On Saturday 15th November I attended a debate between the SPGB and the Alliance for Workers' Liberty (AWL) in Wakefield.
The SPGB publicly advertised this meeting on the SPGB website, in the SPGB publication and an e-mail was sent to me (as a member) by my branch secretary. Despite an overall small attendance of around fifteen people, included in attendance were supporters of the SPGB who identified as non-members.
The AWL did not advertise meeting on their website (an event in London on Saturday was publicised as 'A workshop on workplace organising and anti-capitalist struggle'), in their publication or on their external mailing list. Nobody during the talk identified themselves as being invited by the AWL but not an AWL member.
The AWL claimed their activity in trade unions and the Labour party was about targeting a particular audience who might be sympathetic to AWL politics. However, no otherwise-unaligned Labour party members or otherwise-unaligned trade unionists seemed to have been invited by the AWL to the political debate on Saturday. Nor did any of the twenty or so who were enjoying pints in the bar room next door in the Labour club venue seem interested except when our meeting had to make way for concert night.
A recent issue of their paper (Solidarity, 12 November) did contain headlines such as 'Scottish Labour: Vote Findlay!' whilst also claiming elsewhere 'we want socialist revolution'. Clearly these two contradictory political messages wouldn't be put to the same meeting as far as the AWL are concerned. The AWL approach is one sort of politics for members and another sort for non-members.
Jon D. White
The SPGB publicly advertised this meeting on the SPGB website, in the SPGB publication and an e-mail was sent to me (as a member) by my branch secretary. Despite an overall small attendance of around fifteen people, included in attendance were supporters of the SPGB who identified as non-members.
The AWL did not advertise meeting on their website (an event in London on Saturday was publicised as 'A workshop on workplace organising and anti-capitalist struggle'), in their publication or on their external mailing list. Nobody during the talk identified themselves as being invited by the AWL but not an AWL member.
The AWL claimed their activity in trade unions and the Labour party was about targeting a particular audience who might be sympathetic to AWL politics. However, no otherwise-unaligned Labour party members or otherwise-unaligned trade unionists seemed to have been invited by the AWL to the political debate on Saturday. Nor did any of the twenty or so who were enjoying pints in the bar room next door in the Labour club venue seem interested except when our meeting had to make way for concert night.
A recent issue of their paper (Solidarity, 12 November) did contain headlines such as 'Scottish Labour: Vote Findlay!' whilst also claiming elsewhere 'we want socialist revolution'. Clearly these two contradictory political messages wouldn't be put to the same meeting as far as the AWL are concerned. The AWL approach is one sort of politics for members and another sort for non-members.
Jon D. White
What does 'socialism' mean to an AWL member? Abolition of the wage system? Classless society ergo the end of the political State?
ReplyDeleteIn their own words
ReplyDeletehttp://www.workersliberty.org/story/2008/10/29/were-talking-about-socialism
They want to talk the talk but can't walk the walk