AWL publish 'working class struggle and anarchism'

I'm wondering if this is part of an internal spat on their part and Thomas is trying to head off interest in anarchism from some of the AWL's members/sympathisers - which would tie in with some of them making overtures to groups like SF about how "similar" we are.

The powerpoint presentation is hilarious. Each slide has so many inaccuracies I really wouldn't know where to start. That said, I do love, in particular, the 'road map' of anarchism and the conclusion:

"The Marxist alternative: organising on the basis of the logic of the class struggle (on all its fronts)"

It's certainly a powerful critique of (class struggle) anarchism.

What so Martin "anarkies is basically Proudhon and Bakunin" Thomas is the top dog in one of their main tendencies then? Christ imagine actually looking on someone like that as your theoretical guru...

Third on the right (from his flickr account where he names himself in the third person).

I knew a decent one, but I think he left.

He would not be that photo by any chance?

is that really necessary?

can we all just stick to the political arguements, rather than the personal ones.

I disagree that it's important to ask why leftists put so much energy into tearing apart "anarchist" strawmen. Everything that they do is completely irrelevant. The Left (including the loony "far" fringe) is and will always be a cringeworthy sideshow to the big "legitimate" political circus of the state.
Why bother replying to this garbage or argue over the many factual errors? It only encourages a meaningless sectarian back-and-forth. It's not like the AWL, or even the SWP, have "ruined" anarchism for the working class by talking shit about it. As far as I can see, their lies and fabrications are designed for internal consumption (i.e. the reaffirmation of the party line) and to illicit a response from irate and gullible anarchists.
In a way it would be far more interesting to ask why anarchists bother engaging with Trot BS? Is it because of a misguided belief that there is such a thing as a "battle of ideas", or is it because they see themselves as part of the far left, and thus must assert their legitimacy when attacked by those to their "right"?

i think its a case of

Well I made a conscious decision to post under that article initially because I hoped anybody not an already convinced Trotskyist reading it might think twice before accepting their bullshit.
But then I carried on because I got irate and am gullible, not being sarcastic, not something I've done before though.

edit: that cartoon's quality! and true

The AWL are dogs not worth talking to. Fuck them and their counter-revolutionary bull shit theories.

I don't know tho, the AWL does try to strattle into the anarchist mileu. Recently, I gave a talk at at a Climate Camp event on workplace organizing only to be followed by the AWL on the trade unions. If the class struggle wing of the activist scene is inviting them to events, it's probably worth discrediting them. (That said, prior to this, I have soft spot for the AWL, having met some of their members and gotten on.)

Any response?

Just curious, what branch?

They do like the IWW, I've seen them write about them historically and about the SWU.

You're right for the most part. That's why I prefaced my statement with my trainspotterly interest in doing so – I find it interesting, but fixing their problems is a bad use of resources for anarchist groups. Dunno what it's like in the UK and elsewhere, but a large amount of anarchists here in Australia start as refugees from authoritarian leftists politics. In that sense, and the general social context, it pays to be civil. The expenditure of energy to be outright aggressive, for the most part, is also counter-productive.

I suspect Rob Ray's guess is correct – seems similar things are happening everywhere in the West where the bolshevik Left once had some standing – and this probably has more to do with it than any connection to historical arguments.

But… was it really necessary to publish the bloke's name and photo – or doesn't it matter? I don't care, but I would frown upon that in a local context. Or unsubstantiated accusations of being "sleezebags"? Doesn't relate at all to the shittiness of the article.

P.S. The powerpoint was like a brilliant parody of every boring, painful trot I've ever met. I especially liked the Glenn Beck-esque "roadmap".

Well the photo was publicly posted to his personal flickr account and he's been quite insistent that people use his real name, so neither's against his wishes. Dunno why Jim wanted it, curiosity I guess?

Mons et al, if you have something to say about the shit they write, please don't engage them with it. Put a decent response together and put it in the libcom library. They are not worth the time or effort.

Fair enough.

One of their organisers, Sasha, is the typically arrogant public school Trot, and nasty with it! PLEASE shed any illusions about AWL being "nice" they're just doing that to recruit and when it comes to push and shove they behave like all other Trots

I've gotta say, I don't think personal attacks and naming people in photos does any credit to the criticisms made of AWL. I might think all sorts of things about all sorts of people in left and anarchist circles, but I'm not going to devote a post to my opinion of their personality. It's poisonous for the sort of culture I'd like to see.

Martin T might have chosen to name himself in an online photo, but S hasn't, as far as I know (and anyway, why post a photo here at all?). I wouldn't like it if trots (or anarchists for that matter) started publishing photos of me online, with my name, and their evaluation of my personal qualities. What can that possibly contribute politically?

With respect, Battlescarred isn't beyond being a little arrogant himself sometimes (if he is who I think he is); and I'm sure that the AF has members who went to public school.

I'd agree that naming/slagging S isn't on, he hasn't given consent for his real name and we should do as we would be done by.

If YOU'RE who i think you are, Posi, that really is pot and kettle.

Maybe I am, and maybe it is, Battlescarred - but that's the point. There's nothing to be got out of off the cuff personal evaluations of people on political internet forums - and alot of potential for escalating interpersonal nonsense.

Tssskkkk!!! So why did you start??

If some minor article by the AWL winds you up to the point where you need to have a cry about it and post up insults then you need to re-adjust your priorities a bit. Seriously harden the fuck up people suely you'se can argue sensibly with people or ust ignore it.
This thead rapidly became a bit embarrasing, if i was an admin i'd delete half the posts on here for being irrelevant insults an personal attacks that have nowt to do with anything.

We hosted a meeting at the AWL summer school a few years back. I thought we came across pretty well even though the numbers they had down obviously made the debate a little skewed, The intervention of some much more orthodox trots (forget which parties) meant that we could have said nearly anything and still sounded reasonable.
And yeah sure we didn;t convince anyone in one meeting (i'd be worried if we had tbh) but i the long term these are still useful debates to be had.

As always when arguing with bolshevism, it is the ''content of socialism'' that is the real meat you need to be dealing with. Bieng drawn into historical arguements or discussion about whether anarchists believe in a state or not is a mugs game.
When it comes to the AWL you need to be arguing about elections and their albeit fluctuating fondness for the labour party or by what structures they see workers controlling their own struggles, or how recent struggles have played out vis a vis the narrative of working withi official unions in a social democratic fashion.

Fucking anarchos and their secret-cliquism. By the way who's signing up for the paramilitary wing of Libcom?

erm, I didn't - that was you. #59.

hahahaha