Last night (5 July) I leafleted outside the opening rally of Marxism 2012, the Socialist Workers' Party's annual summerschool. I was giving out a leaflet about the recent Egyptian presidential election, criticising the decision of the SWP and its Egyptian sister organisation, the Revolutionary Socialists, to call for a Muslim Brotherhood vote, and an advert for the AWL's fringe meeting this Sunday on the issue.
Most of the evening was spent in perfectly rational conversation, mainly with non-SWPers. But when I started leafleting I was treated to the typical SWP response to criticism: political slander.
It went something like this (I should say that the person who "argued" with me remained perfectly calm). I began leafleting a group of about six youngish blokes. One of them acted as their spokesperson.
SWPer (taking the leaflet): "Who's that from?"
Me: "Workers' Liberty"
SWPer (giving it back): "Ugh, I don't want that."
Me: "Why not?"
SWPer: "Because I don't want to read leaflets from Islamophobes."
Me: "Could you explain in what way we're Islamophobic? Because we oppose voting for the Muslim Brotherhood?"
No: "When Mubarak was overthrown, and you should have been celebrating, the headline on your paper talked about a Muslim counter-revolution."
In the 2 February edition of Solidarity, under a main headline "Egypt: support democratic revolution and workers' freedom", we added "No to Islamist counter-revolution! No to army takeover!" I hope the difference on a number of levels doesn't need explaining.
I didn't remember the front page exactly, but I had a rough idea of what it had said, and explained. I didn't get a response.
SWPer: "Yes, well it's part of your general approach. Look at the attitude you took to Yunus Baksh and Aaron Kiely."
Yunus Baksh is an SWP activist in Unison who has been witch-hunted by both his bosses and the union bureaucracy. Rather inconveniently for the SWPer in question, AWL members in Unison supported Yunus in his battle against them (though this is not the first time I've heard SWPers claim, with no evidence, that we didn't - this story is obviously being circulated). We have also raised criticisms of Yunus' behaviour in the movement. What on earth does that have to do with Islamophobia?
As for Labour councillor and NUS Black Students' Officer Aaron Kiely - who, unlike Yunus, is not from a Muslim background: it seems it's all the same to this particular SWPer! - the only thing this could reference is the AWL (and other student left-wingers') criticism of him for voting for cuts and praising the police during last year's riots (see here and here). Aside from what this has to do with Islamophobia, isn't the real disgrace that the SWP have refused to utter a word of criticism about this, because it would disrupt their alliance with Aaron's organisation Socialist Action in the student movement?
Again, I pointed out the obvious, and then went on:
Me: "Isn't the real issue here that your organisation advocated a vote for a right-wing, neoliberal, anti-working class religious party in the Egyptian elections? What do you think about that?"
SWPer: "We didn't advocate a vote for the Brotherhood."
Me: "Erm, you did -"
SWPer (cutting in): "No, it was the Revolutionary Socialists in Egypt."
As well as being untrue - the SWP itself did call for a Muslim Brotherhood vote (see here) - this was a bit of a cowardly dodge. If you agree with the RS line, say so, defend it and explain why you agree. If you disagree, explain why you disagree, while also defending your sister organisation. Don't try to slough off responsibility, particularly when in fact the SWP took the same position!
I asked when it became the SWP position to vote for any bourgeois lesser evil (in this case, supposed lesser evil) in an election. After being asked if I advocated a vote for Mubarak-crony Shafiq - in response to which I indicated the banner on our leaflet "Neither Mursi nor Shafiq, but independent working-class politics" - the inevitable conclusion arrived, even though we had only been discussing for three or four minutes.
SWPer: "Sorry, I have better things to do. [While continuing to sit there.] There's no point in discussing this. I don't want to take your leaflet. Take it back."
Me: "Look, I try to give you a leaflet, to distribute ideas, and typically your immediate response is to call me a racist. The SWP obviously trains its people to do this -"
SWPer (cutting in and laughing): "Trains?"
Me: "Yes, trains. There's nothing wrong with training your comrades, it's what you train them to do that's the problem. Your default response to political criticism was to call me a racist."
SWPer: "I didn't say you were racist. I said your organisation was racist."
Me: "You still haven't explained why. Can you?"
SWPer: "I don't want to talk about it."
Me: "Ok, will you explain why it was right for workers to vote for the Brotherhood?"
SWPer: "No, I don't want to talk about it."
Later in the evening, I sat at a table with one of my comrades and a group of young people, mainly though not entirely members of the SWP. While we were sitting there, no one said anything about the AWL. When the two of us went out to get a beer, we returned to be told by an independent that the intervening ten minutes had been dominated by attacks on our organisation. And apparently after we finally left these attacks started again.
Conclusion: the SWP trains its members to really, really not like debate with other socialists, to go out of their way to avoid it and to substitute political slander. However, most SWPers are not very good at this.
Comments
Another discussion at Marxism 2012
While I was wandering around UCL leafleting for our fringe meeting on the "Arab spring" on Sunday 8 July, one SWPer told me that he didn't want to "take a Zionist leaflet".
I asked what he meant about a Zionist leaflet. He said the AWL is Zionist because we support Israel against the Palestinians. I challenged him on this with some, you know, facts, so he switched to saying we're Zionist because we support Israel's right to exist.
After a little bit of back and forth about the Leninist approach to the national question, I asked whether Unite leader Len McCluskey is also a Zionist.
SWPer (incredulous): "What do you mean?"
Me: "Well, Len McCluskey also supports a two-state settlement. So by your logic he must be a Zionist."
SWPer: "I don't know anything about that."
Me: "In fact pretty much all the union leaders support two states. Certainly almost all unions have policy for it."
SWPer: "That's a lie."
Me: "Can you tell me one that doesn't? I mean one that has policy for a single state and the dismantling of Israel?"
SWPer: "The RMT does."
Me: "I'm pretty sure it doesn't. Obviously we can't look that up now. But if you're right, are there any others? If the RMT does, I'm pretty sure it's the only one. And in fact even the SWP doesn't move motions in favour of that policy in the unions."
SWPer: "Yes, we do."
Me: "I have a lot of comrades in union branches with SWPers, and I've never heard of a single example."
SWPer: "We moved one in Bristol..." (I can't remember which union branch he said - Unite health?)
Me: "And it calls for the dismantling of Israel?"
SWPer: "It opposes the occupation of Palestine."
Me: "The occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza? Or the existence of Israel?"
SWPer: "It opposes the occupation of Palestine."
Me: "Yes, but what do you mean by that?"
SWPer: "It was a clear motion. Your position is Zionist."
I eventually got him to agree to email me the motion, but I very much doubt he will.
If anyone knows of any examples of SWP motions on Palestine which argue explicitly for a one-state solution, please post them here. I don't think there are any; SWP members might want to ask themselves why that is.
Sacha Ismail
Whether you are zionist has
Whether you are zionist has nothing to do with the issue either but aren't you even a little bit zionist? By zionist, I mean believing that the formation of Israel was a good and legitimate thing, representing the legitimate right of self determination which every people apparently has. I think that's what Jim Denham at Shiraz Socialist believes and I take that as the AWL position. I don't believe that accepting a two state solution makes you a zionist.
Geoff,
Geoff,
I've edited this article and various other things to deal with the issue you complained about - because we want to be absolutely sure we have clean hands. (If I haven't gone far enough for you, there you go.) Now that that's dealt with I'd like to ask, what do you say about the violent attacks on us at Marxism 1993, attacks on which the SWP has never commented on or responded in any way to our communications about?
The AWL doesn't have a collective position on what socialists should have advocated in 1947-8; different comrades take different views. (Although notice that the person I argued with at Marxism said nothing about the formation of Israel, only about Israel's existence today.) Though at the time many Trotskyists supported the Palestinian Jews' right to self-determination through an independent state. None or almost none took a position like the one the SWP takes today.
The right of self-determination which every people apparently has?
Sacha Ismail
The AWL `dosen`t have a
The AWL `dosen`t have a collective position`. How convienient is that.
I'm against violence between
I'm against violence between socialists and also against provocations. Not having witnessed any events, I can't judge what happened in 1993. Frankly I don't trust your comrades - I remember being accused around that time of violent behaviour for wagging a finger at someone (Paul Hampton's then-partner in fact).
I had thought that Jim Denham tended to be on the right of your organisation, which is why I'm surprised that you also think the right of nations to self determination is applicable, for marxists, to all nations. I noticed your comrades had the same argument, somewhere online, with Mike Pearn fairly recently so I'd refer you to what he said
I suppose it's no surprise that the AWL doesn't want a party line on everything. That no doubt explains the first statement in the name of the AWL I read after 911. I refer, of course to the one that offered support to the USA in any war on terror. It's been suppressed now and your supporters deny any knowledge of it. I know about it though - I feel like Winston Smith who knew what he'd seen too.
Why should we have a
Why should we have a collective position on everything? Eg, we don't have a position on the character of the Stalinist states, beyond agreement that they were forms of class society roughly parallel in history to capitalism. Within that, there are a variety of different views. How would it benefit us to vote a majority line?
I know comrades who think that as late as the creation of Israel it would have been better to argue for a binational state, and others who think socialists should have backed something like the UN partition plan. Those debates existed among Trotskyists at the time too - what was almost absent, however, was the vicarious Arab nationalism adopted by the SWP and other groups today.
But in any case, I fail to see how either position is "Zionist". The real issue here is the hysterical use of Zionism as a term of abuse.
Sacha
Where is your time Machine?
Ranknfile, 'the AWL doesn't have a collective position' is a bit misleading. We do have a line on the present national question. We do have a line on the right of return, on BDS, on two states and on the occupation.
We don't have a line on what should have happened in 1947-8, which is what Sacha is saying. To have such a line would be ridiculous as we have no time machine to influence, or propagandise around the establishment of the state of Israel. Please engage with the argument in front of you, rather than patching together a straw man to let of 'pithy' one liners at.
Defending the right of Israel to exist in the present day is not zionism, it's engaging with reality.
Geoff Collier: literally unbelievable
I've just noticed this, missed it at the time. It's literally incredible.
"That no doubt explains the first statement in the name of the AWL I read after 9/11. I refer, of course to the one that offered support to the USA in any war on terror. It's been suppressed now and your supporters deny any knowledge of it. I know about it though - I feel like Winston Smith who knew what he'd seen too."
Who was it by? Signed by an individual or a collective AWL statement? Where was it published/where did you see it?
Obviously since this supposed article was "suppressed", there is no way of disproving its existence. But look at our very extensive archive of articles from the time here (including our actual first statement, written immediately after and published online less than three days after the New York attacks, in its original form on our old website, as you will see - perhaps we set that up to falsify the past?) You will realise how implausible Geoff's claim is.
At the 2002 AWL conference, months after the attack on Afghanistan, somebody - who is no longer a member - moved a motion arguing we had been wrong to oppose the war. But as far as I remember he was the only person to vote for it - the motion arguing we had been right to say "Stop the war" was passed almost unanimously.
Even if the alleged article had existed, written by someone with a minority view, we had a collective line against the war, right from the start and all the way through. But I very much doubt it did exist.
Sacha Ismail