Talk:Alliance for Workers' Liberty

General issues

re: The IS/WF split Claiming the two groups defused is rather odd given that the one with all the power (the IS leadership) wanted Workers Fight gone, and the one without (WF) would like to have stayed. It has all the characteristics off, and has been widely described as, an expulsion. So that's what I've called it. Warofdreams 16:27, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Here are the facts as can be verified by the internal documents of the day. Cliff met Matgamna in a pub and a deal was done. WF joined IS as a faction the TT. This pissed people off and two conferences were held to defuse the groups. The result was the membership of IS voted to defuse the TT and IS. No one was expelled. Expulsion meaning that an individual or group booted out of a group for disciplinery reasons whether real or imagined in the Trotskyist tradition. This did not happen. A vote was taken and right or wrong a part of the organisation, which had maintained its own internal organisation and never properly fused into IS, was defused. facts. Whether or not the IS exec had all the power is besides the point a vote was taekn and the TT lost it. Certainly the event has been described as an expulsion by opponents of the IS but that does not make it so. There are other inaccuracies which you've introduced contrary to the hsitorical record which is meant to be of paramount importance here.

While I disagree with that, rather than debate the point and get into a revert war, I have attempted to portray both points of view in the article, as in our NPOV policy. Warofdreams 16:14, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, where do I start with these recent changes?

1. Sean Matgamna is not the "leader" of the AWL. It doesn't have one.
2. Workers Liberty Australia has never been an organisation of "ex-pats".
3. I've removed the stuff about the Ukrainian group. While true, it should be covered in its own article, as it affected any number of different parties.

I've also removed some info which seems insignificant (e.g. the Hackney newsletter), and restored some which you gave no reason for removing (e.g. position on the Falklands War). Warofdreams 19:06, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"In 1985, the group ... and in 1988. The group..." didn't appear to make sense, so I've changed it to "In 1985, the group ... In 1988, the group...": I take it this is what was meant and it's now accurate? -RunningWithScissors 09:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the last paragraph (about 'elitism') as the first sentence was true but insignificant, the second sentence untrue, the third sentence unreferenced, the fourth irrelevant. I've changed the bit about the 2010 election, as the result in 2010 is no more or less notable than any of the AWL's previous electoral efforts. It's a matter of debate as to whether or not people want to add another section detailing all the group's electoral projects. The membership figure ("only 141") was clearly not NPOV, and is now in any case out of date. In general the membership figure for the group fluctuates regularly, so I didn't replace the "only 141" figure with a different estimate. The bit about the AWL's majority position on Iraq being unique worldwide is unverifiable - and it was unreferenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfinan (talk • contribs) 11:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

International connections

I think that it's misleading to list only one organisation in France, so I've expanded it to two and made it those two whose sites link back to the AWL. I've listed the VdT current first, since these seem to be the people with the most interest in the AWL. Listing only the LCR was especially misleading, since the LCR has an other sister organisation in the UK, and since the AWL has closer links to individuals, and tendencies around the LCR like VdT, than to the LCR.

Over the decades, the group has linked to several currents in other countries but obviously these relationships have different strengths. The 'international' listing on the AWL sites can't really reflect that easily. Others might know better... --DuncanBCS 09:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Conservative Future, humilation?

", leading to the humiliation of at one point being beaten by the Conservative Future candidate."

This was recently added. Myself I don't like the the word "humilation" but perhaps being beaten by a Conservative Future candidate is rare enough to be embarassing.

I don't want to remove the whole sentence but can't think of any better rewordings. I thought I'd put it on the talk page to highlight this. Jackliddle 03:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I've removed "Last year the group were a lot smaller but chose to run against Student Broad Left in any full time positions where they stood, leading to the humiliation of at one point being beaten by the Conservative Future candidate." It's biased to the point that I can't think of how to NPOV it. Humiliation is a poor choice of word, and as someone who took some interest in the NUS elections, I didn't hear anything about one ENFS candidate being beaten by a CF candidate - not to say it didn't happen, but it is hardly notable. I heard ENFS were actually a little larger than the CfE the previous year - certainly their Block of 12 candidate polled better. And the section on running against SBL, if mentioned at all, should be put in the context of the breakdown of the NUS left coalition - it is equally true that SBL decided to run against ENFS wherever they stood. Warofdreams 10:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

'Action for Solidarity' actually was established as a broader project, sometime around 1996, with an open editorial board that included John Lister from the ISG. The ISG gave lukewarm support for it, and it was only much later that the AWL formally assimilated it. --81.171.211.66 19:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

MEMBERSHIP NUMBERS

Weekly Worker is biased. Therefore removed.

• The unsigned comment above makes a good point: the Weekly Worker is published by an opponent group that has an interest in underestimating the AWL's membership. However, that group is also the closest to the AWL on the Brtish left. On International Socialist Group we do cite the WW as a reference, alongside others. Compared to the other estimates, it does 'lowball' the numbers: It claims 50 while the highest estimate we found is 100 and the actual number is probably right in the middle. However, I think it's useful as a ball-park figure, even if we point out that the WW tends to under-estimate, or perhaps we can say that it's estim,ates tend to number the activist core rather than the formal membership. Any suggestions? --Duncan 11:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• The CPGB who publish the WW have worked closely in the recent past with the AWL, so they probably have a better idea of AWL membership figures than of ISG membership. However, they do have an interest in underestimating the AWL's membership. I'm not sure of the exact figure, but 100 activists isn't far off, I'd have thought perhaps slightly more, but would be happy to include their claim, with a cautionary note. Warofdreams talk 23:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that's wise. Their estimate of the ISG membership was low but pretty good, and at least correct to 50% pr so; we used until we found a number we could directly cite from the ISG itself. --Duncan 11:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Additionally, the WW is one of the few publications to even consider factors such as other groups' membership figures. It is almost certain that the printed results are "pessimistic", but it is not as if we can cite some immaculate "neutral" paper on the subject instead (and the leaderships of parties have much to gain from exaggerating membership returns, as well), at least until enough time has passed for an article in Revolutionary History. Commander deathguts 10:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Alliance for Workers' Liberty founded in '93

Really? I could have sworn it was '92. Can someone check? --Duncan 10:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Frequency of newspaper

The newspaper is fortnightly. Like many publications, it takes a break over the Christmas/New Year period; like most socialist publications, it operates at a reduced frequency (not usually three-weekly) over midsummer. It's inaccurate to say it is published ever two or three weeks, as it is not published at a three-weekly frequency at any time. Warofdreams talk 18:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No fortnighly comes out 18 or 19 times a year. How about 'fortnightly during the academic term, and less frequently at other times'. --Duncan 21:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Generally, it comes out fortnightly - and the academic term note is incorrect, as its frequency is unchanged in September, or over Easter. If you don't believe me, see the AWL website, the CPGB or Eric Lee's site. Warofdreams talk 00:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Scottish Socialist Party

Is their Solidarity tendency within the Scottish Socialist Party now in Sheridan's Solidarity or have they changed their name to deal with the massive potential confusion.. Secretlondon 10:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No, they are still in the Scottish Socialist Party (and very likely to remain there). Given the obvious potential for confusion, a name change seems likely, but it may be that nothing is decided until the run-up to the next conference, as that is the main point at which tendencies and platforms are important. Warofdreams talk 12:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

How unique...?

I recently updated the page to indicate the AWL's extremely controversial (among the far-left) stance on the Iraq War, saying it was almost unique on the British left. Another fellow "firmed it up", changing that to "unique for the left worldwide". I think this may be hyperbolic - off the top of my head, I can think of the antideutsch movement in Germany, although there may be more. However, I am unable to recall, as it happens, a similarly inclined group in Britain, so perhaps a truthful compromise would be "unique in Britain". Commander deathguts 10:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's just say that for a group claiming to be Trotskyist as opposed to anything else, it is mostly definetly unique. I'ts positon on Zionism, or, perhaps better put, it's position on anti-Zionism is almost unique as well. Pehaps the CWI comes closest on the Trotskyist left to the AWL on Palestine. Overall this is an excellent contribution.216.203.27.99 08:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)DavidMIA

The CWI's position is quite different. First, the CWI is for Arab-Jewish unity to smash the Israeli state. The CWI's view is that the national question cannot be resolved this side of the socialist revolution. Second, the CWI opposes Zionism, and considers it to be a false solution to anti-semitism: while it recognises that, in so far as the Israel Jews have become a nation, they have the right to self-determination within a socialist federation of middle east. Finally, the CWI stands in solidarity with the oppressed against the oppressor: while they fight for the unity of Arabs and Jews they do, for example, support the demand for workers to boycott Israel's arms trade. --Duncan 18:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Duncan. The CWI calls for a "Socialist Israel besides a Socialist Palestine". Like their IMT brothers who they don't talk with anymore, they have a clearly left-Zionist position. Any "Israel" is be definition based on recognition of an "Israeli nationality" and, to a limited extent, Jewish exclusivity. This bi-national position reflects, most closely, the old Mapam/Hoshovmir Hartizer position.DavidMIA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.77.107.100 (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

David, I only just noticed your comment. The debate about the bi-national solution is complex, because some talk about a (singular) bi-national socialist state in which two self-governing communities exist on one territory (I guess co-operating on utilities but running their own schools, a little like Brussels). However, the CWI, the rest of 'mainstream Trotskyism' and Mapam agree on the need for socialist revolution and the smashing of the Zionist state (even if they support the right of the Israelis to self-determination under socialism). The AWL, in contrast, things the national questions can be resolved under capitalism by two states, and do not consider themselves anti-Zionist. The AWL just doesn't talk about the need for socialism in Israel. --Duncan (talk) 09:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Shurely shome mistake?

This sentence is funny but not true (at least I hope there hasn't been a nuclear strike on Iran.... :)

"In August 2008 two dissident members left due to Sean Matgamna taking responsibility for a nuclear pre-emptive attack on Iran by Israel.[citation needed]"

Can someone who knows the issue fix it please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaikney (talk • contribs) 21:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability of bomb Iran spat

Let's discuss this. HalDraper has deleted this, on the basis that The Commune might not be notable since its page has been deleted. Howeever, the spat over Israeli self-defence had wider significance: it has picked up by other press and, clearly, relates strongly to the AWL's position on Israel and its slide towards Zionism. --Duncan (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is any doubt as to the non-notabilty of this section. Unlike the AWL's positions on Israel-Palestine, the occupation of Iraq, the publication of the Muhammad cartoons etc, which are notable, controversial on the left and are outlined, this refers to a discussion about a hypothetical situation, an Israeli airstrike on Iran's nuclear facilities. I'm not aware of it being 'picked up by other press' other than the CPGB and then in a lying, manipulative manner. Several members wrote responses to Sean's article disagreeing with it; one (Broder) resigned and joined with an ex-member (Ford) in forming 'The Commune'. If we listed all the examples of members of the AWL disagreeing with an article by Sean in the paper and/or leaving the group we would have a very long, and not very interesting, article.Haldraper (talk) 09:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

A big pile of cobblers

The article is stuffed full of names and acronyms and dates and links to other groups and God knows what but can I find a simple section that clearly states, without all the guff and ribbons and bows, what the AWL actually stands for? Nope. 92.13.50.188 (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)