19.05.2004

Exclusive body language

An open letter to Martin Thomas of the Alliance for Workers' Liberty

What has come between us, comrade? You never write, you never call ...

It all started so promisingly. Early in 2003, as an 'indie' in the Socialist Alliance, I wrote a letter for publication both in Solidarity and the Weekly Worker, praising the Alliance for Workers' Liberty and the Communist Party of Great Britain for their open press, and criticising them for indulging a foolish dispute about the Leedsgate affair (see both papers passim ad nauseum, as Private Eye used to say). You rather spoilt my thesis by not printing my letter, which appeared only in the Weekly Worker (February 13 2003), but you did reply to me personally.

How we talked. I have kept and treasured every email. They culminated in your personal invitation to the 2003 AWL conference: which I found interesting politically and enjoyable socially. As an IT worker, I even attended your subcommittee discussing work on your website, and am still on your internal awl-website electronic distribution list. (I've mentioned this a few times, but these days nobody in the AWL seems to care what I say. I try not to be bitter. But I think comrade Janine Booth deserves better technical support than she's getting.)

I made friends. When I finally decided that my political home was in the CPGB, I was reassured that this wouldn't come between us: but how quickly some forget.

It was with warm anticipation that I emailed you on March 29 seeking an invitation to the 2004 AWL conference. I explained I'd enjoyed last year's event, and wished to write a report of this important gathering of socialists in the Weekly Worker. Your curt reply is written on my heart. I quote it in full: "We'll discuss it." Then silence. On April 27 I sent a reminder: still no response. I sat alone listening to I will survive. Finally, I cornered you at the London May Day demonstration.

You told me that you had come to a collective decision to refuse me entry. Collective? To be rejected by an individual is painful: but by a formal committee convened for the purpose? That hurts. I asked why.

You explained that you were unhappy with the way the Weekly Worker reported AWL events. You had no complaints about my reports in the paper - just unspecified 'others'. I argued that we obviously reserved the right to be critical: surely open political debate was close to both our hearts (you see how I always credit you with the best intentions?)

You quickly agreed, but said it wasn't political disagreement you feared. You were particularly offended by a reference we apparently made to the "body language" of some of your comrades at an AWL meeting in a previous issue.

The phrase stuck in my mind, and so I consulted the Weekly Worker archives. You are quite right: Mark Fischer, describing the attitude of AWL members towards the Socialist Alliance, wrote:

"The move into the SA has clearly not been without its problems for this group. Certainly, amongst its leading members in London, it is fairly easy to distinguish those who are more reluctant participants, often simply by negative body language and impatient face-gurning at meetings. Indeed, differences within the AWL have become more pronounced during this fluid and exacting period."

But, Martin, he wrote this on February 8 2001: over three years ago. Aside from the issue of whether comrade Fischer's rather mild comments really warrant our exclusion, you've been nursing this pique for rather a long time, haven't you? And, as you said, CPGB comrades have been invited to AWL conferences in 2002 and 2003. What is the use of complaining that they didn't take up such invitations and then, when an invitation is actually sought, excluding us?

All of this I could understand if the AWL had simply decided to have an entirely internal event this year. Clearly, every organisation has the right to talk privately. But as fate would have it, as I stood reeling from the shock of rejection amongst the flags of May Day, who should turn up but Steve Freeman of the Revolutionary Democratic Group. Hearing us discuss the conference, he innocently asked, "Oh yes, will I be receiving an invitation?"

If I referred to your body language at this point, would I be reopening old wounds? I don't think I've ever seen anyone struggling with embarrassment quite as exquisite as yours at that moment. You unconsciously took a physical step back, as if considering taking to your heels. "I can't remember what we decided," you claimed. And yet I note that comrade Freeman was invited.

So, to put it simply, it was a political exclusion. How else can I put it? It was not an internal meeting, as at least one other group was present (and how many others have there been, Martin? My blood runs cold) but the CPGB was excluded because you were worried about what we might say in the Weekly Worker.

You promised me an email formally explaining your reasons. It never came.

Am I to be left to conclude that, after all, hell hath no fury like an AWLer whose body language has been questioned - and who was determined not to face open political criticism and debate?

Why wasn't I allowed to report the conference, Martin?

With communist greetings,