shocking.
Jester said,
August 25, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Johng
“Today the first priority is to ensure that such a thing never happens again.”
Well, learning from your own mistakes rather than repeating them all over again would be a start.
I know, how about disaccosiating your party from antisemitic ones?
How about confronting the antisemitism in which some “criticisms” of Israel are wrapped rather than demanding one supports superstition over rationality?
How about stopping publishing conspiracy theories in your own newspaper.
How about stop making unsubstantiated claims against those who ever raise the question of antisemitism?
How about mentioning the Jews when talking about the Holocaust?
Just a few ideas to get you started.
“Tragically neither the socialist movement or the Zionist movement were capable of doing this, ”
It was not inevitable nor fate, The left got antisemitism and nazism wrong. It is doing the same again as we speak.
Now, who was it who said something about tragedy the first time and farce the second?
Bennett said,
August 25, 2008 at 7:07 pm
John G’s either excuses or denies antisemitism. When you cut through his waffle and obfuscations It’s as simple as that.
David Hirsh said,
August 25, 2008 at 7:08 pm
We’re still waiting for John Game to:
1) apologize for the unfounded allegation that Engage does not support Palestine solidairty – we provided lots of evidence – he was wrong on that.
2) apologize for, or provide evidence for, the allegation that Engage publishes racist posts – he has not offered a single example.
3) withdraw the allegation that Engage is in fact a conspiracy to close down free speech which routinely employs a bad faith allegation of antisemitism – instead all we got was a postgrad essay about Hannah Arendt – which missed out the passage on the role played by antisemitic intellectuals in the origins of totalitarianism.
Bennett said,
August 25, 2008 at 7:08 pm
John G either excuses or denies antisemitism. When you cut through his waffle and obfuscations It’s as simple as that.
johng said,
August 25, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Modernity you are quite correct there was no bourgoise or aristocratic reaction in the Soviet Union in the late 1940s. But there was a very powerful ideology of anti-semitism deployed by the stalinist regime which had its roots in that period. And yes it revolved precisely around those twin themes first put togeather in the second part of the 19th century (the doctors plot etc). It is surely not a co-incidence that the themes are identical, and historical knowledge of the origins of this language is surely important, and one of the most fascinating things about Arendt’s account.
To suggest Bennet that the conflict in the Middle East has been a major destabilising factor in global politics or that it is one of the most important geo-political regions in the world is hardly shocking. To suggest that US policy towards the region is in large measure responsible for both its geo-political prominance in the post-war period, and that this had a dreadful impact on Israeli-Arab relations and the possibility of resolution is also not particularly shocking. Its also true that if you want to denounce Clare Short for anything in this statement ‘anti-Americanism’ would probably be the more appropriate epiphet. “I am shocked by this knee jerk anti-americanism’ you could say in a shocked manner (although being shocked by knee jerk reactions is a bit pointless).
johng said,
August 25, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Really Bennet? For “when you cut through the obfuscations etc, etc” replace with “when you ignore anything he actually says because in the end shouting the same slogans over and over again is easier when confronted with anyone who isn’t a stock stereotype”.
johng said,
August 25, 2008 at 7:20 pm
You can wait all you like David. I have answered every single one of your points. Whatever else you do, your attempt to misrepresent everything I say, clearly is in bad faith. Thanks very much for suggesting I have written an undergraduate essay. Ones I’ve seen tend to be very good.
Jester said,
August 25, 2008 at 7:21 pm
“You are quite correct of course that I did not mention every single thing she said.”
And, of course, we all know why.
“On the issue of whether or not Engage advocates solidarity with Palestinian organisations or whether it was mainly set up to combat what was percieved as the anti-semitism of the lefts reaction to the Israel-Palestine conflict I think I’ve been fairly clear about my beliefs here. You disagree with them. Fine.”
Ah, so now what you held out as a “truth” earlier is, really, nothing more than a matter of opinion now.
To remind you of what your actually said,
“The campaign of Engage is directed soley at equating Palestinian solidarity with anti-semitism, and attempting to connect growing disquiet about Israels treatment of the Palestinians with the same”
“I’m unclear why you accuse me of imagining that these things are frozen in aspic simply because I refer to themes which are still essential to anti-semitic propaganda”
And yet you remain silent about contemporary (non-essential?) themes.
Again, what a surprise.
modernity said,
August 25, 2008 at 7:27 pm
so how does that 19th century analysis explain why the SWP invited a known anti-Jewish racists, Gilad Atzmon, to their premier yearly event, Marxism xxxx time after time?
Darren said,
August 25, 2008 at 7:27 pm
#231
“anyone else wondering whether Steve Peterson is Mark Osborn or Paul Hampton?”
It’s definitely not Sean M. The comments come in under the 1500 words mark.
culinaryarts said,
August 25, 2008 at 7:30 pm
but I must admit that the thought of him in the AWL office, dictating his comments to someone who then has the responsibility to type them into his blog, elicits a wry smile.
johng said,
August 25, 2008 at 7:33 pm
oh alright david if you want to continue,
1) I made clear that by Palestinian solidarity I meant existing political solidarity organisations not NGOs. Its up there in the comments in one of my previous answers to you.
2) I made reference to arguments which regularly occur in the comments of Engage, around the question of migration to Palestine, radio broadcasts, and the invention of Palestinian identity, all of which are part of the ‘Palestinians are propaganda’ motifs which fit into a discourse of anti-arab racism.
3) I never stated anywhere that Engage was a conspiracy of any kind, and have answered you at length on that point.
If you can’t be bothered to engage with what I actually say that is your problem and not mine.
Bennett said,
August 25, 2008 at 7:33 pm
JohnG “To suggest that US policy towards the region is in large measure responsible for both its geo-political prominance in the post-war period, and that this had a dreadful impact on Israeli-Arab relations and the possibility of resolution is also not particularly shocking. I”
which is different to “the major cause of bitter division and violence in the world.”
I’ll give you a little clue John “the major cause” “in the world”
Bennett said,
August 25, 2008 at 7:35 pm
JohnG ” I made clear that by Palestinian solidarity I meant existing political solidarity organisations not NGOs.”
No, you meant a campaign to boycott Israel and no other state.
Boycott.
Bennett said,
August 25, 2008 at 7:37 pm
JohnG “Really Bennet? For “when you cut through the obfuscations etc, etc” replace with “when you ignore anything he actually says because in the end shouting the same slogans over and over again is easier when confronted with anyone who isn’t a stock stereotype”.”
I’ve never met an SWPer so full of shit. I’ve met a lot of SWPers over the years but never a caricature.
johng said,
August 25, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Gosh what a constructive discussion this has been.
David Hirsh said,
August 25, 2008 at 7:40 pm
John Game, you have said that edit a racist website. This is some allegation to aim at a professional sociologist. You have not been able to produce a single example to back up your claim. Your claim was false.
You have said that Engage does not support Palestine solidarity. You have been confronted with the evidence that this is not true – in the form of tens of examples. You have not yet withdrawn the allegation.
You have said that I pretend to be concerned with antisemitism but really I am concerned to help Israel to commit human rights abuses. You offer no evidence that I my concern with antisemitism is a lie. Please offer some evidence or withdraw the allegation.
You have said that I do this in concert with a whole number of other people. That is a conspiracy allegation. You have offered no evidence of conspiracy and you seem not to understand the power and significance of an allegation of conspiracy when aimed against an organization which opposes antisemitism.
Bennett said,
August 25, 2008 at 7:45 pm
JohnG “Gosh what a constructive discussion this has been”
Gosh !
modernityblog said,
August 25, 2008 at 7:50 pm
but does Martin Smith, SWP honcho and Gilad Atzmon’s best Jazz mate subscribe to that 19th century analysis of antisemitism?
I would assume not? or why would he invite Atzmon time after time to SWP events?
“An evening of live music and spoken word to celebrate the life & music of Charlie Parker with:
Gilad Atzmon & the Orient House Ensemble
Martin Smith, author of John Coltrane: Jazz, Racism & Resistance”
http://www.swappeal.org.uk/events/gilad.html
johng said,
August 25, 2008 at 8:03 pm
I have not said that you edit a racist website. I have said that a number of comments on Engage do in fact contain ideas I’m sure you wouldn’t be happy with. I pointed out the themes involved and asked you to think about them.
I clarified the remark about what I meant by the issue of solidarity and went into great detail about what I found objectionable about Engages position on this. In effect the position which contrasts constructive engagement with political posturing implicitly rules out forms of political solidarity, which are presented as mere grandstanding. I disagree with this.
I have made no allegation about conspiracies or anything of that sort. I have said that I disagree with your allegations about the palestinian solidarity movement and regard your accusations against them as spurious. As someone who has for a long time known people involved in solidarity work with Palestinians it is surely my right to do this. I also regard the allegations you have made against me on this site as spurious. This also is also surely my right.
Its disapointing to me that you seem incapable of constructive discussion about what are surely quite serious issues.
Jester said,
August 25, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Johng
If you want a constructive discussion then stop evading those aspects of an argument that you don’t like.
Unless, of course, you want to remain at the level of a party hack all your life, in which case, you are doing a very good job.
culinaryarts said,
August 25, 2008 at 8:16 pm
so your allegation changes to the claim that David is opposed to a lot of political (so-called) solidarity organisations. not that he is opposed to solidarity with the Palestinians. right?
modernityblog said,
August 25, 2008 at 9:10 pm
there seems to be a very large gap between the SWP’s 19th century analysis of antisemitism and their practice
in the 30+ years of their premier event, Marxism 1976 to 2008 there does not appear to have been one single session, specifically on anti-Jewish racism?
yet apparently for 4 years, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 the anti-Jewish racist, Gilad Atzmon, was given a platform by the SWP at these events?
so that’s no sessions on anti-Jewish racism (19th C or otherwise) and then inviting a known racist to their key events?
what a gulf between the SWP’s theory and practice?
each Marxism yearly event has on average 40 sessions per day over five days, so that’s about 200+ sessions per year, over 30 years, around 6000 sessions, but not one specifically on anti-Jewish racism
what a disparity?
paul m said,
August 25, 2008 at 9:21 pm
That’s quite a claim MB. I hope you have the evidence to back it up.
modernityblog said,
August 25, 2008 at 9:48 pm
what claim is?
6000 sessions or Atzmon’s racism?
Martin Bright’s protection of him?
the fact that Jewish socialists expressly told the SWP about Atzmon’s racism? and they chose to ignore that advice?
which one?
paul m said,
August 25, 2008 at 10:33 pm
6000 sessions and no discussion of anti-semitism.
Some of my posts above, might give you a small clue about how I feel about the SWP. I’m not a subtle person.
modernity said,
August 25, 2008 at 11:50 pm
I don’t mind unsubtle, I didn’t say “no discussion of anti-semitism.”
my comment was “but not one specifically on anti-Jewish racism”
they are different.
I am sure that the SWP has discussed the Holocaust, I’d even bet they’ve had a session or two on the Nazis, but that is NOT the totality of anti-Jewish racism.
I’ll bet Ms. Delich is probably against the Nazis, even though she pastes links from David Duke’s web site
being anti-Nazi, is not the same as making an effort to appreciate the variety and nature of anti-Jewish racism
for example, how do we explain Soviet anti-Jewish racism pre and post 1917? bearing in mind, that anti-Jewish racism in various forms existed before the 1920s (the advent of the Nazis) and long after 1945,
there’s a lot more to it than people think.
my point is that the frequency and nature of sessions at Marxism for the last 30 years indicates the SWP’s priorities, and anti-Jewish racism as a specific doesn’t come up much, despite what SWPers might suggest.
I’m sure if you asked them the theory you might get halfway decent answers, but it is the practice that is telling in politics, not the waffle.
Jester said,
August 26, 2008 at 2:22 am
I just love the way when forced into a corner, the great “Marxists” of the SWP fall back on the very bourgeois rhetoric they claim to abhor, object and criticise when utilised by others,
“It is my right”,
“it is a matter of opinion” -
whatever next, Johng – “we live in a free country”?
Wally Wibblywellies said,
August 26, 2008 at 9:14 am
Reading this rather sad, bizarre discussion, the depth of mindfucking, cult techniques that the AWL use is pretty clear. This passage by ‘Alan Laurence’ sums it up:
“DB knows that the AWL is permanently under attack for its ‘third camp’ politics and the attitude of any responsible member is never, ever to give comfort to the bollock-brain left who would paint the organisation as late-Shachtmanite. But that’s exactly what he did – and now he whines for being expected to make amends for his transgressions”
To which someone else understandably responded: “strewth”!
‘Laurence’ is obviously a senior AWL hack posting under a false flag, while pretending not to be even a member or a sympathiser of Matgamna’s outfit. But no non-aligned person could have written the above piece of hack denuncation. No non-aligned person would have the slightest inclincation to think like that. This is indicative of a very deep-seated ‘laager’ mentality, is an abuse, and utterly counterposed to democratic modes of functioning. No democrat could condone the use of psychogical pressure to coerce someone to ‘make amends’ for their ‘transgressions’. That is, for opinions contrary to those of some self-appointed guru.
This is the sort of thing that goes on in religious sects and cults, from the Catholic Church to the Moonies or Scientologists. It is also a technique beloved of Stalinism.
It unfortunately has seeped into the far left, and doesn’t have a monopoly of one organisation, as shown by the considerable body of evidence of people being treated like this in various far left organisations, WRP, SWP, AWL, Sparts and no doubt others.
This ‘Laurence’ guy obviously likes mind-fucking techniques, the techniques of bullying and extracting confessions from ‘deviant’ members of left organisations.
His interminable, mind-fucking attempts to draw people into prolonged exploration of their own (invented by him) ‘anti-semitism’ is also a mind-fucking technique. Of the type pioneered by Maoist groups, that used to try to bamboole confessions of ‘white chauvinism’ out of their supporters, a technique designed to exploit liberal guilt feelings in order to suppress the ability to think politically about questions, including about racism. Political Zionists like Laurence (and the likes of ‘Engage’) are now using similar techniques to try to derail discussion of the crimes of their own movement.
It’s not worth engaging with the cult techniqes of ‘Laurence’ with his interminable attempts to discuss other people’s ‘anti-semitism’ because he doesn’t actually believe what he is arguing. It is just an attempt to derail genuine political debate. As in a previous thread when Laurence used this technique for such a prolonged period that it became quite comical, his sophistry about ‘anti-semitism’ being quite transparently designed to stop discussion of Mordecai Vanunu’s revelations of Israel’s posession of hundreds of nuclear weapons and the implications of that for hundreds of millions of people in the Middle East.
Alan Laurence said,
August 26, 2008 at 10:32 am
Erm – very grand. Trouble is your post rests on two untruths:
1 ‘No democrat could condone the use of psychogical pressure to coerce someone to ‘make amends’ for their ‘transgressions’. You make the row sound like a torture chamber. Even DB’s own account does not paint the picture of the type of pyschological pressure one should protest. It sounds more like the type that insists the moody teenager should clean his bedroom.
And: 2. WWW says DB was in trouble for,
‘opinions contrary to those of some self-appointed guru.’
Thats ball too – he set up the org he is supposed to be a member of. Why on earth would any organsation put up with that?
And for the record – I’m not in the AWL and never have been.
Wally Wibblywellies said,
August 26, 2008 at 11:14 am
What an amazing apologia:
“‘opinions contrary to those of some self-appointed guru.’
Thats ball too – he set up the org he is supposed to be a member of. Why on earth would any organsation put up with that?”
So in virtually the same, exact words:
“Q. What kind of an organisation would tolerate opinions contrary to those of its founder?”
To which the elementary answer is: “A democratic one.”
Nuff said. It’s not clear if ‘Laurence’ is pretending to be an idiot to disguise his real political loyalties, or whether he really is an idiot. My money, however, is on the former.
Jim Denham said,
August 26, 2008 at 11:44 am
It has already been clearly established (see my questions -all of which I knew the answers to in advance-at #7, above), that Comrade Broder was given a degree of democracy and freedom to advocate his positions that few, if any, other left groups in the UK or anywhere else, would allow an oppositionist. David himself (see his comments at #50 and #52, above) seems to have pulled back from the argument that he was denied democratic rights, although it’s not now clear to me what his grievances are, apart from a straightforward political disagreement, which he was given every opportunity to fight for internally and even express to political opponats of the AWL, externally. Given this degree of freedom to pursue an oppositional position (unheard of on the British left in my experience), and given the hostile and alienated tone of David’s contributions while the deabte was going on, identified even by a non-member (see Alan Lawrence at #54 above) I don’t think the *quid pro quo” of requiring a statement of essential loyalty to the organisation was in any way unreasonable. An organisation that affords dissidents internal and external rights that would be unthinkable for (say) the SWP, also has a right to protect itself. So what, exasctly, has the AWL done wrong here?
red said,
August 26, 2008 at 11:58 am
yawn
Wally Wibblywellies said,
August 26, 2008 at 11:58 am
Problem being that, on Iran and the possiblity of an Israeli strike, it appears that Matgamna in a minority, i.e. the ‘dissident’. No matter, he is the founder, he ’set up the org’, and according to ‘Alan Laurence’, that entitles him to treat the youthful comrade like a naughty teenager and send him to tidy his room. Ye gods, apart from the anti-democratic aspect of this, the ageism sucks as well. Not a good advert!
Sacha Ismail said,
August 26, 2008 at 3:11 pm
I’m afraid I haven’t got time to read through all the debate now, but a quick comment.
Comrade Denham asks a number of questions. I’m going to spell out the answers in case they are not clear to anybody (sorry, Jim, but I want to make your point even more explicit!)
1. Was Comrade Broder allowed to produce a position paper and/or a resolution and/or amendments at the AWL’s national conference?
Yes, he did indeed produce numerous articles/position papers, many of which were printed in Solidarity and on our website and all of which were freely circulated internally, in the run up to the conference. To the conference itself, he submitted both a joint motion with others *and* his own amendment to that motion, which were freely voted on.
2. Was Comrade Broder allowed to stand for the National Committee of the oganisation?
Yes, just as any member is. Moreover, he was elected. Moreover, his nomination and elected were not publicly opposed by anyone. (At the first meeting of the new NC, David’s nomination to our Executive Committee was proposed, but he was not elected – in a free vote.)
3. Was Comrade Broder allowed to address branches and/or aggregates of the AWL, in support of his position?
Yes, indeed, David spoke to a number of such meetings, as did other supporters of minority positions on Iraq (and other issues). Eg I spoke for the “majority” at a Scottish aggregate in Glasgow, and David Kirk from Leeds came up to speek for the “minority” motion.
4. Were Comrade Broder’s documents circulated to all members of the AWL prior to voting at the conference?
Yes, many times. They were also available to members online, and printed in the motions/amendments booklet provided to all members at the conference.
5. Was Comrade Broder even allowed to address the National Conference of the AWL?
Yes, he addressed it at length, as is his right. The debate was “balanced” to allow supporters of minority views time disproportionate to their numbers at the conference.
6. Was Comrade Broder allowed *any* access to the public prints (or website)of the AWL to put forward his positions?
Yes, as explained above, extensive access. Indeed he published on the website pretty much as he wished, without reference to anyone else. (And no one objected to this.)
7. Was Comrade Broder allowed to even express his disagreement with the AWL majority in public?
Yes. In fact, with the approval of the AWL office, he met representatives of other tendencies who had asked him for discussion.
8. Was Comrade Broder even offered the opportunity to form a faction?
Yes, though he did not have to be offered it, since the constitution – available for all to read on the AWL website, btw! – accords this right to members.
9. *Why* was the Comrade expelled?
The comrade was not expelled. He left of his own accord
- after ignoring communications from various comrades, including myself, asking for a discussion;
- just after a North London branch meeting at which he did not even raise the issue;
- even though there was an NC meeting in just over two weeks which he would have had the opportunity to put his position to;
- even though he had not submitted any article to be printed in Solidarity;
- even though he had not tried to raise the issue in the AWL’s student and youth fraction, which had already begun to discuss the issues and included a variety of views;
- even though he had not formed a faction;
- even though he had made no attempt whatsoever to organise those sympathetic to his positions for a political struggle in the organisation.
Evidently, David views those in the AWL who sympathise or might sympathise with his positions on these questions with contempt, since he left without making any attempt to relate to them, whether by organising them for a struggle or trying to take them with him.
PS The SWP, with 10,000 members, is too small for “permanent factions”? Firstly, it has more like 2,000 – otherwise why is its Marxism event not bigger? 2,000 is still a lot bigger than 100, but suddenly we see the ratio has dropped from 200:1 to 20:1. Secondly, no one is suggesting the necessity of permanent factions – the AWL, in fact, has not had an actual faction for years. What we do have is a culture of free discussion and institutionalised democratic rights, of which the right to form factions is a part. The SWP comrades’ attempt to defend their anti-democratic culture is pathetic.
red said,
August 26, 2008 at 3:22 pm
10,000? i havent heard that figure thrown around for a few years. last i heard it was more like 5000 with 1000 more not paying fees
Sacha Ismail said,
August 26, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Runia writes that, yes, there are formal democratic procedures, but when the leadership is threatened Healy-style bullying comes out.
But this is simply nonsense. Firstly, because even on David’s account, there is no comparison with Healy. Secondly, because David’s account seems highly suspect; Sean and Tom simply deny that they asked him for a loyalty oath. Thirdly, this denial is plausible, since in fact the group has, as can clearly be seen, a highly libertarian and pluralist culture. Eg on the Iraq debate at conference, Daniel Randall’s position came relatively close to defeating that of the NC majority, yet there was at no point the sort of acrimony that this debate has shown. Why? Because both sides handled themselves in a reasonable way.
David should grow up. A bit of rowing is not bullying or intimidation. He has not been suppressed in any way, and his failure to organise a fight aroudn his ideas suggests complete contempt for those in the AWL who share or are closer to his views.
Sacha Ismail said,
August 26, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Chris S:
“It is a shame what has happened to David for simply exercising democratic rights that the AWL go to lengths to claim they uphold.”
This makes me so angry! What has “happened to” David? Nothing! Absolutely nothing! He was free to pursue the argument in the AWL, but rather than doing so chose to leave. Once he did so, we asked him to come back and make the arguments; there were no conditions attached (beyond a strong recommendation he educate himself more seriously). He has refused.
What is it you think has happened to David, Chris? Can you be specific, please?
The sight of members of groups who could not even hope to aspire to 1/10 of the AWL’s democratic culture attacking us because one of our members has resigned in a fit of pique is deeply depressing and shit.
Alan Laurence said,
August 26, 2008 at 4:41 pm
www.
You misread me or maybe I wasnt clear
I posted,
‘And: 2. WWW says DB was in trouble for,
‘;opinions contrary to those of some self-appointed guru.’
‘Thats ball too – he set up the org he is supposed to be a member of. Why on earth would any organsation put up with that?’
In this context ’set up’ did not refer to SM but to DB and ’set up’ did not mean establish but ’set up’ in the sense of ‘framed’ or ’set up for a fall’.
Is that clearer?
d.z. bodenberg said,
August 26, 2008 at 5:06 pm
God, are people still commenting on this?
While I have little time for the downright rudeness and lack of respect for other comrades’ opinions for which not only the leadership of the AWL, but of many left groups, are renowned (and that is something very different from a ‘robust culture of internal debate’ (etc.), which can only be positive), any respect, empathy or support for the author of the above article or his positions that might have existed can only go right out of any thinking person’s window when he whines
In a breathtaking accusation of disloyalty, they asked what meetings I had had with the CPGB and Workers’ Power. Even to ask the question is an open expression of mistrust.,
only to announce in this thread that he has formed a new organisation, oh, I’m sorry, project, already complete with website, planned magazine, and a number of public meetings with confirmed speakers – a regular series of meetings, in fact, scheduled until shortly before Christmas. It seems that “open expression of mistrust” was all-too well founded. The boy doth protest too much.
I’d also be a bit sceptical about being lectured at a communist discussion forum on the workers’ movement…, its methods of organising, why it failed and the lessons for today. organised by someone who, I presume, has never had a ‘proper job’ and not only that, but went to a posh school and….Oxbridge maybe? That’s a problem of many left groups, I admit, but fucking hell, I’ve had enough of scholars who are studying the period – come on, why not just write ’students’ – dilletanting around on the edge of the workers’ movement based on their experiences in some seminar or tutorial. Of course, it’s not (just) where you’re from, but (also) where you’re at, but who needs this?
On a positive note, I note that participants in the battles of the time, car workers, leading trade union activists, revolutionaries and marxist intellectuals will also be doing some speaking, and not just students who can read French, so I hope that enough money will be collected at the end in the beer glass in the top room of the Lucas Arms to finance Cde. James Denham’s intercity return ticket, as he surely fits the bill, no?
johng said,
August 26, 2008 at 6:25 pm
sorry what gaps in the poor lads education where revealed by this affair?
Alan Laurence said,
August 26, 2008 at 6:30 pm
The gap in his education is shown by the fact that he thought it reasonable to ’set up’ the organisation and invite all comers to take pot shots and he thought it reasonable to lie about the content of the discussion article.
Bruce said,
August 26, 2008 at 7:33 pm
On the formal procedures: If DB thought the constitution was not being kept to in his case, he had the option of taking them up through the formal procedure given in the constitution, which would have involved non-leadership comrades considering the facts of the case (specifically his alleged ’summoning’.). He chose not to, though it was proposed in the course of the debate by me. A few days later he left.
DB: -” to be honest, given my criticisms of Trotskyism, in a sense I was rather out of place on the NC of the AWL, which is unflinchingly Trotskyist and claims to represent the logical continuation of Trotsky’s supposed “real” views (had only he lived to voice them…)”
Well, at least this *is* honest. DB failed to convince the rest of the AWL to give up Trotskyism and, not wanting to be in a permanent minority of 1 or 2, sought pastures new.
So can we be spared all the whinging about how badly he’s been treated, please?
Bruce said,
August 26, 2008 at 7:39 pm
I gather David is now writing an article for the Weekly Worker. On the 7th August he wrote this response to their dishonest use of his name on publicity for the ‘Communist University::
Dear comrades,
About a week and a half ago Mark Fischer from the Weekly Worker group wrote to me asking if I would like to debate them on Iran. Obviously they were hoping to enlist me for a bit of Sean-bashing – taking part in such a circus would be stupid. However, Sean has since written in response to the WW article last week which alleged that he supports a nuclear strike against Iran: he challenged them to debate him on Israel-Palestine.
As far as I am aware they have made no reply on that score: but despite my telling Ben Lewis that I would not debate them on Iran, their timetable for “Communist University” says that I am going to.
I never said I would, and am not going to.
Regards
David
Cue the great Dinah W:
What a difference a day made, twenty four little hours
Brought the sun and the flowers where there use to be rain
My yesterday was blue dear
Today I’m a part of you dear
Is this on YouTube, Jim?
Jim K said,
August 26, 2008 at 7:46 pm
This has all been very instructive. David Broder lets rip with a political melodrama with hints of dastardly deeds by that devious old Leninist Matgamna. In jump some generally sensible people but who seem to lose it all when leninism crops up. On the face of it here is a good story confirming their worst fears- ‘ the AWL is Leninist therefore this will happen and for all their talk they are no better than the rest, undemocratic, cultish …’
Cue some of the usual bullshitters from the SWP, oozing word,ideas and concepts with little knowledge and even less concern for the truth.Then it turns out that David Broder has been talking a lot duplicitous guff, has already formed some new half arsed anarch-syndicalist outfit and expects what? Who do you think you are kidding son?
paul m said,
August 26, 2008 at 8:49 pm
It’s stacking up nicely for an apology from Comrade Broder for wasting everyone’s time.
Wally Wibblywellies said,
August 26, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Predictable vilification, from loyalist hacks and some with a bit of loyalty to ‘prove’ no doubt.
From reading DB’s letter, it was not the mere fact of Matgamna’s ‘loyalty oath’ demand that drove him out, but rather the hostile response that he got when raising that this had happened on the AWL’s email list. It seems reasonable to conclude that when someone is denounced for raising something like this through ‘party’ channels, they might entirely understandably conclude that the ‘culture’ of the organisation is not all that it is cracked up to be. Given the vile behaviour of many AWL spokespersons in public debates (which some liken to politcal Tourettes), it’s not difficult to imagine what that experience would be like.
There is no principle that says you have to stay in an small organisation with an abusive political culture, and thus damage yourself in the process. Beyond a certain point, this becomes a tactical question, a matter of practicalities. Macho posturing about how someone should ’stay in and fight’ especially from people who have no intention of doing any fighting on such lines, is just a tad hypocritical.
Darren said,
August 26, 2008 at 9:15 pm
“. . . has already formed some new half arsed anarch-syndicalist outfit and expects what? Who do you think you are kidding son?”
Mmm, is his new project really anarcho-syndicalist or is more the case that it is in fact Jim K’s comment that is half-arsed?
Love the patronising ’son’ bit tagged on at the end as well.
Very instructive that a number of AWL loyalists on the thread resort to the patronising bullshit about someone’s age when they happen to fall out of line.
Is this the same AWL – who if it wasn’t able to recruit from the student politics milieu – wouldn’t be recruiting at all?
Never fear. Freshers Week is coming up soon. A new layer of candidate members to recruit to the fold. We can’t let the membership dip below the 100 mark.
Wally Wibblywellies said,
August 26, 2008 at 9:37 pm
“In this context ’set up’ did not refer to SM but to DB and ’set up’ did not mean establish but ’set up’ in the sense of ‘framed’ or ’set up for a fall’.”
Sorry for misundertanding your not very coherent response.
But if publicly propagandising against the positions of Matgamna, in an outfit whose rules explicitly allow such public political dissent, amounts to ’setting up’ the organisation ‘for a fall’, isn’t this an equally bizarre accusation? It seem the rules allow this behaviour, but to actually exercise these rights in a serious way amounts to disloyalty. Hence the need for a loyalty oath.
Curiouser and curiouser. This has nothing to do with ‘Leninism’ or anything like it. Loyalty oaths are weapons that have been used by the right-wing of the Labour Party, among others, to silence and humiliate dissenters – just crude, reactionary bureaucratic bullying. That’s exactly what Matgamna was up to here. What a big man he is.
paul m said,
August 26, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Wally,
Have you read any of the previous posts, or are you just a fuckwit? Each and every point has been answered by the AWl comrades. They must be very frustrated and board with Broder and the faux outrage his walking out has provoked.
Broder was given every opportunity to fight for his position, in a way that all the other left groups would not allow. He didn’t. He’s set up some kind of website and is taking shots at the AWL. Predictable.
He’s says he’s not a Trot, so how he stuck around for so long is a good question to ask.
David Broder said,
August 26, 2008 at 10:28 pm
I have been given a copy of the latest AWL “discussion bulletin” on Israel-Palestine.
This says that I am “similar to, or even worse than Healyism”.
What an outrageous insinuation. Healy was a rapist who took money off Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein. The AWL leadership pretend they are subject to personal attacks, and yet freely come out with this!
Wally Wibblywellies said,
August 26, 2008 at 10:33 pm
“Each and every point has been answered by the AWl comrades.”
To your satisfaction, no doubt. But not to the satisfaction of thinking people outside the rather strange world you seem to inhabit.
Sacha Ismail said,
August 26, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Yes, Bruce is right – I forgot to mention David’s, and every AWL member’s, constitutional right to appeal a dispute over *conduct* to a Disputes Committee of non-NC/EC members elected by our conference. He didn’t do that either.
The bulletin in question does not accuse David of being Healyite – much less a Healyite of the money from Libya and Iraq/beatings and rape period. It specifically refers to a *particular argument* made by the Healy group in the *late 1960s* (ie when they were already pretty deranged politically but before they degenerated into straightforward gangsters). The whole point is that David, despite not being such a person, is using argument reminiscent of that group in that period.
David, calm down, reread the article and desist from this nonsense.
Wally W – you’ve yet to explain in what way David has been mistreated?
Sacha Ismail said,
August 26, 2008 at 11:22 pm
One other point. Though I think the left, including the AWL, certainly needs to worry about its class composition, I have no objection to public schoolboys joining socialist organisations as such. (I could hardly object since I am, in fact, one myself.) What I do object to is people bringing the haughty and arrogant behaviour learnt at such schools into the left and behaving like spoilt aristocrats rather than militants in a disciplined and comradely working-class organisation.
Alan Laurence said,
August 27, 2008 at 12:13 am
www.
Writes:
‘But if publicly propagandising against the positions of Matgamna, in an outfit whose rules explicitly allow such public political dissent, amounts to ’setting up’ the organisation ‘for a fall’, isn’t this an equally bizarre accusation? It seem the rules allow this behaviour, but to actually exercise these rights in a serious way amounts to disloyalty. Hence the need for a loyalty oath.’
I imagine DB found himself in the mire after he wrote an account of SM’s article that lied – a lot. After all, with rights come responsbilities etc etc etc.
Jim Denham said,
August 27, 2008 at 12:16 am
Wally Wanker (#279, above), says:
“From reading DB’s letter, it was not the mere fact of Matgamna’s ‘loyalty oath’ demand that drove him out, but rather the hostile response that he got when raising that this had happened on the AWL’s email list. It seems reasonable to conclude that when someone is denounced for raising something like this through ‘party’ channels, they might entirely understandably conclude that the ‘culture’ of the organisation is not all that it is cracked up to be. Given the vile behaviour of many AWL spokespersons in public debates (which some liken to politcal Tourettes), it’s not difficult to imagine what that experience would be like.
“There is no principle that says you have to stay in an small organisation with an abusive political culture, and thus damage yourself in the process…”
Yes, indeed, Wally: a “hostile response” is not very nice: unfortunately, it’s what happens in the course of serious political debate amongst people who feel strongly about the issues. Sometimes people even get a “vile response”. as well. That’s *not( the same as denying people their democratic rights. The AWL can be faulted for rudeness, but *not* on grounds of democracy.
…and , Wally, of course, membership of a Left group (or any other club) is voluntary: as you say: “there is no principle that says you have to stay in a small organisation…”: Of course! So let’s stop the bollocks that Comrade Broder was “expelled” (by his own admission, he wasn’t), or was driven out: he chose to leave, without availing himself of the democratic rights (like forming a faction) open to him. That was his prerogative. But let’s have no more bollocks about ‘denial of democratic rights’, OK?
Alan Laurence said,
August 27, 2008 at 12:19 am
Jim,
Of course he left: he had already set up another organisation.
photographic memory of shit said,
August 27, 2008 at 6:09 am
Sacha: What I do object to is people bringing the haughty and arrogant behaviour learnt at such schools into the left and behaving like spoilt aristocrats rather than militants in a disciplined and comradely working-class organisation.
Or as one of DB’s ex-comrades from the one-time CPGB/WW-AWL splinter ‘Red Party’, on the letters pages of the Weekly Worker put it, somewhat less democratically:
In the debate over the legacy of the Red Party/Red Star on your letters pages over the last few weeks, Jeremy Butler has shown himself ‘the bigger man’ in his ability to see and address the politics rather than the personalities involved (always an issue in small group politics). For the record, the rest of the Red Star group are less generous in our memory of David Broder.
He was (and is) a self-important, privileged tosser whose idea of communist debate was to declaim to us all on the importance of the Leninist vanguard (himself) with his public school blazer in one hand and a bottle of poncey, overpriced foreign lager in the other. In other words, a typical Leninist.
We are well rid of the little wanker.
Darren Williams
email
cpgb.org.uk/worker/675/letters.htm
My experience of anarcho-syndicalists would change the last sentence and the description would fit them just as well: replace ‘the Leninist vanguard’ with ‘workers’ self-organisation’ (led by himself without any democratic structures to control him), replace ‘typical Leninist’ with ‘typical anarcho’.
DB’s “I am deep throat” response at cpgb.org.uk/worker/676/letters.htm does have more than a ring of truth to it though.
Darren said,
August 27, 2008 at 8:39 am
I wonder if poster #290 is another AWLer sneering anonymously?
Couldn’t Sean lend you one of his many pseudonyms? He’s always had enough to go round.
Mark Osborn said,
August 27, 2008 at 8:47 am
“Similar to or worse from Healyism?”
The only point in sticking this text in is that it make pretty plain David’s ‘method’ and state of mind. His is utterly self-obsessed and eager to twist anything to try to whip up a little bit of scandal. An object lesson in how not to debate.
The AWL discussion bulletin makes several refs to Healyism but this section make plain the context, the meaning.
It reads: “David’s article tells us a lot more about
David’s state of mind than about Iran and
Israel, or about what Sean actually wrote. As
the current paper says: “Of course, we do not
advocate, nor will we endorse or take political
responsibility for, an Israeli attack on Iran: we
are against such an action”…
David had taken part in the conversations in
the office on the discussion piece, and had
made suggestions which Sean tried to
accommodate.
Then, in a different state of mind – for
whatever reason, but not because anyone in
the AWL had done anything nasty to him – he
wrote a completely off-beam diatribe for the
website.
Of course, we can understand there’s a
difference between such idiotic stuff written by
an upset 19 year old, and the similar stuff
which used to be written against us by
calculating, cynical old Healyite ideologues.
Trouble is, calculating, cynical ideologues – not
the Healyites this time, but Weekly Worker –
immediately seized on David’s huff, and
comrades were suddenly thrown into a
demagogy-storm.”
And the fact is I strongly suspect the thing that most annoys David is that we don’t think he’s anything like a Trotskyist leader – even a crap one like Healy. We think he’s an “upset 19 year-old” writing “idiotic stuff”.
Jason said,
August 27, 2008 at 9:20 am
Interesting. Whilst I of course agree with Sacha that the left should not be haughty and arrogant the treatment of David Broder and indeed other critics on this issue has been exactly that.
I think there are people in the AWL worth speaking to – of course- and many are open to reason, unfortunately the ruling clique sees fit to play loyalty games and badny insults to anyone who disgrees with them- for exmple calling them ‘idiotic’ or questioning thier state of mind.
Sad in a way but not entirely surprising. This is why we in Permanent Revolution are calling for a new way to look at things, a new way fo working etc. http://permanentrevolution.net/entry/1757
Of course many will disagree with us even on issues like Iran (where we are for working class revolution, against imperialist or proxy attacks and against the dictatorship and for working class organisation internationally against these attacks and oppression). Fair enough, you can even disagree within PR in public without loyalty oaths. But of course many might not want to join us. Fair enough as well. It would be good to get together with activists including those in left groups and those not to look at how we can begin to rebuild the left, socialism and the working class movement.
Wally Wibblywellies said,
August 27, 2008 at 9:23 am
Sacha Ismail
“Wally W – you’ve yet to explain in what way David has been mistreated?”
Actually Sacha, I have. But I don’t expect Matgamna’s acolytes … especially ones with something to prove about their own ‘loyalty’ .. to admit that even if it was breathing claustrophobically right down the neck of their t-shirt. So carry on pretending, if you like.
Jim Denham:
“Yes, indeed, Wally: a “hostile response” is not very nice: unfortunately, it’s what happens in the course of serious political debate amongst people who feel strongly about the issues.”
No, a ‘hostile response’ when someone complains that an attempt has been made to pressure them to sign a ‘loyalty statement’, is ‘not very nice’. In fact, it is an abuse that such a statement is demanded, and doubly an abuse if someone is then condemned for raising that this has happened. If people line up to condemn someone for objecting to this kind of behaviour, then all the protestations of ‘democracy’ are worthless. Despite the different formal rules, this is a similar culture to the SWP.
Is Jason the Dalai Llama of the left? said,
August 27, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Peace, love, permanent revolution, buddhism?
Jason said,
August 27, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Each to their own of course. But what I presume poster 295 is arguing is that my post is far too anodyne. Not at all. I think that we should welcome differences within the context of common action. The fact that someone- completely unidentified of course- sees fit to take the piss refelcts badly on them not on the idea that it is possible to work in politics in a comradely and fraternal manner.
Wally Wibblywellies said,
August 27, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Hes not the Dalai LLAMA, hes a pushmipullu;-)
Is Jason the Dalai Pushmipullu of the Park? said,
August 27, 2008 at 1:50 pm
No, it’s a comment that your comments suggest you are completely up yourself. I know comments aren’t the same as in real life, but most of your comments are all so reasonable, yet at the same time proselytise for your group. I’ve seen responses to them that are a lot worse than that in 295. Did you ever get banned from Socialist Disunity, or was it just a threat, or did mass ignoring just lead you to give up? Just asking, like.
Sacha said,
August 27, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Jason,
The “treatment” of David has not been haughty and arrogant at all. His account is simply fabrication, or rather re-interpretation to the point of distortion.
The idea that if you disagree with the AWL in public you get asked for a loyalty oath falls down
1. Because David was not asked for a loyalty oath;
2. Because many AWL comrades regularly disagree with the majority line in public. Look at our website! It displays quite a bit more open debate than the PR site (the second best on the left for this, undoubtedly). Sometimes these debates become heated, but they are genuinely conducted without any kind of real fall out, eg look at our debate on Iraq.
I think you are probably imagining that what happened to David is a bit like what happened to you in Workers Power. But it isn’t, because the AWL is completely different from Workers Power. We are a democratic centralist organisation with a highly libertarian and pluralist culture, not a rigid bureaucratic sect.
Sacha said,
August 27, 2008 at 2:27 pm
I’d like to add, again: can any other group on the left list the kind of democratic institutions, safeguards and rights the AWL can:
- Conference open to all members;
- Any members can propose a motion;
- NC elected by all members, with a completely free vote; anyone can be nominated;
- EC elected by NC;
- Constitutional right to form factions;
- Constitutional right to express disagreements publicly;
- Website with free posting of comments and paper whose norms is to print disagreements;
- Elected Disputes Committee made up of non-NC members to deal with disputes.
Would any other group like to show us their constitution – the AWL’s is on its website!!
Darren said,
August 27, 2008 at 2:36 pm
#300
“can any other group on the left list the kind of democratic institutions, safeguards and rights the AWL can:”
Erm,
the SPGB?
I would post a link to their rule book but I’m doing laundry. Maybe when the spin cycle finishes.
johng said,
August 27, 2008 at 3:03 pm
I think the difficulty here for many socialists looking in, is that if it is indeed the case that a perfect democratic and pluralistic organisation can come up with a majority line as batty and appalling as the one the AWL appears to hold, so much the worse for democracy and pluralism. And if it is indeed the case that someone criticising such positions coming from a general perspective that most on the left would be more sympathetic with, decides that the debate is hardly worth having, many would not think this a particularly childish or ill-educated position. More like common sense. In the end the way fifty or so people organise their internal discussions might not be the most striking thing about this contratemps for most people.
Jason said,
August 27, 2008 at 3:10 pm
299 Sacha if you say David made up the loyalty oath then may be- how would I know? But I do know that on your website there is a lot of insulting of people who disagree with you. On the points about your constitution – good. Actually we have the same and did so in Workers Power except the penultimate and the one before it that we now have in PR- i.e. the right to differences in public and a website encouraging comments- though commercial spam temporarily interferes.
298- I was trying to promot an idea that the left should do things differently not one group but hey ho and I still post on SU- occasionally but I think the deabte has moved on from there.
martin ohr said,
August 27, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Johng: “I think the difficulty here for many socialists looking in, is that if it is indeed the case that a perfect democratic and pluralistic organisation can come up with a majority line as batty and appalling as the one the AWL appears to hold, so much the worse for democracy and pluralism” I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here johng- I’m going to join the swp so that I can be told the correct line every week instead of thinking for myself and arguing it though.
Alan Laurence said,
August 27, 2008 at 3:45 pm
What’s with all this whining about insulting people? Its faux precious. Sometimes people overstep the mark and have to account for themselves. Tough.
How come no-oone thinks the awl were right to wonder about DB’s intentions – after all, he was in the process of setting up another group.
Seems to me that even DB doesnt think he was that badly treated.
The bloke wrote an article that was full of lies: it caused a stir. He was asked to explain why he wrote it and write another to stop the idiot wind. He wouldnt do it because he wanted a good story to tell – he needed the hard done to narrative to launch his new group.
Shame – it would have been far more respectworthy for Db to have said,
I am to the left of the awl. I cant win inside the awl because there are too many who disagree with me. I’m off to form by own group now.
Alan Laurence said,
August 27, 2008 at 3:56 pm
And while I think on it – the awl are being drips too. Why cant they say, ‘we caught this bloke with his trousers down, he was organising a new group while still in ours. We asked him to tell the world it isnt true – he didnt. He ran off instead, saving us the bother of expelling him.’
Sacha said,
August 27, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Notice how John Game does not deal with the fact that the SWP, like a number of groups on the left but worse, has a Stalinist-style regime and internal culture, where no serious debate is tolerated and the members have precious few democratic rights.
Meanwhile, he authoritatively refers to “fifty or so” people in the same casual way that I’m sure he grossly exaggerates SWP membership. For the record, the AWL has a hundred members and some organised sympathisers beyond that. You can tell this is plausible because our summerschool is bigger than our membership; unlike Marxism, which is noticeably smaller than the SWP’s supposed membership. John, if you have some evidence as to why we only have fifty people in our organisation, perhaps you’d like to share it?
In any case, this is straightforward philistinism. How many members did the Communist League of America have when it was launched? A hundred as against the many, many thousands in the US Communist Party? CP hacks poured similar scorn on Cannon etc as “generals without an army”. Whose side would you have been on?
Jason said,
August 27, 2008 at 5:11 pm
100 members sounds plausible- I’ll take your word for it. Talking of numbers the revolutionaries who founded the TPLF and launched a popular insurrection that overhthrew a fascist dictatorship in Ethiopia was less than 20 (I know fascist is an overused term and perhaps the TPLF were not right to use it of the Derg but they did fit many of the descriptions- smashing workers’ democracy, mobilising lumpen proletariat into physical force gangs) but sadly they – Stalinists themselves- became pro-IMF dictatorship in a US client state.
However, on another matter can either Sacha or Martin explain why my posts are being deleted at the AWL website- two today- both of which effectively said
“My and Bill’s post have been deleted. Strange, eh? Perhaps it was an error- I somewhat doubt it. Tine will tell whether this post remains!
Anyway here’s mine again (in response to Bill’s which argued that we should not be surprised given the AWL’s support of reactionary politics):
But I think there may well be people in the AWL not entirely happy with this state of affairs. And also others who follow these exchanges who cannot be dismissed either.
I think there are people in the AWL worth speaking to – of course- and many are open to reason, unfortunately the ruling clique sees fit to play loyalty games and bandy insults to anyone who disagrees with them- for example calling them ‘idiotic’ or questioning their state of mind.
See this on David Broder who has apparently resigned. David’s article
Of course the antics in the AWL like in some other Trotskyist and left groups are sad in a way but not entirely surprising. This is why we in Permanent Revolution are calling for a new way to look at things, a new way of working etc. Permanent Revolution Our Way Forward
Of course many will disagree with us even on issues like Iran (where we are for working class revolution, against imperialist or proxy attacks and against the dictatorship and for working class organisation internationally against these attacks and oppression). Fair enough, you can even disagree within PR in public without loyalty oaths. But of course many might not want to join us. Fair enough as well. It would be good to get together with activists including those in left groups and those not to look at how we can begin to rebuild the left, socialism and the working class movement.”
david broder said,
August 27, 2008 at 5:18 pm
#292: No, Mark, you’ve got the wrong “Healyism” accusation! There were a few to pick from, I guess. I in fact meant this section:
“David was plainly not in a state of mind to read
or listen to what Sean said or wrote in any
loyal or rational way. And David’s stuff on Iran-
Israel showed it as clearly as the ranting about
Sean “denouncing mass working-class action
to seize power”[* see below].
He claimed that Sean “dishonestly zigzags
between empathising with Israeli hawks and
using figleaf, weasel words to avoid openly
‘advocating’ an Israeli strike against Iran in
advance…
“Sean… is far from condemning the Israeli
government’s effort to cling onto its status as
the leading regional power by force: if he
realises that such a bombing run would
hamper the possibility of workers in the region
‘uniting to fight for a socialist Middle East’, he
certainly doesn’t show it…
“Sean confuses what is ‘rational’ in the
interests of Israeli imperialism and greatpower
realpolitik with what is ‘rational’ in the
interests of humanity…
“Sean asks us to see the situation from Israel’s
point of view – ‘In Israeli eyes the facts and
alternatives here are stark’ – but is clearly
talking about the alternatives as seen in the
IDF leadership, ignoring the question of how
an attack would be viewed through the eyes of
any class-conscious Israeli…
“Sean does not want to ‘advocate’ or ‘endorse’
an attack: but this is just playing with words,
and clearly given the tone of the piece and the
fact that he is so keen to defend the rationale
for an attack which is not yet on the cards the
article can only be read as offering justification
for Olmert et al…
“It is impossible to just mix and match
between fighting for revolution and playing at
imperialist geopolitics like Sean does…”
And more of the same: in short, David’s
assertion is that Sean wants us to empathise
with the Israeli army chiefs! It is just raving,
similar to or worse than the stuff the Healyites
use to fling around in their heyday.”
* what I actually wrote was:
“[Sean]calls himself a “state socialist” and roundly denounces Draper’s idea of “socialism from below”, ie mass working-class action to seize power, as “anarchist” and “as far from the Workers’ Party tradition as Shachtman ever went”.”
Jason said,
August 27, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Never mind- just move on, take a deep breath and relax
Jason-
the Dalai Llama of the left
modernityblog said,
August 27, 2008 at 7:18 pm
HP’s back, on to better things, er:
I must say that scanning this increasingly strange thread, that the AWL doesn’t come out of it with much credit (and NO, I don’t intend to argue why, cos if you can’t see it, me explaining it 500 times won’t help either)
I am a fairly impartial observer of these exchanges, but the level of bitterness and irrationality shows, in part, why the British Left are so small
Mark Osborn said,
August 27, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Storm in teacup. No one reading this text will think you’re being accused of being in the pay of Arab states or a rapist.
“It is just raving, similar to or worse than the stuff the Healyites
use to fling around in their heyday.”
We don’t think that; this doesn’t say that. Your ‘method’ again: take something and spin it, blow it up, mislead… don’t deal with it honestly…
What we think is: you’ve been cultivated by Chris Ford; he doesn’t agree with you. He’s ‘helped’ you out of our group having decided to leave himself (to do with the split in the US group). He’s got a different agenda. You don’t really know what you think about anything. You’re young and don’t have much baggage. You think you do, but you don’t.
You are thin-skinned. You legged it after a very short and mild confrontation with some of our senior people. In fact, part of the joke here is that you’ve been treated – deliberately – with kid gloves (which answers Alan Laurence’s ‘pants down’ point, above).
You are vain and arrogant; you think you can learn nothing from anyone. Get a grip; see yourself clearly.
You have made a series of wild accusations. Really too stupid. You exagerate everything pull it out of shape and create scandals from nothings; effective for a short while maybe; but serious political people sit down and go through the documents and arguments. And when you’re found out, you’re discredited.
You are far too concerned with gossip; you have operated like a low-grade Abernite griping in the background about the group and some leaders without ever raising things properly.
You left the group with no-one else (Chris F doesn’t count). That, in itself, doesn’t look good, does it.
You have chosen to ‘fight’ your corner on this website – rather than inside the group – where you can find some people who back you up. But that’s an illusion. They’re backing you against the AWL, not for what you positively think (whatever exactly that is). It might make you feel a little better right now, but it is bad politics. It is a rotten bloc (similar to the one you created around the Iraq debate at our conference).
You still haven’t learned that making yourself feel better is not an adequate political justification for an action. How do you justify this shit above – this is the sort of trail you intend to leave throughout your political life?
How do you justify helping the Weekly Worker – well know liars – against us? ‘Justify’ is a political word, David. From your standpoint how do you justify this (I mean speaking to them, handing them our internal materials etc)? Because you’re angry with the AWL? But not everything goes, David.
Do you think this discussion has sharpened the political lines? Clarified the positions? Look back at the debate you set up on our site, or this sorry little mess. Is this your idea of debate? Are you proud of being Wally Wibblywellie? Jesus.
Let me tell you what your response wll be to me: non of this is your fault. It is the AWL’s fault. We’re to blame. Everyone else is always to blame.
Lobby Ludd said,
August 27, 2008 at 8:01 pm
As someone who has been intemperate in my criticisms of Modernity I am not a little shocked to find that I have found myself agreeing with him here (and re HP).
And bang right after his comment #311 we get Mark Osborn’s patronising bollocks. AWL ‘peckin’ party’ or what?
Lobby Ludd said,
August 27, 2008 at 11:10 pm
“Storm in teacup.” Mark?
How many words do you need to explain that?
How come the infidel DB got to be a member (and speaker?) of the AWL?There is no point in trashing this (young – does this matter?) man if you cannot take some responsibility for the situation.
The snide comments from some of the AWL’s defenders are inexcusable.
Jason said,
August 27, 2008 at 11:29 pm
So being called into the office and asked “to write an article attacking the ridiculous ‘Weekly Worker’ front page” is being treated with ‘kid gloves’ according to Mark Osborne
“a very short and mild confrontation with some of our senior people. In fact, part of the joke here is that you’ve been treated – deliberately – with kid gloves (which answers Alan Laurence’s ‘pants down’ point, above).
You are vain and arrogant; you think you can learn nothing from anyone. Get a grip; see yourself clearly.”
The point is that much of the left is in denial about our failures, about the very real problems facing us. With some it becomes lying, doing anything to convicne the faithful to ‘keep the line.’ With others it’s always just around the corner is the big catastrophe when all of a sudden what we’re saying which seems so mad to most people makes sense.
Other groups- the AWL- indulge sectarians (who happen to be one of their ‘leading people’) who refuse to condemn an Israeli attack on Iran, who define themselves as Zionist, who refuse to call for troops out now and yet put themselves forward as pluralist and democratic. Yet anyone outside their organisation who sharply disagrees with them is called variously, ‘idiotic’, supporters of ‘fascists’, ‘disgusting’, ‘noxious’; ‘hysterical’; ‘grotesque’- all quotes from http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2008/08/21/reason-politics
And then it turns out that members who too outspokenly criticise ‘leading people’ are called in and then later characterised as ‘arrogant’; ‘vain’; ’stupid’.
It’s all very well having a good constitution with democratic rights to disagree- it’s good to have such a constitution but when it is coupled with a culture of cliquishness and intolerance it is obviously not enough.
The left can and must do better.
paul m said,
August 27, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Fuck me Jason, what do they do to you in WP/PR?
You think the AWL can be a bit sharp sometimes, try reading some Marx, Lenin and Trotsky.
Broder obviously fancies himself a bit, and has fucked off from the AWL to set up some website and at the same time court the anti-AWL gallery in an apolitical way. It happens all the time on the left and the sectarians, who like to sit on the front row, like yourselves, get so excited about it it sounds like your head is about to blow off.
As for getting stuff deleted from the AWl site; maybe you did, I don’t know. But you and your mate Bj deserve to get stuff deleted, because it’s the same crap over and over again. One last thing: the MB and some other soft headed fools, the AWL seems to come out of this well to me. They gave this young comrade a lot of time and space for him to indulge himself, but enough was enough.
Lobby Ludd said,
August 28, 2008 at 12:18 am
paul m said:
(if you care, comment #316).
Well done, paul m. You are well on the way to protecting yourself from potentially dangerous outside influences.
Keep warm.
tony greenstein said,
August 28, 2008 at 2:21 am
The tragedy of this, and I experienced something similar in the International Socialists (SWP) over 30 years ago, is that the far left never learns.
Jim Denham believes he can excuse the undemocratic, cult-like behaviour of Sean Matgamna and his sidekick in believing that they had the right to demand that David produces some kind of loyalty statement, which is pure McCarthyism (are you, or have you ever been…. ) by noting the undemocratic practices of the SWP.
Not being a particularly astute or intelligent leftist, Denham has to resort to a ridiculous of the SWP’s opportunist position of not criticising the Iranian regime and seeing a counterposition between the reactionary nature of that regime and opposition to an attack on Iran. Hence the apparent question that the SWP ask Iranian dissidents goes something like this:
“Why do you pro- imperialist scum object to being killed, tortured and imprisoned by the heroic, anti-imperialist government?’
It is such a pathetic caricature, purporting to pretend that the SWP supports torture in Iran, rather than opportunistically choosing to say nothing or next to nothing about the regime, that one realises that having a debae with Denham would be like debating the finer points of book burning with Goebbels.
It is quite clear what is outrageous in the behaviour that David speaks about.
1. Receiving a phone all from an EC member Tom Unterrainer stating “I hear that you’re organising a faction” and that he and Matgamna were concerned about David’s recent “behaviour” in the Israel-Iran debate. Maybe Sean can say whether he agrees with this rather than trying to kick sand in peoples’ eyes.
2. The verbal browbeating during such a meeting where David was accused of organising ‘a rotten bloc’ with others who he apparently disagrees with. So what?
3. Accused of ’supporting and goading’ “kitsch left” attacks [whatever they are] on the AWL, questioned on his links with the CPGB and Workers’ Power and about his reasons for a personal friendship with Ben Lewis of the CPGB.
4. Resorting to amateur FBI agents David is asked what meetings he had had with the CPGB and Workers’ Power.
5. The absurd suggestion, straight from the pages of Stalinism, that David had used the same formulations’ in polemics against the guru Matgamna.
So either Jim Denham supports the above or opposes it and maybe, instead of trying to kick sand in peoples’ eyes as to what the SWP has or has not done, he could deal with what the article itself says and whether he agrees with it or not.
Whether or not David Broder appreciates it or even agrees with it, the AWL long degenerated before he set eyes on it. An organisation that cannot call for the clear and explict withdrawal of imperialist troops from Iraq, with no buts, on the absurd grounds that the labour movement needs an imperialist presence in order to develop, has long since abandoned socialism. Loyalty to one’s own ruling class is the key dividing line between reformists and revolutionary socialists. That was true of the first world war and it is true now. It’s called national chauvinism and the AWL’s position on Iraq and Israel is a consequence of that.
That is why although Denham will bleat about ‘clerical fascism’ in Iran, knowing nothing about either fascism or Iran, he passes over the fact that when the USA armed and equipped the Mojaheddine in Afghanistan via Pakistan’s ISI, the AWL position was to support political Islam and the fight against the Soviets!
The AWL’s position on Israel and Zionism, Magamna is an open Zionist, is barely worth commenting on. Whereas revolutionaries have always understood Zionism as being a counter revolutionary and anti-socialist force among Jews, as its proponents always claimed, a movement whose politics was formed as a mirror image of anti-Semitism, the AWL sees something good in Zionism, hence its vehement opposition to any effective solidarity with the Palestinians, i.e. a Boycott of Israeli goods, universities etc.
Democracy and support for imperialism have rarely gone hand in hand.
Tony Greenstein
davidbroder said,
August 28, 2008 at 2:31 am
““It is just raving, similar to or worse than the stuff the Healyites
use to fling around in their heyday.”
We don’t think that; this doesn’t say that. Your ‘method’ again: take something and spin it, blow it up, mislead… don’t deal with it honestly…”
No, Martin does say this! What are you talking about?
If it’s such a storm in a teacup I’m surprised you keep bothering with producing these wild, angry posts.
davidbroder said,
August 28, 2008 at 2:38 am
the following comment has now been deleted three times from the awl website. I’d have thought it was fairly innocuous…
“Anyone interested in the ideas of socialism from below might like a look at this pamphlet on the 1871 workers’ revolution in Paris: The Commune: Paris 1871 – Solidarity pamphlet no. 35
paul m said,
August 28, 2008 at 6:51 am
David,
You’ve hit the gallery jackpot with Greenstein coming in on your side.
Well done.
Mark in Hong Kong said,
August 28, 2008 at 8:47 am
davidbroder, I don’t know you, or the Workers Liberty people, but I can think and read.
If you were really interested in publicising that pamphlet, you might try linking to one of the many other places on the web where it is hosted, as opposed to using it as an excuse to plug your new website. You really don’t get it, do you? Are you going to complain that the AWL won’t publish the text in their paper as well? What do you expect? Are you in this just to stir shit?
And ’storm in a teacup’ – true, but such benjisms aren’t welcome in such a serious discussion as this clearly is.
Mark in Hong Kong said,
August 28, 2008 at 8:53 am
And davidbroder, this tiresome business would be so much more interesting if I had the feeling you were interested in the politics of it all, and not just in gossip and your supposed/possible ‘bad treatment’, the ‘Martin (who he?) said this’, ‘Mark Osborne wrote this’, ‘Shaun said that’, ‘No he didn’t”, ‘yes they did’ blahblahblah. The political differences between whatever brand of Trotskyism and other ideas of socialism from below, anarchism, syncidalism, etc. are (I find) interesting and worth discussing. The left, including myself, should learn more about them.This stuff isn’t interesting, despite 323 comments so far and counting.
Sacha said,
August 28, 2008 at 10:10 am
Hi David,
Mark’s point – supported by both the bit he quotes and the bit you quote – is that Martin didn’t accuse you of being Healyite, much less in the sense of a supporter of the practices of the Healyite organisation in its final, grotesque days after it had ceased to be part of the left. He accused you of using *the kind of arguments* against us that the Healy group used in its “heyday” (he specificies 1969, before any of the stuff you focus on had started).
Jason, David regularly used to come into the office and go for discussions with Sean in the local Starburger. I hardly see that being asked to come and meet for such a discussion, asked to post a comment critical of a group virulently attacking the AWL, agreeing (under no compulsion or administrative directive of any sort) and then changing his mind, is very sinister or anti-democratic.
Darren said,
August 28, 2008 at 10:15 am
#321
“You’ve hit the gallery jackpot with Greenstein coming in on your side.
Well done.””
As the case against Cde Broder has now descended to such great political heights as the comment listed above can I join the braying mob in condemning Cde Broder for wearing a red England football shirt at the recent Communist University?
Made me think of those trio of arseholes, Terry, Lampard and Ashley Cole. Cde Broder, how could you?
That’s your fault, that is.
Jason said,
August 28, 2008 at 10:23 am
Well even if being asked to “write an article attacking the ridiculous ‘Weekly Worker’ front page” isn’t part of a loyalty test- and of course there are many ways in which it might not be as much as there are many ways in which it could be so interpreted (and ceretainly does seem to have been interpreted by someone in this case)- the completely over the top emotive terms used for people you disagree with does give off an unpleasant air.
You say you want debate, discussion, and reasoned disagreement. Fine. So let’s leave off the insults because like it or not it is a type of discussion that has disfigured the left and makes it seem to an outsider look like a viper’s nest of vicious pettiness and hatred.
Sacha said,
August 28, 2008 at 10:29 am
Hi Jason,
Yes, some of my comrades have been quite rude in this debate. In a couple of cases, I think they’ve been out of order and have told them so in no uncertain terms. However, this is in a context where big parts of the left have been willing to quite shamelessly lie about Sean M, AWL and our politics – most notably in the case of the CPGB.
One or two individuals losing it should not be allowed to distract from the basic point about how the AWL has been repeatedly slandered – nor from the fact that we are an organisation with a highly democratic, libertarian and pluralist internal life.
Sacha
PS I’ve posted a link on the AWL website (to libcom.org) to the text of the Solidarity pamphlet on the Paris Commune
davidbroder said,
August 28, 2008 at 10:47 am
Mark in Hong Kong – I didn’t know that this pamphlet was on the web. We’ve been scanning stuff in and correcting it… there’s plenty on the site which has long been out of print. The “storm in a tea cup” comment was by Mark Osborn at #292.
Jason – I don’t really want to keep this argument rolling, since it’s obviously pointless, but I was explicitly told to write a “loyalty statement” – those words were repeated several times.
<