By Sacha Ismail
The Socialist Party has now published a third article attacking the AWL over Libya. The first two were by SP general secretary Peter Taaffe (see here) - the second not just about Libya but a lengthy diatribe against various aspects of our tendency's history and politics. The third is by Robert Bechert on the website of the CWI, the international tendency of which the SP is part (see here - note, by the way, that the SP attacks on us never link to our articles or even quote them at length).
Bechert writes:
"The idea that there was ‘no alternative’ to NATO was already disproved in the magnificent Egyptian movement that led to Mubarak’s ousting. The imperialist powers intervened for their own reasons not in the interests of the Libyan working masses and youth. Any failure to explain this as, for example, the small British AWL grouping did when it initially uncritically supported NATO’s role in the fighting in Tripoli, politically disarms the workers’ movement, leaving it unable to warn of imperialism’s intentions. The AWL has consistently supported NATO’s bombing and it now seeks to justify this by claiming the organisation of workers will be “easier” now after Gaddafi’s overthrow, something which it is not at all certain to be the case (see also: The ‘no-fly zone’, the Left and the ‘Third Camp’). In reality this is a rationalisation of their view, shameful for a self-proclaimed left organisation, that the military assault by the imperialist NATO alliance had to be supported as Libyan workers and youth had no chance on their own of defending themselves or defeating Gaddafi."
Here the SP goes beyond its existing boneheaded refusal to understand the distinction between "support" and "not oppose" (so if the police stand between us and a much larger group of fascists, we must either shout "Police out!" or endorse the police's actions?) and descends into straightforward lying. This is not a term we use lightly; it is generally not a helpful way of describing things in political debates. But it is the only appropriate word for Bechert's laughable claims.
Lie 1: we failed to explain why NATO was intervening. Right from the start, the AWL has stated clearly that the NATO powers were - of course - intervening for their own reasons and not because they care about democracy, let alone "the interests of the Libyan working masses". (Don't take this on trust: see our very first leaflet on the intervention here!) This is fully in line with the position we have taken in similar situations, eg the 1999 NATO intervention in Kosova.
Lie 2: we supported NATO uncritically. In fact, as the SP knows very well, we did not support NATO at all. Here, however, they descend a level by, bizarrely, claiming uncritical support! The word "initially" is clearly intended to cover them against accusations of lying; but it is nonsense. At no point did we give any support to NATO, let alone uncritically! You can only deny this if you defy refusing to denounce an action as a kind of support; in which case, the claim of us being "uncritical" is rather odd.
As for the idea that the Egyptian revolution showed there was a viable alternative to NATO intervention, this takes the SP's fantasy politics to a new level. It is like saying that if you are about to be murdered by gangsters, the fact that there is a powerful strike in the town down the road shows there is no need to worry about the police! In Egypt there is a history of workers' struggles going back most of a century, and for forty years working-class struggles have carved out space, limited but important, for the beginnings of independent workers' organisations even under Mubarak. In the revolution these organisations have flowered. In Libya there is no labour movement at all, and never has been; under Qaddafi's totalitarian state, the most basic civil society organisations were bloodily prevented from emerging. As of yet, the Libyan workers are not even minimally organised as a class.
In the really existing situation, and in the time frame available, nothing was going to stop the crushing of the rebels except outside intervention. We do not like that fact, but we look reality squarely in the face - something the SP leadership is clearly incapable of doing.
Similarly - dismissing the notion that it will almost certainly be easier for workers to organise and struggle under the new regime than under Qaddafi is so ludicrous as to hardly require comment.
In Bechert's article and probably in his head, the distinction between lying and failing to understand basic facts blurs until you cannot distinguish one from the other. This is typical of the SP.
In any case, we want to know: why has the SP now published three articles attacking us, but still refuses to take part in any sort of public debate? Why were we told by one of their their organisers that a debate was on, only to be told by an irate Peter Taaffe that it wasn't? Why have we not even received an email replying to our invitation?
A number of SPers have told us that the SP won't debate with us because of the sharpness of our attacks. No doubt calling the SP leaders liars will not endear us to them any further. We would only point out the preciousness of this. The SP leaders have accused us of being apologists for imperialism! (Not to mention irrelevant, a sect, middle-class and so on) In general those being criticised never like the criticism, and the political tasks facing us are too urgent to get offended.
We reiterate our invitation to the SP to debate Libya with us at a public meeting.
Comments
Why bother?
What is with the continuous attack on the Socialist Party?
I find the ridiculously large number of articles on the Socialist Party is becoming incredibly petty and tedious. These articles just show the whole left up and just perpetuates the myth of us being petty factions squabbling amongst ourselves. You justify these articles under the guise of "open and healthy debate". Your articles are not this but just an attack on anouther group, refering to a leading Socialist Party member as "Bishop Taffe" just shows how petty they have sunk, no longer ideological criticisms but cheap shots. I for one think an open debate between the SP and the AWL would of been a good idea but just because it didn't happen doesn't justify you 'throwing your toys out the pram'.So please for the sake of us all stop these constent articles and concentrate on the many real issues we as Socialists face.
Yours
A Disappointed Socialist
SP Evasion
The on-line record shows that Sasha's article is the one and only article on our website that you have ever accessed! That qualifies you to comment as you do? I take it you are a SP member assigned to "do a job" for "the Party". With typical SP profundity you say: AWL is making "just an attack on another group". No fool, you, eh? You notice things! Yes, we attack the SP (as the SP attacks us). You combine attacking us with the politically decadent joys of hypocriticaly denouncing us for attacking you! We are not hypocrits. We have a right to criticise the SP. You would do better to comment on what we say (But read it first!.)
These exchanges started with Bishop Taaffe's article in your magazine about AWl and Libya. He has as much right to comment on us as we have to comment on the SP. He does not have the right to misrepresent, that is, lie about our position, as he did. So your lecturing us on our way of doing things is not only hypochritical, but, if I can put it like that, just a bit cheeky. Sasha's piece is a response to a public attack on AWL by your organisation! A lying piece too. Read the articles you denounce!
You say: "refering to a leading Socialist Party member as "Bishop Taffe" just shows how petty they have sunk, no longer ideological criticisms but cheap shots." How do you know? You haven't read the articles! You haven't read Jill Mountford's article about her encounter with your Bishop-Pope! The designation of Taaffe as "Bishop Taaffe" encapsulates a acomprehensive criticism of the cultist way you organise the SP. It is one of the core political differences between AWL and the SP.
The way you function, as we have argued in articles over decades, is a political question in itself. Your own role here is further illustration of the state of your Tendency: someone who has not read our comments (except Sasha's piece) is assigned to reply; you comment on articles you haven't read; you focus on our way of doing things, not on what we say; you are especially exercised by our contemptuous dismissal of your little Bishop and making fun of his pretentions. You, comrade, go on faith? Bishop Taaffe, or someone lower in the SP Hierarchy tells you about our articles and that's enough for you? You can make a summary judgment dismissing what we say without reading our comments? Isn't that truly ridiculous?
AWL and the SP should discuss. It is not too late to organise a head-to-head debate. Do you dare advocate that within your organasition?
And, comrade, read the bloody articles!
Tomas Carolan
In my Defence...
First of all I have read most articles on your website including most about the Socialist Party one. I read most of the websites and articles written by Left Wing Parties in the UK as I like to see what each group is doing and get a more well rounded view of current political topics, the reason it appears I have only read the one article is the account I made is recent as to comment on this, I read the website long before I made this account.Secoundly I have not been assigned "to do a job for the party" by anyone I have simply grew frustrated by all these articles.
To be honest I probably was a bit blunt in my previous comment and it would of been best placed as a response to the "An encounter with the shy Bishop Taaffe" article rather then this one. But my point was articles like that and perhaps less so this one appear to the reader as squabbles regardless of the back story behind it and does indeed do your orginisation a discredit. I personally find the AWL a perfectly good orginisation both in the way you orginise (Written Constitution and Comment section on articles to name some) and with individual members I have worked with.
What does the AWL a discredit however is your oppostional approach to other groups within your articles and also the sarcastic way you write both in the articles "bishop taffe" and now in your personal response "No fool, you, eh".
Finally you are correct I am indeed a member of the Socialist Party but that is not why I have criticised this article I would just as easily criticise the Socialist Party for writing in such a manner. Also you saying "Do you dare advocate that within your organasition" implying I would fear to do so, shows you trying to use misinformation. I would make it clear in the Socialist Party that a debate with the AWL over Libya would be the best thing to do.
Anyway I personally hope this matter clears up and we can work together on the real issues we face.
Yours
The Socialist Guy
Socialist Guy and AWL website
If I misrepresented you I apologise and, of course, withdrew what I wrote. I did go on what seemed clear from the website records. Be all that as it may, write now on the substantive issues, and if you think AWL-SP should debate, fight for it within the SP. Let's see what happens then.
Tomas Carolan
Two-way streets
This latest article is a response to something the SP wrote about us recently. All of our recent polemics against them have actually been direct responses to stuff they've written. I'm not saying that's decisive, because "they started it" is hardly a sufficient explanation for why we think it's useful and important to polemicise against other left groups, but it's not the case that we're attacking the SP out of the blue.
Like Tomas/Dalcassian said, why not respond to the actual political content of the article? Here are two direct questions to get the discussion going:
* What do you actually think of our position on Libya?
* Do you think your organisation was right to characterise us as "uncritical supporters" of NATO?
If you think the SP should debate us publicly then please propose this within your organisation.
-
Daniel Randall
What is worse?
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the SP's finger-waving at us (for bad manners, rudeness, bad language etc) is reasonable. Let's assume the AWL shouldn't do it, and accept Socialist Boy's argument.
But, then, Socialist Boy, tell us what's worse: poor table manners plus clear political polemic (the AWL), or a political intervention which radically misrepresents an opponent and which fails to allow a proper, open development of contending views in front of the left (the SP).
I put it to you, Socialist Boy, that, on your own personal grounds of taste, perhaps, you have a point. But it is a very tiny point! of relatively little interest to people who take ideas seriously.
The ideas are the central thing, not the tone or pitch of the delivery.
If you take socialist polemic and clarification of political lines seriously, the people being really badly behaved here are the SP. They are both unreasonably restricting the scope and depth of the discussion, and they are misrepresenting our views. They are doing so to protect themselves, to wall in their membership, and for short-term factional gain. (And, I suspect, to do a job on SP members who share our views without actually addressing their internal audience directly).
I put it to you, too, that you should try and understand why we react in the way we do to Peter T. Here we have a SP leader who both writes many thousands of words against us and also refuses to debate us because we are an irrelevant sect. Sorry, both can't be true. His stance is stupid.
Socialist Boy, in part what your doing is blaming us for noticing that PT is idiotic and having the nerve to say so openly.
And why to poke fun at Peter T? Partly because we think his polemic is shoddy (some of it is unclear; some of it doesn't make logical sense even within his own framework) and false (the bombing has clearly helped the right side to win in Libya, and without it they would have been hung from lamposts). And partly because of his absurd pomposity! There's a lot of Emperor's-New-Clothes here. This man is not a serious ideologue - he wants to be one, and in particular he wants to be recognised as an important thinker; he wants status.
But we can read, and we're not stupid or shy. So we laugh at him a bit. So?
His sactimosity and pomposity are simply defence mechanisms.
One more thing. There seems to be the idea on the left that the AWL is the group that lauches sharply critical polemics against other groups. We often do, that's true. But is also important to recognise that that is an extension of the culture which exists inside the AWL too. It is not something special we reserve for people like Peter T, it is about taking ideas seriously, and debating properly.
I'm the socialist guy not boy...
Fair enough I shall give my opinion on the topic.
First of all on the AWL's position on Libya, though I understand why you have chose the position you do I personally could not feel comfortable with allowing Nato involvment in Libya as it further justifies there position as the 'policeman of the world' when in fact they support just as many dictatorships as they oppose. Though I see while you do not oppose intervention at the sametime you don't dismiss it which can amount to the same thing even if you don't wish it too. Also is there really such a thing as "temporary acceptance of Western assistance" when it comes to Arab and African countries?
Secondly in response to the AWL being categorised as "uncritical supporters of Nato". The article is simply stating that the AWL neither critised nor dismissed Nato involvement, with you beliving Nato involvement to be a positive for the Libyan people while not mentioning the drawbacks accepting help would entail.
It should also be noted that the comment on the AWL within the article is no more then a paragraph long and is not the focus of the article mearly a side note of other left groups views on Nato involvement. It should be clear that there is no deliberate smear against the AWL by the Socialist Party and perhaps the only fault here arguably is poor wording.
Thanks for your views
The Socialist Guy
What you say simply doesn't make sense
Socialist guy,
Does not denouncing the intervention amount to the same thing as supporting it? If so, what do you think about the example I give in my article, of the police standing between the EDL and anti-fascists, effectively protecting the latter (and, in the real example I had in mind, Nottingham earlier this year, actually attacking the EDL)? Obviously the police are an agency of the ruling class (in fact, the AWL is clearer on this point than the SP, but I'm sure in general you'd agree); usually, they protect the fascists against us. So does it follow that, in the situation I mention, we must on principle shout "Police out!" or something similar? And if not, doesn't that by your logic amount to support for the police?
Yes, we do not want the big powers to be able to intervene around the world as they please. However, it is hard to see what they have gained in this case that outweighs the fact of the Libyan revolution surviving and winning, and the knock on effect of that for the other revolutionary movements in the region. Even the right-wing press is not trying to claim that the Iraq adventure has been rehabilitated; on the contrary, for their own reasons, they are stressing the dissimilarities. Or to put it another way: are you seriously claiming that it would be better, overall, if the Libyan revolution had gone down, because this would have been outweighed by not boosting NATO? If so, can you justify this view, please?
As for the idea that we did not criticise NATO, let me quote again from the very first leaflet we published on the intervention:
"There is of course no reason to trust the armies of the West, or their Arab allies, to bring democracy to Libya or anywhere else. They are intervening for their own - capitalist, imperialist - reasons, not in the interests of the Libyan people. There is no guarantee that Western intervention will even succeed in its short-term aim of halting Qaddafi’s advance... The force which is advancing democracy across the Middle East is the mass movement, above all the workers’ movement... In Egypt a new, independent trade union federation has been formed in the midst of a wave of militant strikes."
Therefore, in summary: aren't you talking nonsense?
Sacha
As I was saying
The point is as socialists we should encourage independent working class emancipation and by saying the Libyan working class need 'imperialist' help to achive this will surely demoralise the working class. I obviously think that the success of the Libyan revolution is the highest priority but I also belive it should and can be carried out by the Libyan working class.
You simply can't pick and choose when to allow Nato to help you, once they are allowed in they will almost certainly impose what they think is best for them.
Also in regards to a public meeting between the Socialist Party and the AWL, I have been told it would be far more likely to take place if an apology was made by the AWL over there members aggressive behavior towards Peter Taffe on the day of the 30th June strikes, which seems fair enough to me.
Yours
The Socialist Guy
You say: "The point is as
You say: "The point is as socialists we should encourage independent working class emancipation and by saying the Libyan working class need 'imperialist' help to achive this will surely demoralise the working class. I obviously think that the success of the Libyan revolution is the highest priority but I also belive it should and can be carried out by the Libyan working class."
Of course the revolution should - not just 'can' but can only - be carried out by the Libyan working class. (Or rather, any *revolution* has to be popular and from below; socialist revolution in particular has to be carried out by the workers). We certainly did not say that the Libyan working class needed imperialist help to achieve 'emancipation' - which would be a contradiction in terms! We did not even say, more narrowly, that the Libyan people 'needed' imperialist 'help.'
But a) it was, it would seem, the view of most Libyan people that they *did* need outside, ie NATO, assistance - they asked for it. And b) had it not been for NATO intervention, the revolution would almost certainly have been crushed in Benghazi. We were against people trying to prevent that intervention. This was a very specific moment. Nobody is generalising to say the Libyan people, or the working class, 'need' 'help' from NATO or some other imperialist agency.
Apology?
As the article says: "Note, by the way, that the SP attacks on us never link to our articles or even quote them at length... A number of SPers have told us that the SP won't debate with us because of the sharpness of our attacks. No doubt calling the SP leaders liars will not endear us to them any further. We would only point out the preciousness of this. The SP leaders have accused us of being apologists for imperialism! (Not to mention irrelevant, a sect, middle-class and so on) In general those being criticised never like the criticism, and the political tasks facing us are too urgent to get offended."
Nothing to add to that.
Sacha