Glyn, in your last but one comment on this thread you quoted the “offending” sentence from Martin’s post so that we could check your assertion against what he actually said. In your last comment you don’t quote but it looks like you are using the same sentence so I’ll quote it again and see if the meaning you give to it is correct:
[Martin] “I do not think that it is a merit of Militant/ the SP that they can only recruit people with little prior access to books and broad theories, and that it is extremely rare for anyone with any previous breadth of reading to join the SP.”
And you said:
[Glyn] “… it was also implied that it was wrong to recruit people without a previous knowledge of socialism which is a rdicilous notion.”
Martin’s sentence does not imply what you say it implies. As I read it he is saying that in general the SP does not have the theoretical depth and hence ability to convince people they come across who already have some experience and knowledge of Marxist ideas that the SP’s ideas are better. The AWL recruits people “without a previous knowledge of socialism” so we clearly don’t think it is wrong but these are not the only type of people we are able to recruit.
Take the present discussion around the call for a debate on Libya. We are confident of our ideas but can be convinced otherwise. How about the SP? Will they debate us, I don’t know; but the longer they don’t the more it appears to confirm Martin’s statement.