A couple of weeks ago after being told by Jim Denham at the Shiraz socialist blog that he wanted to ban me rather than engage in rational debate I wrote that I would save him the trouble, bevcause for the next couple of months or so I would be touring Europe. It had been my intention to concentrate on some rlaxation and re-writing of my novel. But I was drawn to the Shiraz site by a link about the resignation of Dave Broder from the AWL. Incidentally, I am glad he has been able to make this move in time.
Whilst there I spotted another rant by Jim Denham in response to my letter to the Weekly Worker about Denham and the AWL's position on South Ossetia. Such letter's are now necessary in addition to my comments here because the AWL simply delete my comments to there site - a practice they now seem to be adopting generally to other comrades too - and there hacks like Denham threaten the same response elsewhere.
So I wrote a brief response and submitted it. It didn't appear so I can only assume that Denham has effected his threat to ban me from the site. Interesting, because at the top of the post he had asked me for my opinion on reports of Russian ethnic cleansing in Georgia!!! That seems to be one of his odd ways of arguing, for example lamely claiming that I had been frightened to take up his challenge in the original post - because I had not seen his comments immediately to respond to - and then accusing me of lying when I explained why I had not immediately responded! The charge is ridiculous I am not frightened of Jim Denham on any basis of human existence, or any sphere of human activity. Replying to his lame argument took only a matter of minutes. Now he demands a reply, but prevents me from replying by physically banning me from the site! When that first happened with the AWL they claimed it was a "technical error". They dropped that pretext a short time ago, and Denham simp[ly announces his intention in advance. This from people who claim to want "rational debate". Dave Broder's piece showed how "kitsch" that claim is.
Denham asks what my attitude to reports of Russian ethnic cleansing is in Georgia. The answer is simple. Look at my blogs here. At the time it happened - not a week later as it took the AWL to dream up a form of words to cover their difficulties given their position on Kosovo - I posted my blog "Georgia and Russia out of South Ossetia". Look at all the other blogs that followed that give no support to either Georgia or Russia in this conflict and which instead insisted on the need for a workers solution and for the building of workers unity across borders. Comnpare that with the apologism of Denham's piece in respect of the Georgian agression, an apologism that is symptomatic of the AWL's posiitons over the last few years which have sought to defend the actions of imperialism and its agents - the apologism in advance of an Israeli attack on Iran being just the latest.
The other Minority comrades in the AWL should follow Dave Broder and Chris Ford's example. Get out of this degenerating Stalinist sect now before you are corrupted any further.
Arthur,
ReplyDeleteHope you are having a nice time in Europe, sounds good to me. The weather in Wales is particularly wet at the moment.
I don't know if you look at the Workers Liberty site any more, but I did write some comments there in relation to the Israel-Iran issue. More correctly I wrote about the fact that the AWL were arguing that Trotsky had said that socialists should back "democratic" imperialism as against fascist states. Now, you might want to argue that socialists SHOULD make such a distinction - though I don't thin so - but TRotsky certainly argued nothing of the kind.
I showed he had said the exact opposite, quoting Trotsky's argument against the Palestnian section. Sean Matgamna then replied saying Trotsky in that very piece DID argue that such a distinction be made. But, he conveniently left off the last sentence of Trotsky's comment, which totally reverses the meaning of what he actually said.
I pointed that out, and also gave 19 quoutes from Trotsky's Writings for 1938-9 in which Trotsky argues that "democracy" and fascism are just two masks used by capitalism, and that what is important is not this political form, but the underlying economic and social content. This provoked some further debate.
However, my comments too like yours have been deleted,a nd I see from comrades from other groups that there comments are being deleted too. In fact, I agree with your assessment that politically the AWL can now only be described as Stalinist both in terms of their politics on the national Question etc. and in terms of their bureaucratic organisational methods, which have also been exposed by David Broder.
If you like I will post my comments in respect of Trotsky and the two masks here.
Llin Davies
"The other Minority comrades in the AWL should follow Dave Broder and Chris Ford's example."
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely.
Llin,
ReplyDeleteI very rarely visit the AWL site now. What is the point? They delete my comments, its impossible to know how many comments from other comrades they have deleted, there is no rational debate there only rudeness and childish name calling just like there Shiraz Socialist comments, and to be honest I have better things to do with the rest of my life than watch the final death agonies of such an irredeamable, and insignificant sect.
However, I did see you comments and was impressed by the 19 quotes you gave, in fact I referred to it here somewhere. I would be happy to host those posts here now that the AWL have deleted them rather than replying to them. The best thing would be for you to let me have your e-mail address so that I can discuss how to present them then you can mail them to me so that I can post them. I aw on a News report what you meant about the wet weather in Wales, but what's new?
Vicki,
ReplyDeleteI read a suggestion somewhere that Dave Broder should have led a fight inside the AWL to take as many comrades with him as possible. I disagree. IN some large party that might be the correct principled thing to do, but the AWL is a sect of a few dozen people. The likely consequence had Dave stayed for any length of time would have been that he woul simply have become worn down, demoralised and lost for revolutionary politics altogether. The article that Dave has posted shows why the atrtegy of cobntinuing a fight would have been pretty much a waste of time. This is a Stalinist organisation that uses all of the bureacratic and psychological techniques that such organisations are well known for. Dave's account his interrogation is very reminiscent of the kind of paranoia of Stalinism in the 1930's that led up to the show trials. I predicted only a few weeks ago that Dave and any other comrades from the Minority who presnted a thrreat to the leadership would face the same kind of abuse, rudeness and bureaucracy that previouslyhas been reserved for comrades outside the AWL. I didn't think that would happen so soon.
The fact is that just as with Stalinism in the 1930's the AWL leadership will be forced to use such techniques within their organisation, and for the same reasons. The organisations petty-bourgeois methodology has led it into a series of political mistakes, and the more those mistakes are brought to light by Marxists outside the AWL the more the leadership is forced to silence any criticism inside the organisation. In order to defrend such actions to the membership it is forced to seek to paint those against whom action is taken s in some way alien to it, even as agents of other organisations. To do otherwise would mean waging a political fight against those ideas, but the last few years has shwn that that is precisely what the AWL leaderhip is incapable of doing. From all accounts it effectively lost that politial fight at the last AWL Conference.
As the 1930's show trials demonstrated once a Stalinist organisatin like the AWL starts down this path it can only cntinue with such a corse of action, becoming increasingly paranoid, increasingly fierce in its actions against its own membership. Stalinism in the USSR could withstand such a process only because it rested upon the social foundations of a Workers State, an because of the nature of the role of the bureaucracy within that social system i.e. it could continually renew itself with new bureaucrats. The AWL has no such social basis and its end cannot be far off for that reason.
There is for that reason good cause for the healthy elements in the AWL to get out as soon as possible. The history of the trajectory of such organisations is frightening. At best we see them collapsing or fragmenting into the Camp of the right-wing of the bourgeoisie, at worst and depending uon the political conjuncture we see at least individuals from such organisations simply going over o the fascists - we have already seen the SWP which began as a Third Campist organistion declaring its synonymity with the lerical-fascists of Hezbollah, for instance, we have seen the experience of Mussolini and others in Italy, and even of German Stalinists in the 1930's simply going over to Hitler. Finally, we should remember Trotsky's statement that the only difference between Stalinism and Nazism was that Stalinism was based on a Workers State, whereas Nazism was based on a Capitalist State.
But, I would like to make this point. In saying all ths I am not saying that any of the other Leninist organisations are ultimately any better. Although, some of thm have remained more firmly on the ground of a Marxist methodology it s a Marxist methodology operating through a Leninist prism. Ultimately, that Leninism leads to a top-down statist view of the world, and of socialist transformation, it also leads to the kind of Stalinist degeneration we now see in the AWL, the AWL only differs in this conjuncturally and as a result of its adoption of petty-bouregois Third Campism some years go. What we have is a dialectical process taking place. Had the AWL remained on the ground of a Marxist methodology rather than collapsing into Third campism it would not have made the mistakes it has made over recent years, and consequntly would not now need to take the organisational measures it is resorting to. But as I have outlined elsewhere it was the contradiction it faced in trying to reconcile its Leninism to the experience of the USSR that led to the adoption of Third Campism in the first place. It wants to say if we lead 1917 Mark II things will be different, but a Dave Broder has demonstrated and as anyone who has witnessed the rudeness and methods of the AWL can see this is not the kind of organisation that any sensible workers would want to have controlling the full force of a state apparatus. The same is true of any other organisationthat clings to "Leninism". I put that in quotes because I doubt that Lenin himself today would adhere to what passes for Leninism either.
PS. I get the feeling from Dave's piece a sense of that paranoia within he AWL. Note that he wasn't asked about his relatioship JUST to the CPGB, but to the CPGB and Worker Power despite the fact these are two distinct organisations. This gives the sense of a psychology in which there is a feeling of "everyone is against us", there is some conspiracy going on even amongst separate, and it has to be said usually hostile organisations.
ReplyDeleteIts no wonder that within this kind of paranoid environment the AWL deleted m comments etc. to their website which were pretty identical to those eveloped by the AWL Minority in relation to Iraq -though in fact I hd been developing and arguing those ideas since 2003 way before the Minority put forward its position. But its easy to see in the mind of a paranoiac how such coincidences - which of course are not coincidences at all when Marxists use the same method of analysis of world events - are merely proof of such a conspiracy.
I have it in the back of my mind that a few weeks ago I metnioned in one of my blogs that even one of the AWL's own mebers had said to m in ane-mail discussion that the rudeness of some AWL comrades was inexcusable. Its posible this comment could have been picked up and the assumption made that the comrade concerned was Dave Broder hat would indeed feed further into the sense of paranoia and hastened the need to get the sworn sttement from Dave Broder that is reminiscent of the type of statements the talinists used to demand from Trotsky during the 1920's. Well, to add to the paranoia I can state absolutely that it wasn't Dave Broder, but someone who I have known from the AWL for a very long time.
Incidentally, the experience of the Israel-Iran issue and f the AWL Conference decsion reminded me of something the other day. I remember back in the late 70's that I went to a meeting where Jim Denham spoke about building rank and file organisations in the workplace. One of the things that he said was about fighting for a course of action, but that if you failed to win a Majority to that position simply going ahead anyway. At the time as a Leninist I could see the logic of this at least if you could draw behind yousuficently large fores that it was simply not adventurist. That afer all is whatthe Bolseviks did in 1917, and when Lenin couldn't wn majorities in the Soviets he instead argued that they should base themseves on voes in the Facrory ommittees where they could win Majorities. There are times too, for example, in relation to some United Front organisation where Marxists wuld not want to tie their hands to what actions they might undertake simply to what they could persuade other parties to agree to.
I went back and spoke about this approach to other members of the local SO group - at the time we had around 15 members for a few weeks at the commencement of the SCLV. But, shortly afterwards the weakness of this approach was demonstrated. We had a Joint Campaign with the SWP and others around Unemployment, and a management Committee of a local Unmployed Workers Centre. At one meeting I there had been a long debate over some issue - I can't remeber what now - the end result being that I won a Majority as against the position being put forward by the SWP. Subsequently, the SWP simply ignored th decision and did what they had wanted to do anyway. Not surprisinly, I was sitting nails at this undemocratic action by the SW, but as one of the SO - now former - members retorted, its only what you were arguing you should do a while ago!
It seems to me that this is what has happened over the Iran issue. The leadership lost the vote, but then did what it wanted to do anway. I don't think that's peculiar to the AWL leadership. I think its symptomatic of the undemocratic nature of Leninism.
Arthur,
ReplyDeleteYou can contact me at:
llindavies@live.co.uk
Llin
That's a remarkably long post, and not one I feel especially qualified to respond to! For me, certain groups are entirely beyond redemption. Playing into the hands of the imperialists, siding with the Israeli ruling class above the working class of Iran - and indeed the whole Middle East - and persisting in this meaningless "debate" over whether Iran is developing nuclear weapons... Why on earth would any self-respecting anti-imperialist (and especially one of Broder's intellect) think there's anything left to fight for in an organisation with such a morally and intellectually bankrupt leadership? I suspect you might be correct concerning the AWL's paranoia as well.
ReplyDeleteI'm not prepared to univerally dismiss all Leninists (belonging to an organisation calling for a Leninist-Trotskyist international, I think that would be a bit of a strange move on my part!) Personally, I would describe myself as a Marxist not a Leninist. Pushed, I would say my closest affiliation is to Luxemburg. I highly doubt that piece of personal information is of any interest to you, but I thought I might share! At any rate, democracy is pretty weak in the British left as a rule atm.
"It seems to me that this is what has happened over the Iran issue. The leadership lost the vote, but then did what it wanted to do anway." Agreed.
Comments made by the AWL and Jim Denham in particular during the "debate" were unforgivable. Accusing anyone and everyone of "anti-Semitism" was especially disgusting.
Vicki,
ReplyDeleteI think there probably are people in the AWL worth fighting for - after all the vote for the Minority at the last Conference was effectiely 50-50. My point is that with such a small organisation is it worth the risk of losing one or two good comrades through demoralisation waging such a fight for the sake of winning away a dozen or so more, who if they are really worth saving should be thinking about leaving themselves anyway?
On Leninism its not the whole of what lenin wrote and stood for that I am against, but more what "leninism" is taken as meaning by most of those that call themselves leninist. As I said I suspect lenin himself would probably repeat marx's words that "If this is Leninism then I am no Leninist." Lenin repeated that much of what he wrote was specific to the conditions in Russia. I have little arguemnt with Lenin on the National Question or on the Colonial Question. But, even on the question of Party organisation I do not disagree with the basic ideas set out in "What is to be Done?" I think it is clearly necessary for Marxists to organise effectively to fight for their ideas. My argument is against the idea that this can only be done through the development of some separate pure party as opposed to being seen as the organised left-Wing of the Workers Party defined as that party to which the vast majority of the working class gives its support at any one time.
My further objection wold be to the idea of socialist transformation coming as the result of a political revolution uudnertaken by a Vanguard Minority of the working class, which then proceeds to transform the productive relations. I can see why such a position was adopted in Russia in the early 20th century, but I think the consequence then and now is predictable of such an approach.
I think the attitude of the AWL and of some of its leading members to debate is deplorable, and recent comments by independent socialists for example about the AWL's behaviour at the discussion meetings organised by The Commune illustrate the point. Not only is there approach thoroughly dishonest, but I find the abusive tone, and rudensss alarming in its indication of the political trajectory of such people.
As for Jim Denham the Internet is often referred to as the Global Village. In Jim denham I think we have found that village's idiot.