SWL Quits A-SCAB: Over Anti-democratic Practice and Attacks from Socialist Labour

320

The Socialist Workers & Youth League (SWL) resolved to disaffiliate from the Alliance for Surviving COVID-19 & Beyond (ASCAB) at its Convention held last month. We communicated this decision to the A-SCAB secretariat on 25 August.

It was a decision that we did not take lightly. In a series of correspondence and discussions with leaders of the A-SCAB, we had repeatedly raised our concerns. We backed these with factual references, which show utter contempt for building a culture of internal democracy and ceaseless offensive against SWL. The A-SCAB bureaucracy never addressed the issues. Instead, it came up each time with one strawman argument or the other.

As a result, the League’s General Council voted for disaffiliation from the alliance in May. This was after A-SCAB dismissed our final call for the democratization of the alliance. Our concern for building united struggles led to setting this decision aside. But the anti-democratic regime in the alliance persisted. And attacks on SWL and its members by members of the new Socialist League (aka the neo-SL, which is the pivotal organization of the A-SCAB bureaucracy) took on added steam.

In our letter of disaffiliation, we responded to the A-SCAB bureaucracy’s last set of strawman arguments. Equally, we pointed out the series of public verbal attacks on a leading female member of the SWL by two leading members of the neo-SLite/A-SCAB bureaucrat. The A-SCAB response, almost a month later, was:

We write to acknowledge receipt of your letter of withdrawal from ASCAB. And while we regret your decision, we wish you well in all your future endeavors, while also believing that the struggle of our people to which we are all committed will provide opportunities for us to work together.

We were not surprised by this action. Members of the neo-SL had made it clear that we were not welcome in “their” alliance and would be happy for us to leave. This is even though we were a bona fide affiliate with paid-up affiliation dues and members who participated in building some chapters of the alliance.

Even whilst we persevered in the alliance, the A-SCAB bureaucracy’s falsification of our intent and roles was the norm. Thus, for posterity, we will set the records straight. Our correspondence with A-SCAB, which can be downloaded below speaks for itself. In this article, we will put the objective narrative captured in the correspondence in context and preemptively respond to some of the distortions that have already been flagged off by the neo-SLites but are not captured in their official A-SCAB response.

This step is also a contribution to highlighting the categorical imperative for organizations and social forces that lay claim to changing the world for the better, to be democratic in their praxis, which includes their internal life.

Our struggle for the democratization of A-SCAB

In the series of letters exchanged with the A-SCAB leadership over a year, we consistently called for the democratization of the alliance, to no avail. Instead of taking steps towards ensuring the needed internal democratic practice required of a coalition that claims to want to change the system, the core of the A-SCAB bureaucracy accused us of wanting to “control” the alliance.

However, it is clear enough in our correspondence that SWL’s stance was against the anti-democratic regime in A-SCAB. This could be summarized thus:

  • At no time whatsoever was a meeting of affiliates ever summoned. A charade of “affiliates meetings” were called a few times. However, these were nothing but public meetings, which were never representative of affiliates. They were merely forums to pass down decisions already reached by the A-SCAB bureaucracy.
  • In a period spanning over a year, organizational structures comprising affiliates were never constituted. But, the A-SCAB secretariat had committed, in writing, to setting up a Steering Committee of all affiliates upon payment of affiliation dues, in June 2020.
  • A Coordinating Committee was constituted without any mandate whatsoever from affiliates. The members of this opaque committee, which met weekly and acted in the alliance’s name, were handpicked (mainly by members of the new SL).

These were anomalies, in our view, which should not be tolerated in a left or “left-led” coalition as the leadership of A-SCAB likes to portray the alliance. It would be an anomaly even in a liberal democratic coalition! All that we asked for was for the fundamental dynamics of democratic coalition-building to be activated.

The perpetual response of the A-SCAB bureaucracy was that it was still a growing platform, and things like setting up structures would take time. This was, at best, a lame excuse; the C-19 Coalition in South Africa, which inspired those that formed A-SCAB in Nigeria, set up its structures democratically in a way that involved every affiliate in a matter of weeks.

It is also instructive to note that A-SCAB organized “the people’s alternative political summit” (T-PAPS) at the end of March, which gave birth to “the people’s alternative political movement” (T-PAPM). A-SCAB was and still is right, left, and center of this effort. And within two weeks, the A-SCAB secretariat had constituted an Interim National Steering Committee of T-PAPM without recourse to any teething problem being an obstacle to forming structures.

Interestingly, while arguing against our charge of lack of democracy in the alliance, the A-SCAB bureaucracy hurriedly set up a steering committee of sorts in response to our April 2021 letter.

It is pretty clear that not establishing democratic structures or seeking a mandate from affiliates was a deliberate strategy of the A-SCAB bureaucracy. This is to their eternal shame, for never in the history of coalition-building in Nigeria has such utter disregard for the most basic democratic tenets been so blatantly demonstrated, not even during the period of military dictatorship, when open organizing was more challenging for democratic forces.

A series of attacks by the neo-SL, leveraging on bureaucratic hold on A-SCAB

The second of our two-pronged concerns was the series of attacks on SWL and members of the SWL by neo-SLites (i.e., members of Socialist Labour). This took several forms. First, in the early days of the alliance, and after SWL had endorsed the Action Plan, which gave birth to the alliance, specific members of the SWL leadership were barred from the WhatsApp group of A-SCAB by those who would later formally constitute the new SL.

What made that selective discrimination the more interesting was that 19 members of the SWL had been added to that A-SCAB group without any discussion with SWL. This was in April 2020 when A-SCAB laid claim to about 68 affiliates (including SWL), and the total number of persons on that WhatsApp list was 63, many of whom were not even members of any of the affiliates.

This rather petty act turned out to be just an appetizer. Resting on their central place in the A-SCAB bureaucracy, neo-SLites, particularly a former SWLer tried to stop us from contributing to discussions in public meetings of A-SCAB. They also threw out our members from meetings of an unelected A-SCAB Coordinating Committee meeting. This was when all other coalitions held expanded sessions of their elected leadership, allowing all affiliates’ members to contribute to the decision-making debates related to the then scheduled 28 September General Strike of NLC/TUC.

As if this were not enough, different members of the SL verbally assaulted a leading member of the SWL twice. Trying to gag or throwing us out of A-SCAB meetings could arguably be dismissed as simply distasteful use of their bureaucratic control over the alliance. But under any circumstance, such vile public verbal attacks would be unacceptable. And we take particular exception to these because the SWLer concerned is a woman. It is not enough for male activists to mouth anti-patriarchal slogans. What is essential is to walk the talk of anti-patriarchal politics.

Contextualizing the new SL’s attacks

It might seem strange that the new SL has taken up such umbrage with the SWL. There is a history to this. And it is one that equally reflects their unprincipled politics.

The new SL comprises two blocs, both of which have been co-travelers in our political tendency. The first includes a former leading member of our tendency from the early 1990s to the end of the 2000s, when he abandoned the group. Despite this unprincipled abandonment, he did everything possible to scuttle the merger of our organization, known as the Socialist Workers Movement (SWM) at the time, with what was then Socialist League (the old SL) in 2011.

Een after the merger, this ex-SWMite took all the feeble steps he could muster to sabotage the post-merger SWL. These futile actions included perpetuating the old SWM name without regard to the democratic resolution of the organization (i.e., the old SWM) to have the old SL merge with us.

The second block of the new SL comprises a handful of comrades who were the leading members of the old SL – all but one of them, by the way, was at best lackluster in the organizational life of the SWL for years. On 25 August 2020, they announced the formation of the new SL without any political debate on principles.

This was after months of these ex-SWLers working as a secret faction within the SWL (and collaborating with the first block). It must also be added that it says a lot that this neo-SL is effectively a merger of the old SL that had joined us to form the SWL, with those who did everything they could to scuttle the old SWM-old SL merger a decade back.

Their unprincipled exit was a response to two developments. First, their penchant for deception as staple tactic was shown for what it was, with evidence. The second was the collective stand within the SWL cadre that no member should be above the League’s organizational discipline.

In the light of the foregoing, if any of the two parties (between them and us) has a legitimate basis to have some grouse, we daresay it is us. But for the SWL and its members, the political struggle comes first and last. We have no time for such inanities as “beef.”

That is why our primary demand for A-SCAB was for its democratization. Every single response to the neo-SL in A-SCAB was because they attacked us. We never at any time went on the offensive. But we have a right, indeed a duty, to defend our organization and members from underhanded attacks from any quarter.

Debunking neo-SLite falsification and distortion

In the course of our struggle for the democratization of A-SCAB, we had extensive discussions with several leaders of A-SCAB. From the beginning of these engagements last year, these included the Chairperson, Deputy Chair, Secretary, PRO, and Treasurer (they were listed in the newspaper stories as the “interim steering committee” members). As we got to know other members of the alliance’s coordinating committee, we also had quite helpful discussions with them.

Most of these comrades were ready to accept the integrity of our arguments, to a great extent, in the course of these informal discussions. One of the committee’s members also said that some of them had to step in to tamper the vitriol in the earlier draft of the alliance’s response to our April 2021 letter.

The neo-SLites in the A-SCAB bureaucracy have been unrelenting in presenting distorted versions of our stance. We responded to the distortions in their formal responses to us. There was a less formal response, which presents an undiluted version of the campaign of calumny, which is to be expected from the neo-SLite/A-SCAB bureaucracy.

From our history with the two sides of the neo-SL coin, we know that outright lies spiced with half-truths is their stock in trade. It is a characteristic that binds the neo-SLites. We also understand how they ply the trade of calumny. It is often behind the scenes, building on any unaddressed distortion with still more fibers of falsehood.

We are thus constrained to debunk the allegations being leveled against us thus:

  1. The SWL rebuffed all initial outreach to join A-SCAB

* On the contrary, while we had every reason to rebuff the outreach, we welcomed the idea of the alliance and gave it full support:

=> We received the Action Plan after seeing it on several WhatsApp groups being shared by then members of our organization.

– One of these, and who has been at the fore of attacks on SWLers was a member of the SWL CC and was asked to give further insight on the Action Plan to guide our position. He claimed to have absolutely no idea of the Plan, claiming he merely saw it online as everyone else.

* He then added members of the SWL (19) to the then-emerging alliance’s WhatsApp group but insisted that three leading members of the SWL were not welcome in the alliance (even after we had endorsed the Action Plan). And he added that this was based on discussions with his confederates, whom he refused to mention.

=> In the light of the preceding, it would have been legitimate to have rebuffed this form of “outreach.” But we were convinced that despite the bathwater, the idea of the alliance’s baby was a good one that should be supported.

  1. “At every turn, since the beginning of the ASCAB process, all that the SWL has done is to wage internal fratricidal wars, to launch deliberately intended debilitating attacks, to call into question the viability of the process and project, and the sincerity of the organizers of the process, while always raising the bogey of anti-democratism.”

=> First, the struggle for internal democracy has never been a bogey to us. It is of utmost importance, in line with our stance of revolution/democracy/socialism from below.

=> Second, our spelled out positions and actions at the onset of the alliance show that rather than call its viability into question, we tried to promote “the process and project.”

– The opening sentence of our first letter to the alliance was “SWL commends the ASCAB initiative as one which has great potential for ensuring that concerns of poor working-class people are central to the national COVID-19 response.”

– We also pointed out that we had been “happy to endorse the Action Plan which gave birth to the Alliance”, adding that our members were active in building the alliance in different parts of the country.

=> Third, we have not launched attacks. Indeed, each of our first two letters was a reply to letters from the A-SCAB secretariat. The third and last for 2020 was a direct response to attacks on us by SWLers in the A-SCAB bureaucracy.

  1. We “consider a process democratic only if certain individuals (from the SWL) are (not) directly represented in person” within the leadership structures of A-SCAB. And SWL will consider “the end of democratization (to) be served only if “it dominates and conquer in all of the coalitions.”

=> For the avoidance of doubt, our intent was not one of being on the A-SCAB leadership. It was about: “democratic ratification of a set of A-SCAB rules” and democratic mandate for leadership of the alliance and “two-way communication (between the alliance’s organs and affiliates) that enriches discourse and a sense of collective ownership.”

=> The claim that we want/ed to dominate and conquer all coalitions is as pedestrian as it is mischievous. We have played our roles in different coalitions, but clearly as co-players with other affiliates and not with any such intent. Any statement otherwise flies in the face of verifiable historical and contemporary facts.

  1. “The entire leadership of ASCAB FCT, for instance, is fully SWL, (but) nobody raises issues.” Members of SWL representing other organizations indirectly represent SWL on the A-SCAB CC (with those organizations they represent, presented as “fronts”)

* It is true that the chair and secretary of A-SCAB FCT were SWLers. But this has to be put in context:

=> First, this was at the urging of the leading neo-SLite who was at the time a leading member of the SWL. And his shrewd calculation was to leverage on our organizational structures in the FCT

=> Second, the SWLers concerned sought and received mandate for this from affiliates in the FCT. If a wholly neo-SLite or neo-SLite anointed national leadership emerged through such a democratic process, there would have been no need to “raise issues” of the alliance’s coordinating committee being illegitimate

=> Third, no member of the SWL has been on the A-SCAB coordination through “fronts.” We do not use such tactics (as the neo-SLites, represented through several bodies, including one-person centers).

=> The one person who is a member of the SWL on that coordination is the General Secretary of a trade union, which got affiliated with A-SCAB after internal democratic discussions in its leadership organs. And he is on the coordination committee only with the mandate of the TUC, which he reports to (by the way, the neo-SLites initially made efforts to kick him out, simply for being a member of the SWL, despite his role as a trade union leader, which was the basis of his involvement in A-SCAB).

  1. “Every political alliance or coalition is a deliberate effort, set about to achieve set objectives by its promoters. No political alliance or coalition is neutral – let us be clear about this.”

* What is meant here is that behind every coalition, its promoters have an agenda to achieve their set objectives. On the face of things, especially if this were not from people that lay claim to some form of democracy from below, it would seem quite a logical claim to make. But there are a few important points to note:

=> By setting up a coalition, its promoters tacitly accept that they cannot meet these set objectives alone. To the extent that they have thus invited other organizations to have a coalition/alliance formed based on those objectives, they are dutybound to democratically engage with those other affiliates in shaping the processes and structures for achieving those shared objectives.

=> The coalition thereby attains a life of its own. This does not have to mean a sidelining of the primary promoters who would have a moral authority and could very well play a central political role in a collective leadership of the said coalition. This should, however, be based on democratic processes and not bureaucratic gerrymandering within the coalition.

  1. “It is democratic to raise objections, it is also democratic for a majority decision and cause of action to be taken and embarked upon”

* What is presented here as a “democratic” approach to decision-making in the alliance is as democratic as North Korea is a “Democratic” Republic!

=> A-SCAB claims to have over 70 affiliates. And we have been told that there are about 30 persons in its coordination committee (which takes all decisions on behalf of the alliance). These include several persons that come from the same organization (and we are not merely talking of the neo-SLites who have at least five members, even if from “different” affiliates, or fronts if you will). But assuming that each committee member represents an organization, even though that is not the case, they would still represent less than half of all the A-SCAB declared affiliates. How then are the decisions of this unelected, non-representative behemoth of a bureaucracy of the alliance democratic or reflective of the majority’s will?

=> If affiliates elected the coordinating committee, it could be argued that it exercises delegated power. But this is not the case. It has no mandate of affiliates. It must also be pointed out that some persons on that committee are there as individuals. They are not representative of any affiliate or identified as individual members on the publicly available list of A-SCAB affiliates which included only one or two persons as individual members).  This much insight was provided by members of the committee. Further, the organizations of several of those representing affiliates never paid affiliation dues.

=> The issue is not simply about SWL, which as a fully paid-up affiliate, raised legitimate concerns. The point is that the decisions of an A-SCAB bureaucracy, which encompasses a minority of affiliates and which was never democratically constituted, cannot be said to be majoritarian or democratic.

  1. SWL is not only “a principal partner and affiliate of CORE”, SWL “directly controls CORE.”

* A Freudian slip can be discerned here. Since the neoslites do directly control A-SCAB, leveraging on their role as its “promoters,” it is taken as given by them that SWL equally controls CORE and directly too, to boot! For the avoidance of doubt, the facts are that:

=> SWL was one of the two organizations that kicked off the process of alliance/coalition-building of left groups and workers’ organizations with the Africa Action Congress/Take It Back movement, which resulted in the birth of CORE

– We stood up to fight for the democratization of CORE as a coalition with a robust internal democratic culture in the coalition, which entails the active involvement of all the CORE affiliates in its decision-making structures and processes.

– we do not see or present SWL as a partner – principal or otherwise – in CORE. We are an affiliate like every other affiliate without any special or “principal” place whatsoever.

  1. “just as when the CORE coalition was established, it was established for a purpose, and other organizations were invited to join and canvassed to sign on; so was ASCAB established, and other organizations (including SWL) canvassed to join.”

* Presenting the formation process of CORE and A-SCAB as similar phenomena is hypocrisy of the highest order. The comrade who now tries to establish this supposed equivalence waged an unrelenting campaign of calumny against the components of what became CORE. And thereinafter against CORE, while its activists were at the barricades against the state.

To put things in a clearer perspective:

=> CORE started as the AMPA/TIB Coalition in 2018. AMPA (Alliance for the Masses Political Alternative) was a project of SWL and SVT, which were both supporting the Sowore2019 ticket powered by the TIB movement.

=> the ex-SWMite/neoslite concerned here had also declared his intention to run for president in the 2019 elections. He sent emails to the SWL asking for our support and expected that this would be automatic. Meanwhile, there was absolutely no momentum whatsoever behind his “campaign,” which was supposedly being driven by a Take Back Nigeria movement

=> he and his lieutenants launched a tirade of attacks against TIB and particularly SWL. Against TIB, his main argument was that, by calling itself the Take It Back movement, it was infringing on the patent right of sorts of his earlier so-named Take Back Nigeria. He also claimed that the campaign merely organized “sponsored town hall meetings” and weighed its relevance with the number of its followers on social media that would “do nothing” in between whenever the movement’s candidate showed his face.

In his view, stated time and again, the TIB candidacy was merely a ruse to divert attention from him as the ordained candidate of the left for the 2019 presidency, despite his doing absolutely nothing whatsoever in the form of campaigning. TIB and not the bourgeois parties became his main partisan target.

=> The attacks against SWL were more long-lasting and virulent. His close lieutenant fired the first salvo in June 2018, barely a week after the SWL Convention. He accused us of being sectarian or bad belle for not resolving to “engage” with the Socialist Party of Nigeria being a socialist organization at our Convention.

The primary figure here and now in the A-SCAB bureaucracy had expected to be automatically given a ticket to run for the presidency by SPN. This was a party that he just joined after being agnostic to its years-long battle for registration. When SPN chose not to present a presidential candidate and thus not give him a ticket, this “socialist” did not bat an eye before moving over to an NGO-like “Sustainable Nigeria Party” in a desperate bid to still run for president. Unfortunately, he ended up humiliated and embittered when neophyte liberal elements scuttled his attempt to negotiate a ticket bureaucratically.

=> Even after throwing away all pretensions to the importance of running on a socialist party’s ticket, our good friend could still say that “there were discussions about the left adopting particular parties and candidates; yet in all of these conversations the main left backers and promoters of AAC, contrary to the resolutions of their platforms decided to back AAC, rather than any other left and or socialist-oriented parties.”

There is much to be said here, but we will limit ourselves to pointing out that: “particular…candidates” was just a synonym for himself; we were not a part of the discussions he claims took place; the fact that he very quickly switched from the SPN to the Sustainable Nigeria Party (SNP) – which was not left by any stretch of the imagination – underscores crass opportunism; we did not act contrary to the resolutions of our organization. On the contrary, we had an extensive and in-depth internal discussion with our lodestone being how the electoral process could serve to advance the banner of revolutionary politics within the working masses and youth

=> With this bad blood, which he had solely thrown up based on self-serving purposes, it was not likely that he would have been invited to or been interested in joining CORE. And things did not end there. He launched an attack against CORE after the coalition launched its RevolutionNow campaign on 5 August 2019, and faced state repression. Over fifty coalition members had been brutalized by the security forces, with a significant number of these in detention when this attack was launched.

=> He started like Mark Anthony who claimed to come to bury Caesar merely. The right to rebel, he correctly pointed out, is a “categorical statement of principle.” He then rammed in his “critique”, dismissing the campaign as nothing but a “cacophony around #RevolutionNow” which treats a revolution as mere “happenstance” or “event” instead of as a process and whose demands were nothing new anyway. After all, as he said, in their programs, every left organization had always inscribed the contents if not the words of the RevolutionNow campaign’s “5-CORE demands”.

=> Several comrades from different groups and traditions criticized this rather scathing condemnation of the efforts of activists that had dared seize the bull by the horns, and were under attack, on left WhatsApp groups such as the Conference on Marxism. Interestingly, these included a leading member of the neo-SL today. Amongst other things, he did say:

“You can only raise the issues you raise if you were a member of CORE. As a non-member of CORE, we/you have a responsibility to defend without equivocation the right of expression and peaceful action, including the demands of the organizers, if you have nothing against them in principle.”  

=> But this did not stop our friend who now comes up with the distortion we are having to debunk today to step on the gas of attacks. For our response to his attacks against CORE at the time, he accused us of being no better than Stalin sitting over the 1936-8 Moscow trials. Everybody on the left had a right to speak on CORE and its campaign for RevolutionNow, he said.

=> the irony, which can be explained only as political dishonesty is that someone who took such a position, now considers our exercising the right to speak on palpable anti-democratic practice in an alliance that we were bona fide members of, as a crime. We must live with the purpose for which they, as promoters of the alliance, established it and the sectarian regime in it that constricts democratic decision-making and involves attacks against us!

Our tradition of democracy from below & the principle of internal democracy

The primary focus of our struggle in A-SCAB was for a battle to enthrone internal democracy in the alliance. We had had to speak out against the neo-SLites actions only where and when they targeted us. We have every legitimate right and indeed duty to defend ourselves by at the very least putting these on record, as we have done.

Our extensive take on debunking the emerging narrative based on foundations of falsification is borne out of our experiences with the neo-SLites in general and the concerned comrade who is advancing this in particular. For example, in response to the comrade’s barefaced distortion of earlier pivotal events on the left, we have had to set the record straight on roles we played here, with reference to a primary document.

However, it is pertinent to point out that we did not fight for the democratization of A-SCAB simply because the neo-SLites are at the heart of the anti-democratic regime of the alliance’s bureaucracy. Our unshaken stand for internal democratic life in the coalition was in line with our tradition of struggle for internal democracy as a critical element of a genuine stand for democracy from below, without which claims to revolutionary socialism is suspect. We daresay that we have a rich history in this regard.

A few examples would suffice to buttress this point. We challenged the corrupt and anti-democratic regime in the Campaign for Democracy (CD) in the 1995-7 period. We took a principled stand to quit when this was to no avail. Similarly, we saw no alternative to leaving the National Conscience Party in 2018 after its National Coordinating Council endorsed the executives’ sellout to PDP by joining the fraudulent Coalition of United Political Parties (CUPP). And in 2020, we stood up against the SVT & Co. undermining internal democracy in the Coalition for Revolution (CORE), leading to the full participation of all CORE affiliates in the coalition’s governance.

Conclusion

There are no signs that the anti-democratic regime in A-SCAB is likely to be overcome. There is no point hitting our heads against a brick wall, which will also lead to continued attacks against us, including campaigns of calumny. While an affiliate could initiate the struggle for internal democracy inside a coalition, as we have done, waging and winning the battle for democratization is not the sole task of a single affiliate.

We were not the only ones to have pointed out the lack of internal democracy in A-SCAB. The first group to point this out in a WhatsApp group was the MLWI. And just a few days back, someone also posted on the A-SCAB WhatsApp group that: “There are sacred cows and untouchable personalities on AS CAB PLATFORM and am sure there is inequality and selective justice in administering” it.

We have systematically and persistently advocated for the sort of internal life that an alliance that claims to want to change society for the better should have. Despite attacks against us, we have done this in the most fraternal manner. Our earlier letters were to the A-SCAB bureaucracy. The April 2021 letter was then copied to all affiliates, to bring the situation clearly to all affiliates.

If the regime of the A-SCAB bureaucracy is okay with other affiliates, it is not with us. We cannot insist that they see things from our perspective. Nor can we work within the context of such an anti-democratic regime. We are ready to stand together and fight for a better society with A-SCAB and any other group at the barricades.

To sum up, we must reiterate that our differences with the neo-SLite have not influenced our primary perspective. The evidence shows that on their part, apart from a general commitment to bureaucratic control of the alliance, they were guided by jaundiced angst against the SWL from the get-go of the alliance.

While it is excellent and helpful for groups to have warm relations, this is not a precondition for instituting democratic dynamics in a coalition or focusing on its politics. No one best summed this up than Femi Aborisade in his response to J.Gaski in August 2019 when he said:

“Concentrate on the content of their demands and the principle that they have a right of peaceful action. Where your focus is on individuals, your past or current differences may make you take a counter-revolutionary or anti-democratic position.”

The position of the A-SCAB bureaucracy against the SWL has been, at the very least, anti-democratic. The same goes for its work on the alliance’s internal life.

by Baba AYE

SWL_disaffiliation-letter_a-scab

SWL-letter_ascab-democratisation (1)

a-scab RESPONSE TO SWL 2021

initial_neosl_response_April2021

SWL_ascab_correspondence_2020_June_September

Comments

comments