Why Did The Weekly Worker Group ("CPGB") Chicken Out Of Debating AWL On Iraq?
By Paul Hampton
The CPGB, those pretentious squirrels of left-wing tittle-tattle, outdid themselves by chickening out of a debate with the AWL over Iraq.
- For The "CPGB" — Gossip or Political Debate? By David Broder click here
- For An Open Letter to a confused Anti-Imperialist, by Sean Matgamna click here
They have sought in vain to manufacture mischief with some AWL comrades who disagree with the group’s position on Iraq. After a series of private e-mails demanding that the AWL minority agitate to “clear out the leadership of the scabs”, the CPGB invited David Broder to debate with them at their overinflated “communist university”, under the title: troops out – but when? David referred the matter to the AWL office, which generously put up Sean Matgamna to speak for our politics.
What was the reaction of the CPGB? To withdraw the invitation to speak. To publish lies in their worthless “communist Hello” paper about having problems getting a speaker. To falsify the AWL position on Iraq. To warble on about really wanting a debate about Iran. To hold a “debate” where all the speakers on the platform would answer “Now!” instead of debating openly with the AWL, which disagrees. And all that in front of an audience of 20. (Or, to be precise, 18 — I saw only 18 people go in during the first couple of hours of the first day of "The Communist University".)
Mark Fischer promised readers in the latest Weekly Worker that he is willing to debate the AWL on any other occasion – just not at his own event, in front of his own people. Fischer, ever the mañana socialist, always promises debate tomorrow, always another day – just not at the time and the place he’d been arranging for weeks.
And all this from an organisation that tosses around the word “scab” and yet took six weeks to even bother to write about the postal dispute, the most important industrial action for years. (Picket lines not political enough, comrades?) An organisation which wants to talk about Iran but couldn’t send anyone to the largest demo for years outside the Iranian embassy on Thursday, called in solidarity with imprisoned Iranian workers.
An organisation that for four years has failed to do anything to help Iraqi socialists and trade unionists build a labour movement. An organisation that wants to inherit the mantle of the Stalinist CPGB that really did organise scabbing during WWII and acted for decades as the agents of the Russian Stalinist ruling class in the British labour movement.
Chickens when it comes to debate. Chicken shit when it comes to politics.
- PaulHampton's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Putting the facts straight
1. No-one at the AWL office deleted Arthur's account, nor, unless there is some technical quirk on the site we don't know about, is there any way we could have deleted it by mistake. We're as puzzled as anyone else about how it got deleted. There is no obvious way of tracking such deletions, but we've asked the techies to investigate.
2. We did delete 6 comments added by Arthur in very quick succession to a piece by Al Glotzer. This is no more "censorship" than would be an intervention by the chair of a meeting to restrain someone who followed the main speaker by demanding to speak six times in succession, and at length.
3. Anyone who accuses the AWL of "censorship" here is seriously off balance. Excuse me, which other group on the British or world left allows such freedom of hostile comment on its website? In its paper and in its public meetings too?
4. Debate? Good idea. Read the piece by Glotzer and the article by Ernest Mandel which it was a reply to - we presented both sides of the debate - think about the issues, and comment. But at appropriate length. If you have a huge screed to contribute, put it on your own blog or website and post a link to it.
5. I talked to Arthur a few months ago because a number of people had expressed concern about the huge volume of his postings. At that time Arthur accepted that the concerns were reasonable and said he would take the main volume of his posting to an offsite blog and limit his comments on our site to brief ones providing links to those offsite writings.
6. Arthur has the right to change his mind, of course; but he could not be surprised if we continued to be concerned, and acted on our concerns. Censorship? No more than the person who wants to intervene at every public meeting at huge length can accuse a reasonable chairperson of censorship.
7. Thanks to Paul for putting the issue succinctly: "Any debate, real or virtual must have rules, or those with the loudest voices, or most time, win out. If the AWL organise, fund and maintain this site, I believe they have the right to set the rules. You could set up your own blog for nothing - as many have done successfully and won a readership".
8. The only thing I'd add is that any "rules" here are very lightweight. We delete comments or unsubscribe users when the comments are obviously spam or "trolling" - or, in Arthur's case, unique up to now and very probably forever, where the sheer volume is so overwhelming that e.g. an important historical document of our movement (important whether you agree with it or not) is smothered by a huge splurge of comments.
Martin Thomas
off balance?
i'm not talking about deleting a few posts. i was trying to say that to delete an account and all the posts is very harsh. it would have been a form of censorship in my opinion.
as you say AWL only deleted 6 posts then i concede that wouldn't necessarily be censorship. however, its hardly 'off balance' to talk of censorship when it appears that an account has been deleted. i run a small private forum and if an account and all its posts disappeared i would consider it a big problem and my forum is no historical document. i would have made a statement to members and tried to contact the person.
surely this site must be backed up, why not just reinstate the deleted material?
Retrieve the deleted material?
If it's practically feasible, ok. As I said, we're consulting the techies.
Martin Thomas
Bough Affair concluded, I think. Now, what about the CPGB?
One of the techies has found a way to restore Arthur's account. That settles that, I think. Now, any comment on the CPGB/WW's refusal to debate a spokesperson from the AWL on Iraq?
Attorney — yeah right!
Paul,
I don't understand why you call me 'disingenuous'. Why not just debate the issue without going through a 'labelling' stage. I could step it up and call you something nasty in response. But where does this name-calling get us, comrade? Nowhere. I happen to agree with the CPGB on this issue — presumably that doesn't put me beyond the pale.
The idea that Lawrence Parker or any other Rotten Elements writer is an attorney for the CPGB, would, I humbly suggest, be treated with some horror by the CPGB/PCC who we have not spared on our pages with criticism and piss-taking when we have deemed it politically or artistically necessary.
But moving beyond this comrade, you just keep stacking up contradictions for yourself. You say: "The AWL decided on Sean, they denied him a platform and that's why we didn't go in." Okay, in your view you had a cast-iron case of Sean being excluded. You felt strongly enough that you mobilised a picket. When then not take this into the debate itself? Surely this would have maximised your intervention's impact in the 'belly of the beast' among people not CPGB members. Take the fight to the opposition and so on.
By not doing so you only reinforce the idea that you weren't that keen on debating in a more structured manner. I can't comment on the 'oaf' business, 'making threats' and so on. What I would say is that I heard you arguing with Peter Manson: but you or your picket didn't look like being bent on rational debate. (I presume you all weren't on some sort of 'sponsored scowl' for the day.)
However, I feel, like Mark Fischer (which presumably marks me out as some sort of weirdo), to continue either with this 'exclusion' debate or the red herring of 'Stalinism vs Trotskyism' is a diversion to what the problem really is: Iraq. To that end presumably your org is stepping up its efforts to debate the CPGB at the first available opportunity. I look forward to it, comrades.
Regards,
Lawrence
CPGB chicken out of debating the AWL on Iraq
The reply by Sean Matgamna 'An open letter to a confused anti-imperialist' is simply embarrassing. Why the need for personal abuse? Jack Conrad's 'beautiful mind' etc. Does this add to the argument or posing as a 'friend' of the CPGB in the AWL? What purpose to these silly games other than as a diversion?
The argument was about calling and campaigning for troops out of Iraq. No more and no less. The question of Afghanistan and who supported what is neither here nor there. I didn't follow the CPGB/the Leninist's position on Afghanistan 25 years ago, but I am aware that unlike the AWL they didn't support the Mojahedeen and Political Islam!
I can give my position if that helps. I opposed the invasion of Soviet troops but opposed calls for them to withdraw. The overthrow of the monarchy was an attempt to install a regime based on liberal, middle class elements in the cities. The Soviet Union didn't wish a reactionary feudal regime to come to power for geo-political reasons and intervened to support its friends in Afghanistan. Given the choice between support for the US and its allies in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, because that was who the main backers of the Mojahedeen were, then of course one backed the regime in Kabul. Al Queda and the Taliban incidentally were formed by the Saudis and the Pakistani ISI, secret service.
But what has this little diversion got to do with Iraq? Equally irrelevant is the history of the CPGB as opposed to the Weekly Worker CPGB. We all know the crimes of Stalinism but my understanding, not being a member, is that the present CPGB rejects that history, including I would assume both the 3rd Period and the instructions to the German CP to do nothing on the rise to power of Hitler.
But Iraq was the issue that Sean tries to duck. A country where upwards of 1 million people have been killed already. It is a basic principle of socialists that we support self-determination of peoples. How can this possibly be squared with the invasion of the United States in its pursuit of the control of oil? The 'bloodbath' theory of colonialism and imperialism, viz. that once having occupied a country then that occupation must be supported for fear of something worse was the traditional standby of social democratic apologists for colonialism. It is no coincidence that the AWL has adopted it in its search for a third way.
And to argue that the CPGB ducked a debate with the AWL on Iraq when they specifically invited David Broder to such a debate is absurd. Why is the AWL fearful of a supporter of a minority position within the organisation taking part in a public debate?
Tony Greenstein
"Fearful of a supporter of a minority position...?"
For the record: the AWL's rule, and as far as I know we are the only group on the left to have it, is that members with minority views can and should express their own views publicly, so long as they make it clear that they are minority views and explain to the best of their ability what the AWL position is.
So, no, we are not at all fearful of members with minority views taking part in public debates.
But if the AWL, as an organisation, is invited to debate an issue, it's not unreasonable for us to want to send a representative of the AWL's position. And not unreasonable for us to say it's a bit off if a group, having declared themselves up for debating Iraq, then refuses to accept our chosen representative.
The only ones?
Martin,
You say: "For the record: the AWL's rule, and as far as I know we are the only group on the left to have it, is that members with minority views can and should express their own views publicly, so long as they make it clear that they are minority views and explain to the best of their ability what the AWL position is."
The CPGB has exactly the same position, comrade. They gave the minority Red Platform a column in the Weekly Worker a while back. I have sat in oudles of CPGB seminars, summer schools (at which AWL members were present: Palestine/Israel; Soviet Union; Ireland) and read a whole set of articles where members (including myself when I was a member) expressed minority views in public. Surely AWL members are aware of this? After all, members of CPGB minorities have spoken at your school (Manny Neira, Red Platform). I have even seen references to the CPGB's old Manchester minority (which you classed as Stalinist and Irish nationalist — only partly true as it happened). I presume you sussed out this minority from its public expressions.
Still, any port in a storm, eh Martin?
Regards,
Lawrence
Minority views, debate etc
We in Permanent Revolution also have similar ideas I beleive to allow the rights of minorities to express views publicly- as far as I am aware there aren't many things we disagree on as yet but still.
We also like the AWL allow comments on our web site- something that should be seen as basic but isn't that common. I know Revolution the L5I youth thing do as well though it seems to be underused at the moment.
Still the AWL did seem to be quite rude to anyone posting here before though there seems to have been an improvement I must say.
Rules, or grace and favour?
Yes, the CPGB/WW lets members express minority views in public. Is that grace and favour or do they have a rule about it? No rule, as far as I know. In the past the CPGB group had a row, producing a split, when some members pressed (unsuccessfully) for the "Provisional Central Committee" to be elected by the membership rather than self-appointed.
A prediction
On form to date, what will we get next from the Weekly Worker? They'll approach Arthur to publish complaints against the AWL in the Weekly Worker. Another attempt to pump up a "democratic" outcry about nothing - and to try to float the CPGB/WW on the waters of the indiscriminate moaning against all activist organisations of what John Bridge once notoriously sneered at as the "flotsam and jetsam of the left".
Martin Thomas
F&J
Martin,
your memory is mistaken comrade. In his reply to you over the idea of a Socialist Alliance paper in February 2002, Jack Conrad argued: "The Socialist Alliance independents are flotsam and jetsam. Ideologically incoherent, organisationally ineffective, they are often half-burnt out because of profoundly negative experiences in one or another of the confessional sects - WRP, IMG, SPEW, SWP, etc. Comrades such as these cannot be expected to provide the lead [on an SA paper]."
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/421/cpgb_reply.html
Thus it was the SA so-called independents, refugees from what you call "the activist organisations" who were being classed as "flotsam and jetsam", not the core orgs of the SA or left organisations in general.
Also, you predict "indiscriminate moaning against all activist organisations". The idea of this united front is touching, comrade. I presume when the WW covers Respect and GG this week you will express your heartfelt solidarity with the Respect activists up and down the country being "moaned about". Do you have any examples of such moaning? One of my motivations for buying and reading your publications as a student was to listen to my SO seller, with some style and truth, moan about the SWP. Please don't tell me you've kissed and made up!
regards
Lawrence
To Jason -
If PR does allow minority comrades to express their views publicly (and you don't seem sure), that's quite a break with Workers' Power's Stalinist conception of democratic centralism. I look forward to seeing some evidence of this when you disagree on something.
Democratic centralism
We have substantially altered our concept of democratic centralism.
Some such as the CBGB may feel it doesn't go far enough. Admittedly a potenital fault may be that the group can still impose a lack of open debate where it feels that it could compromise security of the organisation and this in principle may be open to abuse- however, it partly depends on trust.
In practice, so far members have expressed opinions relatively freely before having a group line decided democratically and can continue to debate openly e.g. on the prison wild cat actions.
By the way 'Stalinist' is over the top- Zinovie-ite might be more ac curate. As crap as Workers Power became the leadership never attmepted to physically liquidate us though trust broke down and accusations came flying- we do now beleive that WP even its healthier days had an overstrict overcentralised idea of dc.
From our founding statement:
"14. Last but not least we re-assert our support for the organisation of our tendency on the principles of democratic centralism. However, we reject the idea that democratic centralism is merely a code word for monolithism. The revolutionary organisation, if it is both healthy and based on the working class, will necessarily reflect differences of emphasis, of tactics and of theory even though it remains united around an agreed revolutionary programme. For us the essence of democratic centralism is as simple as the decision to strike - once agreed all accept the decision, any who don't are scabs. It allows for maximum democracy in advance of a decision and maximum unity in carrying through a decision. But this principle is a far cry from the increasing bureaucratic centralism that evolved in our parent organisation and that has scarred so many groupings within the movement over many years. Unity in action does not mean uniformity of thought. And unity in action does not preclude open debates within the ranks of an organisation prior to action. The only provisos are:
the opening out of discussions to a broader public are the decisions of the organisation itself, not of the individuals or groups involved
individual members have the right to explain to people, if they so wish, where and why the disagree with the majority line in circumstances where such public disclosure does not threaten the security of the organisation or any of its members or the effectiveness of a particular action. Individual members, therefore, will only go public once this has been agreed between them and the relevant unit of the organisation (branch, union fraction, caucus, national committee, aggregate etc.)
15. The importance of both of these points is that within not only the L5I but in much of the Trotskyist left democratic centralism has become a means of disciplining loyal revolutionaries rather than real class enemies. It has become a weapon in the hands of "majority" committees against "minorities" who remain loyal to the point where they can be expelled merely for what someone described on a web discussion about our own tendency, "thoughtcrime". If that was the reality of democratic centralism then none of us would have had the privilege of being able to read Lenin's April Theses. We reject this Stalinist influenced version of democratic centralism. Membership of our organisation is voluntary - you join if you agree with our fundamental programme. If you disagree, fundamentally, with aspects of that programme you need not join us. However, the programme does not answer each and every question thrown up in the course of class struggle. There are many issues around which there can be substantial disagreement but those disagreements do not undermine the agreed programme. The fact that the Bolsheviks could, in the period of July and August 1917, have a debate in which one wing openly rejected the slogan "all power to the soviets" while others maintained its importance demonstrates this most graphically. For this reason, against the school of thought that paints democratic centralism exclusively in terms of "authority", "discipline" and the repression of internal dissent, we re-assert Lenin's view of democratic centralism, expressed in 1906: "The principle of democratic centralism and autonomy for local party organisations implies universal and full freedom to criticise so long as this does not disturb the unity of a definite action; it rules out all criticism which disrupts or makes difficult the unity of action decided on by the party & criticism within the limits of the principles of the party programme must be quite free & not only at party meetings but also at public meetings." "
Well WW can take time to
Well WW can take time to contact Arthur for an interview for their gossip sheet, but have been unable to reply to my letter of complaint, of a week ago, about a serious matter.
I can almost forgive them their mad politics, but there is no excuse for bad manners.
If the CPGB had accepted
If the CPGB had accepted Sean as a speaker, then David would also have attended and spoken from the floor. So much for our unwillingness to let representatives of minority positions take part in debate.
Arthur, I find it quite irritating that there is now an article in Weekly Worker representing the technical problem through which your blogs etc were deleted as appalling censorship by the AWL. Are you going to write a letter to Weekly Worker clarifying what actually happened?
I've sent them two emails
I've sent them two emails Arthur, so they've got my email address.
What about them?
Martin,
I presume then that this letter quoted in a WW article was a forgery or a lie. Call me dumb if you like, but they don't sound as if they are running scared of you.
“Lastly, we would like to make it clear that we would relish the chance to debate Sean or any other pro-occupation AWL comrade at any other time. Please feel free to suggest some dates.”
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/685/awl.htm
Also, as I have said on this site before, why, if the AWL are so keen to expose the CPGB in public, did Paul H and co decline to take up the offer to come in and speak from the floor? Why didn't you let Sean and Dave B speak? A reasonable compromise.
Regards,
Lawrence
In writing
Martin,
this is from the draft programme (which all members must at least accept before joining):
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/documents/cpgb/prog_party.html#criticism
The CPGB is organised on the basis of democratic centralism. Democratic centralism is a form of organisation and a political principle.
Democratic centralism entails the subordination of the minority to the majority when it comes to the actions of the Party. That does not mean that the minority should be gagged. Minorities must have the possibility of becoming the majority. As long as they accept in practice the decisions of the majority, groups of comrades have the right to support alternative platforms and form themselves into temporary or permanent factions.
Democratic centralism therefore represents a dialectical unity entailing the fullest, most open and frank debate along with the most determined, selfless, revolutionary action.
Democratic centralism allows the members of the Communist Party to unitedly carry our actions, elect and be elected, criticise the mistakes of the Party and self-criticise their own failings without fear or favour. In essence then, democratic centralism is a process whereby communists are united around correct aims and principles.
Communist discipline
Party discipline consists of the duty to voice differences, complete fulfilment of assigned tasks and not withholding financial resources.
This from the draft rules:
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/documents/cpgb/rules.html
Article 6. Except where the rules state otherwise, in all Party committees decisions are taken by the majority of members participating in the meeting. It is the right and the duty of Party members to participate in the meetings of the committee of which they are a member and to openly state their views on all matters concerning the Party. In between meetings the tasks assigned by the secretary must be fulfilled.
And this from the 'what we fight for' column from WW:
Communists operate according to the principles of democratic centralism. Through ongoing debate we seek to achieve unity in action and a common world outlook. As long as they support agreed actions, members have the right to speak openly and form temporary or permanent factions.
Pretty conclusive. Of course, one can be over-formalistic about this. Openness has to be fought for and conducted as a living, organic part of a revolutionary group's practice; but, as you say, the CPGB does allow minority opinions to be expressed in practice.
The issue of appointment v election is somewhat different. Personally I think bodies such as the PCC should always be elected, unless conditions (living under a dictatorship, for example) preclude this. So, the CPGB is wrong on this issue and this may be a genuine example of a Stalinist hangover as opposed to what Sean M laughably implies the current-day CPGB believes in (Nazi-Soviet pact, Moscow Trials etc).
Regards,
Lawrence
See My Response
here
Does Not Require Foresight
Martin,
As I sent you a copy of an e-mail from the CPGB asking me for such an interview this does not require much foresight. As I sent you the coopy of my response to them refusing to engage in such Leninist tribal warfare you also know the conclusion to that.
Paul
The CPGB did contact me to ask if I had your e-mail address so that they could respond to you. I didn't, but perhaps you could provide it for them so that they could respond.
Arthur Bough
The manana debaters
Lawrence,
Your efforts as attorney for the WW are disingenuous.
The point is they tried to shit-stir in our organisation with David and then refused to debate our nominated speaker - Sean - on the day. They were for debate in the future, debate at any other time - just not when it mattered. The AWL decided on Sean, they denied him a platform and that's why we didn't go in.
BTW, their efforts to portray our planned intervention outside as a "picket" line, and to resort simply to abuse (calling me an "oaf") and outright lying (Fischer insinuating I threatened him, by saying "anytime, anywhere") illustrate that it is the CPGB that are afraid to debate the issues seriously, not the AWL.
Paul
Size Is Not Important
Just a quick adition to the comments posted on my blog in relation to the chaff about size. The discussion I had in April was about my blog not comments. I have always maintained that the appropriate place for comments whatever there size is in the forum where the original article was posted. I have agreed that a way around very long posts, and to encourage debate is to break them up into several posts dealing with individual items. That was why I posted three separate short comments.
The references to meetings are irrelevant. A more relevant comparison is with a discussion through an Internal Bulletin documents. Would comrades be told "sorry, you have had your quota of Internal Bulletin contributions for this year??? As I have pointed out elsewhere in a meeting you have to sit through a speech in an eltronic forum you have the option of simply pressing Page Down.
The original three pieces were deleted twice! No explanation as to why until now. The complaints about the deletions were deleted subsequently, and thre request for an explanation ignored until now. Some of the complaints about the deletion of the account and posts made as Red Devil but signed by me were also deleted subsequently.
Martin you are a gifted mathemetician, what is the probability of all those individual occurrences happening on separate occasions purely by accident or for some unexplained reason????
To argue that presenting the Mandel argument and Glotzer argument amounts to debate is puerile. Is this all there was to say on the matter? Were there only two sides to this argument? If the idea is to promote discussion why after my comments were deleted for the second time was the thread closed to comments?
Technical Difficulty
Sacha,
According to martin (see above) there was no technical reason that can be identified for my account and posts being deleted. The reason according to Martin is a mystery. As requested in fact I have presented the facts of what happened on my blog at boffyblog at blogspot.
What is a mystery to me is how it was possible for my original three short posts to be deleted twice without explanation, how the complaints I made about those deletions could also subsequently be deleted without explanation, how then after commenting that I would keep reposting them till I received an explanation my account and all my posts could be so mysteriously deleted, and even more mysteriously how if all of these separate events on different days were totally unconnected, and my account deleted purely for some unknown reason, why it was that the first post I made as Red Devil complaining in the thread on Iraq Questions and Answers about the fact that my account and posts had been deleted, that the posts in that thread replying to me no longer made sense etc. that this post too was deleted. Go figure. A technical problem you say. One hell of an unlikely series of technical problems I'd say. I'd like to have the same luck as those odds in winning the lottery.
Arthur Bough
Not a Messenger
Paul,
I was contacted by the CPGB to ask me to pass on a message to you. I have e-mailed back to them that I am not a messenger, and that they should contact you themselves. I udnerstand theyt do not have your e-mail address, and suggested they contact you vuia the AWL site. Below, however, is the content of their e-mail.
"I note that there was a brief exchange yesterday on this subject on the AWL
comments list. Paul did indeed write to us - I read his message then
immediately had our website changed to address the problem he was
complaining about. His email has not downloaded into our office account,
however. Possibly this is because they were originally accessed remotely
while we were out of the office - from my memory, we have on occasion found
that this has meant that some material is then marked as spam and
automatically deleted. A pain in the arse, in other words.
Anyway, the point is that the comrade is not being deliberately ignored.
Perhaps you could pass on this message to him via the AWL site along with
my apologies for the original error on our part.
With communist greetings and thanks"
I trust that between you yoiu can resolve this matter.
Comradely,
Arthur Bough
Perhaps
They are afraid that their arguments will be censored, or deleted as now seems to be the AWL's approach to free speech and debate.
what are you talking about?
'Red Devil' - I'm not quite sure what you mean ... perhaps in the interest of honest debate you'll explain.
No Problem Tom
I mean in the same way that my User Account as Arthur Bough was deleted, and all my posts going back more than two years were deleted. Even if one were to accept the argument raised that my posts were too numerous and too long - which has not been made here, but in a post to my private blog, and that this discourages others from contributing, (which I don't)this wouldn't explain all of those old posts being deleted, which to my kind is something the equivalent to electronic book burning.
To be honest Arthur I'm
To be honest Arthur I'm surprised you lasted that long. If I'd been in charge you'd have been shown the door months ago. Just as something got interesting, here goes another three page post from Stoke-on-Trent.
The AWL doesn't have a duty to post endless stuff from you Arthur (or short stuff from me for that matter). My advice is set up your own website and see how you get on.
Fine, but
Paul,
Your argument here repeats the only response given by someone, presumably from the AWL to my personal blog. But actually it doesn't stand up. The AWL has made a lot above about debates. What better place is there than a discussion board for a debate. Its far better than a physical debate because it is open to far more people, does not rely on the confidence, memory and speaking skills of those taking part etc. It allows everyone to read carefully and think about what has been said. Surely that is the point of a discussion board like this.
Now you are quite right that if you take a bourgeois view of private property then the AWL have no duty to post anything that I or anyone else write, but then don't give us a load of hypocritical stuff about wanting open debate, and supporting free speech! The argument is just what the bourgeoisie always say to socialists - if you don't like our control of the media start your own - making a presumption of equality which of course does not exist.
The idea about starting a separate blog, of course is a diversion. Anyone critical of the AWL's politics, and it is only certain aspects of those politics I criticise, could be told to do the same thing, and in that way no one would ever see those criticisms. There would be no opening up of debate. Even if a link to such a blog were given this is a rather silly way of holding a discussion. Its like insisting that participants in a physical debate move to separate rooms to hear the contribution from each speaker.
The idea that discussion has been curtailed by my contributions also does not stand up. Look at the recent posts list. More than 90 per cent of posts recieve no comments at all. The total number of contributors is miniscule. Yet look at the discussions where there have been a lot of contributors and comments. They are nearly all ones that I have contributed to. If we proceed on the scientific basis of evidence here, then the thesis fails miserably. Take the discussion on Iraq, which of course now you can't because the discussion has been deleted. There is a comment there by Anne Marling stating that although she did not want to contribute, she had found the discussion very interesting, and asked for me and Clive to elaborate further. Not much evidence that this was stultifying debate.
How many members does the AWL have 90-100, that has been the figure during all the time I was a member apart from the time of the merger with the Thornettites. If all of those members contributed just a tenth of the time that I do to writing posts then my posts would be outnumbered 10 to 1. Its not that I have written too much but that the AWL comrades contribute too little to their own website.
Just prior to having my account deleted I posted some material in relation to the debate over Israel. In fact the posts were very short. Yet they were deleted. It seems to have been my objection to this censorship which provoked my account to be deleted, though I have never actually been told why.
Finally, the argument about preventing debate certainly cannot be applied to all of the posts and discussions from the last two years which have been deleted, including those written by me as blogs at the AWL's request.
Very Short Addenda
Paul,
I see no point in continuing this, because on past experience ofthe last few weeks I expect these posts also to be deleted. However, before they are I would like to make one last quick point on the question of length of posts.
This is supposed to be a political discussion board. By its nature political issues do not lend themselves to short comments to be meaningful. Look at the discussions of the past which invariably led to the production not just of 3 pages of reply, but to whole books and pamphlets by those taking part. To insist on replies being no more than a few lines makes the whole exercise pointless.
Of course, if your idea of "discussion" is in reality simply to hold a slanging match, made up of insults as an alternative to reason, of quick soundbites, then fine short comments are fine. But if that really is your approach its no wonder real workers want nothing to do with such infantile behaviour.
Arthur, yes we are a small
Arthur, yes we are a small group, but glad to say we are recruiting relatively well among younger people and students and in certain areas of industrial work we put consistent effort in to.
As an active member, and a recent one at that, I'd quite like our website to be navigable and of interest to people I meet who are fresh to politics. Our website is supposed to be a vehicle for this.
Yes your thoughts are appreciated _ i've spent many an hour trying to keep abreast of your seemingly constant output - and nor is it a case of shutting down debate. I'm sure if any of our members behaved in a way to make visiting our website a tedious chore and stymied clear and accessible debate then they would be spoken to as well. It's not a dispute about the content, of the substantive ideas; it's the fact that it becomes a full time job trying to follow debates, which frankly are not always those we invite contacts and sympathisers to our website for, nor want to have to address ourselves to at a pace of your dictating. We'd certinaly never meet any new people if that were the case.
I feel we have no obligation to maintain a site to your liking, for your needs. We have no monopoly on the www and you're welcome to run your own site that clearly presents your politics in a way that you see fit.
I think it's fair enough to want to keep our site a place which is both a forum for discussion, but also one where we refer people to for interesting and useful material. I don't want it to be remembered as a place of daunting and rambling posts that put other people off from contributing. In that way it has a similar dynamic to a public meeting and I'm glad someone has finally addressed this problem with our site.
Short Comment
Robin,
1)My comment was not to decry the AWL for being small. I was a member for 15 years when its membership was around 90-100 - of course then too we were always recruiting strongly, on the verge of some breakthrough too. My point was that even with a hundred members the output of those members is pretty appalling to their own website if my posts were seen to be too numerous.
2) An electronic forum is not the same as a public debate as I have pointed out. a) its better because it means people can read and absorb in a way that is not possible in a physical debate b) it doesn't rely on the speaking skills of the participants c) it does not allow a majority to intimidate a minority d) if you don't like long comments press Page Down.
3)Comments can only be made to articles the AWL have posted, if you don;t want them to discussed at that time, why post them?
4)If you really want political debate, how do you expect this to be achieved if everyone is restricted to very short comments.
5)Even with Public Meetings I'd suggest you would have had a real problem with the 3-5 hour speeches Lenin and Trotsky used to give.
6) Is it not about the content? Sorry, but in all my experience every Leninist organisation is shit scared of its members, particularly those new, young comrades being drawn into debate with others. The Militant used to be the worst. At University their Branch Organiser used to physically prevent their members discussing with me. Debate with other organisations tends to be okay, because an appeal to tribal loyalties is made, its rather like football fans supporting their team even when the opposition is better on the day. You can simply slag them off find some reason to criticise them for some past action. Been there, done that. Against individuals, especially individuals who used to be part of your organisation, that continue to defend it against other organisations when its right, its not so simple.
Arthur Bough
Content
I'd suggest the problem was content. The AWL could not avoid the point I made that they had fucked themselves with the Glotzer article. Martin Thomas has presented the case that there were two sides the USFI and Glotzer's. The AWL support Glotzer's position. But who today is the inheritor of Glotzer's position and argument the AWL or the SWP. Answer the SWP. They use the same arguments Glotzer used to support Zionism and unrestricted immigrationion into Palestine, to support political Islam, and the unrestricted right of return of Palestinians.
Arthur Bough
Horses for courses
Arthur,
I'm sure you know from your past membership that long, often bad-tempered, discussion is commonplace in the AWL. I'm sure that's the case right now, but on private AWL lists. And there's nothing wrong with that in my opinion. The AWL website is the place people, interested in the AWL's politics, will seek out, for information about current campaigns, historical pieces, and the chance to leave reasonable comments, etc. Now Bill J's posts break the rules of reasonable debate, being bullet point abuse, and yours, to me are out of place on such a site. AWL members - and others - could spend all their time engaging with your very extensive postings. Now and again I have some sympathy with some of your points, but you must see that you can almost take over the site. Now any debate, real or virtual must have rules, or those with the loudest voices, or most time, win out. If the AWL organise, fund and maintain this site, I believe they have the right to set the rules.
You could set up your own blog for nothing - as many have done successfully and won a readership.
BTW I'm not in the AWL.
As short insulting posts, don't take them everything too seriously, except in relationship to WP/PR that is.
support for AB/RD
I mostly enjoyed Arthur's contribution to this site. I think AWL shouldn't just arbitrarily delete people's contributions. I can see the point about the long contributions within the topic threads but surely a polite request for contributers to be more concise should have preceded such drastic action as deleting someone and all their posts.
Is it censorship? It looks like a duck, walks like a duck...
debate etc
There's not a lot of point taking insults seriously even when aimed at PR (seems rather churlish but as i say what's the point of taking it seriously)
As for the line 'chickens when it comes to debates' it's just very immature.
I'll just make a very quick short point- politeness in debates does no harm at all. It may be there's no point debating with the AWL whatsoever but I happen to think that just occasionally it's worth the effort. But if anyolne starts getting insulting just ignore it.
Ther's far too much to do in the working class and far more serious debates to be had. I for one haven't given up though on some mebers of the AWL who seem to be thoughtful at least in their tone as opposed to the ones who just scream or whatever 'socialism of fools' or some other insult.
As for deleting Arthur's posts that seems ridiculous as well- just ignore them if you don't want to engage. Only offensively insulting (e.g. homophobic, racist or such like) or completely trolling posts should be deleted imo.
Oh dear
Arthur (and others, eg Sean and Jason, please take note),
If there was a deliberate decision made to delete your posts and account, then it must have been part of a deep conspiracy unknown to at least one member of the AWL executive committee, i.e. me. And I can tell you that, having known the other five members (including Martin Thomas and Sean Matgamna) for eight years, worked closely with them for five years, and been on the EC with them for four, they must be very adept conspirators and incredibly good actors to keep this covered up.
A number of people, and I include myself in this, who have a very poor understanding of both websites and computers in general have editorial access to this site. It may therefore be possible that someone inadvertently deleted you while fiddling around. But that is a very different question.
Furthermore, do you really think, having taken a decision (at whatever level) to delete you, those responsible would reinstate you pretty much as soon as you made the request? Any small delay was because a) Martin, the key person uniting both political responsibility and technical understanding, was in Australia and b) as hard as it may be for someone whose political activity consists entirely of posting on the internet (this is not an insult, just a statement of fact as I understand it) to appreciate properly, we are *very* busy with other things. In any case, the point is that we were happy to reinstate you almost as soon as you made us aware of what had happened.
The Weekly Worker suggests that Arthur's posts were deleted because they criticised the AWL majority position on Iraq. Do I really need to spell out how utterly ludicrous this is? If I do:
a) We are quite open about, and regularly publish material from, our minority criticising the majority position.
b) Many other people, eg the Permanent Revolution comrades, have posted on the site attacking our position on Iraq, in some cases (eg Bill J or Tony Greenstein) very aggressively.
c) In all the time I have been involved in the AWL, we have, as far as I am aware, never deleted any (allegedly: other) critical comments from the site. The only things we have deleted are spam. (Perhaps someone will correct me about the details of this? But in any case the basic outline of our pro-free speech approach is clear.)
Sacha
Just to reinforce a point
Paul M writes: "Now Bill J's posts break the rules of reasonable debate, being bullet point abuse, and yours, to me are out of place on such a site." And, yet, there has never been any question of Bill J's rants being deleted, or even us asking him not to post. The issue you about your posts, in other words, is not their content - whatever we may think of it - but their number and length.
Contradiction
As someone has posted on my blog at boffyblog your position here seems to contradict itself. On the omne hand you say my posts were deleted accidentally, then because they were too numerous and too long! I have no desire to pursue this, but if you keep posting stuff like this, I feel I have to respond.
1) On too numerous too long. One of the differences between democracy and dictatorship is the lack or otherwise of arbitrariness. That is there should be rules which everyone can be seen to have to comply with. If you could set out what the maximum length, and number of posts should be, we will all know whether anyone breaches that rule.
2) On being reinstated. Surely, your computer system automatically sets up new user accounts after it has verified a valid e-mail address, which is why my Red Devil account was set up immediately without the need for Martin to return from Australia. So that demonstrates nothing. What is illustrative, however, is that the first post I made as Red Devil complaining that my account and posts had been deleted, was then also deleted!!!! Was this also just an accident??? Why, rather didn't you take the opportunity of replying to that post by saying, "Sorry, we didn't realise that, we'll sort it out."
3) On why you are prepared to have slanging matrches with other Leninist organisations, see my post above.
Arthur Bough
Hi Arthur
As soon as I posted the last comment, I noticed that lack of clarity in my explanation and thought you'd say that. Here's what I meant:
i. In fact, no one deliberately deleted your account, and it was restored not long after you alerted us to the problem.
ii. In one case, ie the comments on Glotzer, we deleted your comments for the reason stated above.
iii. The idea of deleting someone's comments, asking them not to post etc etc has only even arisen in one non-spamming case - yours.
Is that clear?
Is the distinction between "too long" and "not too long" arbitrary? In general, maybe. The issue arises with you because your posts are so very long and numerous. Cf you might ask someone to write an article for a publication and say "Don't worry about the length, we're flexible", assuming they might right something between, say, 500 and 5,000 words. If they then came back with 40,000 there would be a problem! Why do you think it is that we've never had this problem with anyone else?
I have no idea why your first Red Devil post was deleted. Perhaps because it made it look as though we exercise censorship when, clearly, we don't? Why didn't you ring the office for a discussion rather than simply assuming the worst and shouting about it on the internet?
Sacha
Actually
1. My post was not restored immediately. It had been several days since I had the Glotzer posts deleted until I tried to access the account to find it had been deleted. It was several days after I registered as red Devil, and after Sean and others had asked for reinstatement that my old account was restored.
2. If the argument is that posts were deleted because they were too long, then why choose the Glotzer posts for deletion? These three posts were short as can be seen by looking at them at Boffyblog. Indeed the original posts were shorter as they didn't contain the quotes from Glotzer's article, which account for a large part of the total. Nor can the argument that there were three small posts justify the idea that this curtailed debate.
3. It seems to me that if the problem of long posts or too frequent posts is a serious obstacle to debate, it would be a simple matter to set a word limit for each contributor, that way it would be quite open as to whether someone was being deleted for writing too much or not.
4. Perhaps you should ask whoever deleted the first Red Devil post why the deleted it. It was not for the reason you suggest. In fact it was written in a quite jovial, ironic style as though by a third party (though signed by me to avoid the accusation of being devious)curious as to why posts replied to an Arthur Bough, who didn't seem to exist.
5. I certainly have not shouted it "all over the Internet". On the contrary. When the CPGB e-mailed me to ask for an interview not only did I immediately e-mail them back refusing one, and telling them that I would take no responsibility for anything they wrote, but I also e-mailed a copy of their request and my response to Martin. I adopt the policy of Lenin and TRotsky - no secret deals, no secret dipliomacy. I have no desire to perpetuate the debate, but I will respond to anything I beleive is incorrect.
Arthur Bough
Arthur - I think we should
Arthur - I think we should try to calm this down, and I agree with you that we should try bring the debate to a close.
1. Do you seriously believe that you registering a new account, and Sean (Myerscough) or whoever posting once or twice (no offence, Sean!), amounts to a serious campaign which would force us to back down from our alleged determination to bar you? No, the reality is that we were as surprised by the deletion as you were. The reason there was some small delay (it may have seemed a long one to you, given your internet-prolificness, but in the real world it was very short) in reinstating you is because Martin was away and we are very busy with lots of things that have no connection to the internet. I know you may find this difficult to comprehend, as almost all your political activity is internet-related, but there it is.
2. I don't know the details of the Glotzer issue, which was I wasn't involved in, and frankly I don't care. The idea that we are hostile to free speech whether in terms of our internal life, our meetings, our paper or our website, is demonstrably laughable. By all means post a link to the Glotzer comments on your blog.
3. Your point about a word limit is just silly - as demonstrated by the fact that we've never had a problem with anyone else, ANYONE ELSE, in the ten years our website has existed. Just exercise your common sense!
4. On your relation to the CPGB coverage: fair point, I withdraw my comments.
Sacha
I have been calm throughout. I certainly have not resorted to hurling abuse in the way some comrades here seem all to ready to do. I have simply stated the facts. The problem is that the response from the AWL keeps changing, which does not fill me with the confidence. For example, if we take your answer to my question about why my first Red Devil post was deleted it is more than just evasive. You say perhaps it was deleted because it accused you of censorship - which I have pointed out, it was not of that type - but even were that the case your response suggests that it would be okay for you to simply delete such posts rather than address the charge. You say, above why didn't I telephone to ask about the deletions, but more to the point when the deletion of the Glotzer posts was done why didn't you either here say why they had been deleted, or contact me to discuss it? Why when I posted asking why they had been deleted did you not take the opportunity to reply here publicly as opposed to simply deleting them again, along with the posts asking for clarification? In fact if you look at the log you will find that over the last month or so going back a few weeks prior to the Glotzer posts I had reduced my posts considerably both in number and size. That is one reason why I am all the more perplexed at the argument given for deleting these three short posts at that time. Surely, if the account was deleted by accident, whoever did it, must have realised that they had made a mistake. So why at that point didn't they try to put it right? Why didn't they contact me to say, sorry we have made a mistake, and we are trying to correct it? According to Martin my old account could not be restored because I had created the Red Devil account using the same e-mail address. But it had been a few days between my account being deleted, and me setting up the Red Devil account, so it could have been done during that period.
But as I said to Martin a few days ago we clearly will not agree over this so there is little point continuing to discuss it. No I don't think my account was restored just because of a few posts by me and Seanysean and others raising the issue, htough perhaps the fact that the CPGB and others were going to run something about it might have played some part. My guess actually is that the deletions were a maverick act that the organisation has had to correct, but that's just a guess based on the way organisations work.
But I'd suggest we leave it at that, and move on.
Arthur Bough