How low can the SWP go? (and other discussions moved to this article)

by john throne - labors militant voice Wed Apr 02, 2003 19:02 loughfinnn at aol dot com

I do want to know who wrote articles and put them into this discussion using my name. But I do not want anybody to be blamed in the wrong. Could the person who says that this was Kevin McLaughlin who did this please give his or her reasons for saying so. I repeat I do not want anybody blamed in the wrong. I also do not want anybody to make false allegations and get away with this. But if this allegation is correct I want to be able to follow it up. Please verify this allegation Sorry for the delay in responding but I have been ill. John Throne.

by john throne - labors militant voice Thu Mar 27, 2003 08:14 loughfinn at aol dot com

The only pieces that appears in this discussion that have been written by myself are "This is a forgery" and "the internal regime". There is one piece dealing with the CWI entitled "Long live the CWI left opposition". This was taken from the introduction to our website for which it was not written by me either. Whoever down loaded this added on the first sentence attacking the CWI leadership. Anybody can check this by going to the website. The whole artice is there minus the first sentence. I do not know who is doing this but it is unprincipled. I hope that the person can be identified.

This most recent piece criticizing myself comes from somebody who says they are in the CWI. It makes a number of accusations against me. (I would prefer if they would give their name.) They say they used to have respect for me but my "degeneration in the ninties" and my "immature antics at the last (SP) conference" destroyed that respect. I am not sure what was immature about my antics at the SP conference. I attended, distributed my open letter and discussed with people. I did not make a scene when I was not allowed to attend and not allowed into the social in the bar on the saturday evening.

This writer says also that I " degenerated into opportunism". He/She also says that I wish to destroy the CWI and that I am not interested in working within it that if I was I would not have left the US section. I have no idea who this person is. But they do not know what they are talking about. The main battle around which I came into opposition in the CWI was the opportunist capitulation of the majority of the US section to the union bureaucracy in the US so-called labor Party. The CWI accused me of being ultr left. Never until today have I ever heard the accusation from anybody in the CWI that I was opportunist. By the way two years after i was expelled the IS of the CWI had to intervene in the US section against this capitulation to the union bureaucracy in the LP. And about me not being prepared to work in the CWI or I would not have left the US section. But I never left the US section I was expelled and also expelled from the CWI.

I do not know anything about the events that took
place in Belfast that set off this exchange. I did not and do not want to be involved in it.But now that I was dragged into it the more important issues posed for me in these exchanges are: Why have Trotskyist organizations developed this highly centralized internal life which is in contrast to the internal life of the Bolsheviks which was one of factional battle and why have the various anti capitalist organizations not been able to build united fronts in action against the offensive of capitalism. To me the crucial issue at this time is the building of anti capitalist united fronts based on direct action and with an orientation to the working class to confront and throw back the offensive of capitalism. To achieve this there has to be a break from sectarianism.

In my open letter to the Irish S.P. I try and deal with these issues. This open letter will be up on our website by tomorrow night and I would like to invite people to access it there. I would like to suggest to the writer from the CWI who will not give his/her name to go to the website and check the material on the CWI and he/she will be able there to get a better idea of what happened.

Please if there is to be more discussion on this the person making the allegations such as this writer should have the decency to give their name.

John Throne.

by CP3P0 Wed Mar 26, 2003 19:39

John Throne,
I did have some respect for you as a founding member of the SP who has contributed much to building the SP CWI and the workers movement. But your degeneration in the ninties in conjunction with your immature antics at the last conference has destroyed any bit of respect I had for you.

Jonh, if you were serious about wanting to speak at the conference why did you not contact the part beforehand. The SP are not hard to get in contact with. Instead of doing this you turn up unannounced at the conference distributing some of your litriture and then demanding the right to speak. If you were serious you would have gone through the proper channels.

In my opinion the conference should not have even considered your request as it was in no way genuine. But we did, we discussed it and voted on it. It was rejected, those that did vote in favour of your request have not been hounded. That is untrue.

This whole discussion has to be taken in the context of your politics John. You have degenerated into oppurtunism. It also has to be taken in the context of you wishing to destroy the CWI, you aren't interested in working within it trying to convince people to your position. If you were why did you leave the US section.

A bit of advice, concentrate on your own group.

by John Throne - LABOR'S MILITANT VOICE Wed Mar 26, 2003 18:36 aactivist at igc dot org

Sadly the SP have once again been weighed in the balance and found wanting. This stems from their policy of courting the Labor leaders who are in reality Class Traitors.

It is more important for them to win the imprimatur of a misleader like Jack O'Connor of SIPTU than to win workerts to real action against this Imperialist War.

Empty sloganeering from Trade Union windbags leads us nowhere. An opportunity has been lost. Hundreds of Labor representatives could have been influenced by a class based appeal for action. Instead it was left to the sectarians to make their misguided intervention.

by pat c Wed Mar 26, 2003 16:00

Only seven of us turned up this morning to carry out an anti war lobby of the ICTU Special Delegate Conference.

No one from the SP or SWP were there. I wonder why?

Four of those at the lobby were SD supporters.

by Sean Wed Mar 26, 2003 14:51

Who Benefits when socialists inform to the police about socialists. Rather than conventional methods or going to the leadership of the party {who are the people doing it, so no point} the only alternative is to let others know.

by TJ Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:19

The facts about hadden are correct soon to have footage.

by NoMixers Tue Mar 25, 2003 20:03

Look at this stuff, drawn into the fight are the SWP, John Throne, SP and now SD.
Is it not clear that most of this stuff was not written by members of these groups. Think about it, in most cases the information is completely wrong and designed to cause the maximum damage.
It is my view that it is written by non socialists possibly with a little help from their mates in government.
Think about it.
Who benifits when the left are at each others throats?
Will this weaken the AWM?
Did the SWP, JH, SP and SD write this rubbish?

by We aint working with them up here Tue Mar 25, 2003 17:35

In the south but not in the north. their six active members in belfast are lead by hadden. We will not continually attempt to reach out the hand of friendship or to work with them, while on the other hand always having to look over our shoulders wondering what is going to happen next. We have tried for years and despite this we see constant outrageous behaviour such as the recent situation. The bad apple has now spoilt their other five active members, we have and are now working with more representative forces. We took the same approach with the Socialist Democracy a way back and they finally wised up. Unfortunately and regretably Hadden still has not wised up so we have no alternative due to his ever increasingly dangerous sectarian behaviour.

by pearson68 - Socialist Worker Tue Mar 25, 2003 16:09 markpearson68 at hotmail dot com

Comrades,
Lets not focus on Tommy Sheridan's sun-tan or the clothes he wears. His non-sectarian approach inspires me: the Scottish SWP and the Scottish SP have merged into one party and are continuing to grow in the polls. This is how we build a space for Socialism in national politics. I would like to see at least an electoral united front between the two parties here in Ireland and there should be an open debate if one side decides to reject this strategy; Unity is Strength!
Both sides will gain by working together more... (What's more important is that the wider public will start to take us more seriously.)

(As an activist in the Campaign Against Services Charges , I have worked closely with SP members, I would like to see more of this nationally.)

Regards

MarkP

by A left prod Tue Mar 25, 2003 15:26

All out Targeting of Peter Hadden? Was it not Davy Carlin who was initially targeted by members of the Socialist Party, who slandered him, told lies of him and used personal attacks against him? Davy was going to ignore once again Peters unbelievable behaviour and just let those groups whom he works with know. But on advice by many groups in N.reland who know of Peters ways they told davy it was time to wise up and urged him to reply as we have done on several occasions in the past when he had just brushed such behaviour under the carpet. He was not even going to raise this unforgivable recent situation until those attacks by the Socialist Party on Indymedia happened and when he did he did so with reluctance. It is sad when hard working and dedicated socialists like Davy are attacked in such a vicious way by the Socialist party on this site and when they are openly accused of directing such anti war action by other socialists, on the city centre streets, witnessed by press, police and other anti war activists. Davy did excellent work bringing together the Shankill and Falls road march recently in support of the firemen.
And with Davy putting himself at the front of the Anti War campaign. I ask you why are socialists trying to get him and his comrades arrested, I was there as a trade unionist representative and with others seen Peters unforgivable and frantic behaviour and with the Socialist Party also attacking Davy on Indymedia I therefore agree with you cleo, who are those sinister forces. Peter has destroyed the SP in N.Ireland by his ongoing behaviour. I also will isolate and ignore him and will urge others in my community to do the same

by IMC Tue Mar 25, 2003 14:27

ohn Throne Lives
by The SP Left Opposition Tue, Mar 25 2003, 11:30am

Down With The SP Troika!
John Throne Lives! The spirit of John Throne lives on in the SP. We are continuing to resist the Troika. We are determined to return democracy to the partys internal life. The best way to overthrow the epignones is to expose them. It is true that the party is on its last legs in Northern Ireland. Hadden is destroying it, he is not a tout, merely a very sick man. The Natiional Committee of the SP did decide on the speaking order at the conference. John Throne was refused permission to attend as a non-speaking observor. No one was allowed to speak in defence of his right to attend. The two who voted in favour of him attending have been hounded ever since. The party line is handed down to the National Committee by the Troika and even they get most of their orders from the CWI in London.

edit this story | hide this story | delete this story
COMMENTS

Long Live The CWI Left Opposition!
by John Throne - LABOR'S MILITANT VOICE Tue, Mar 25 2003, 12:04pm
[email protected]

Thank you Comrades. Keep up the fight. Until Taafe and his Irish minions are removed there is no hope of advancing to build a Revolutionary International.

In the 1980s, British capitalism as well as the establishment leaders of the British Labor Party got a bad fright: The Marxist wing of the Labor party enjoyed rapid growth and increased influence. Known as the "Militant Tendency" (after the title of its paper Militant, no relation to "The Militant" published here in the US), these comrades won the leadership of the official youth wing of the Labor Party (the Labor Party Young Socialists) and a large base in the adult party and the trade unions.

In the early 1980's the Militant Tendency led the Labor Party in Liverpool and won the city council. Under their leadership, the Liverpool city council was the only council in all of Britain that refused to carry out cuts. In fact, it built more houses than all the councils in England and Wales combined, it hired additional city workers, and increased city services. Under the threat of a general strike in Liverpool, Prime Minister Thatcher (known as "the Ice Lady" by workers) was forced to grant close to $100 million to the Liverpool city budget. Eventually, due to the cowardice and betrayals of the union leadership the British establishment felt strong enough to throw the Liverpool city council out of office. In spite of this the Militant led council won a tremendous victory over Thatcher.

Several years later this same Thatcher instituted the "poll tax". Replacing a form of property tax (under which the wealthy paid more than the poor), the poll tax was a tax levied per person, so that poor families often paid more than the rich. Not only was this tax monstrously unfair but it was a greatly increased burden on the poor. Under the slogan "can't pay, wont pay" Militant once again led a successful mass campaign, this time the largest campaign of civil disobedience in history. 18 million people were eventually refusing to pay the tax. And the campaign organized and led by the Militant Tendency not only ended the poll tax but also brought Thatcher down.

Militant was not only a British organization, but was organizing internationally. In South Africa, those associated with Militant played a vital role in the rise of the new trade unions in the 80s, the unions that ultimately combined to form the present Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU). This international tendency which eventually had a base in 35 countries was known under the banner: "Committee for a Workers International" (CWI). What distinguished the CWI was not just that it actually had a significant base among workers, but also its methods. It based itself on a serious analysis of perspectives. By this we mean that it did not start from what its members wanted or liked, but rather from how it saw events developing, what were the forces at work, etc. Based on this, it calculated what was possible and necessary and what role it could actually play in any given struggle as well as the movement in general.

The 1990s, however, were an extremely difficult period. Not only was the collapse of Stalinism and its return to capitalism unexpected, but so was the prolonged economic growth cycle in the West. Unfortunately, rather than return to the starting point and reconsider where their perspectives went astray, the majority of the Militant (and CWI) leadership did the opposite: They simply refused to look reality in the face.

All leaders and organizations have positive and negative qualities and tendencies. As the CWI leadership strayed further and further from a serious analysis of the objective situation, the worst organizational tendencies increasingly came to the fore. This has led to one crisis after another in what was once a vibrant working class Marxist organization internationally. In the United States, a small group of comrades was expelled from what was then known as "Labor Militant". Most of these comrades are trade union activists who have played leading roles in their local unions (and beyond at times). The documents on this page explain in more detail exactly what happened within the CWI and how the expulsions came about. We feel the above introduction is necessary so as not to give the impression that this was just one more tempest in a teapot, one more squabble within an irrelevant left sect. In fact, prior to this series of crises, the CWI was a vital working class socialist organization. The Comrades around Labor's Militant Voice are keeping alive the best traditions of the now disintegrating CWI and trying to enrich our work by learning the lessons of the past.

Read on at the Website of the Militant Minority.

http://www.laborsmilitantvoice.com/

related link: www.laborsmilitantvoice.com/

edit this comment | delete this comment

An Example Of CWI In Action
by Sean O'Torrain Tue, Mar 25 2003, 12:07pm

The Internal Regime
I would like to thank Laura for posting her important questions to the list. These were to what extent, if any, the fact that the CWI leadership were mainly from one country - England - and mainly male, contributed to the degeneration of the CWI When a leadership is composed of Comrades mainly from one country or one gender this undoubtedly means that it is less likely to have an all-rounded view and to be sufficiently sensitive and knowledgeable on certain issues. The healthy international that we all look forward to has to have a genuinely collective leadership and a leadership that corresponds to the composition of the international working class. However while not wanting in any way to downplay the importance of this I do not think the composition of the leading bodies of the CWI was a central reason for the crisis of the CWI.
Over the past five years the British EC was transformed in composition, with more women on that body than ever before. From a body that was all male except for one or two members for most of the previous decades this body then moved to either a 50/50 balance or a majority of women. Over the past ten or twelve years the IS, while still dominated by members from the British section had non- British section members for the first time since it was set up in 1974. (Comrades from Ireland, Sweden, South Africa and France were on the IS for periods over this time. Before it was all British and of course at all times the large majority were out of the British section). These changes coincided with the crisis and increasingly undemocratic methods of the CWI leadership but of course were not the cause.
In my opinion the causes of the degeneration of the CWI's internal life are of a more general political and organizational character. While agreeing with John R. when he points to the "autocratic method", this leads to the question of why such an autocratic method developed. I feel that the answer to this question can only be found by looking both at the particular development of the CWI and also at the general experience of Stalinism and Trotskyism.
Comrade Roger Silverman's material circulated on this list explains how the generally correct analysis and orientation of the Militant, which later became the CWI, was worked out by Ted Grant in the late 1940's early 1950's, and how these ideas stood the test of events up to the latter half of the 1980's. From this time on the developments in the world situation increasingly contradicted this analysis and orientation. This is most graphically shown by the re-introduction of capitalism into the Stalinist world, which was the biggest change in the world situation for 70 years and it was not foreseen by the CWI. Not only was it not foreseen, but for the previous decades we had denied that such a development was possible. Our perspectives for the mass reformist organizations and the movement of the working class to these organizations also began to be negated by events. And flowing from this our orientation became false.
There can be no denying that the organization underestimated the length of the 1990's growth cycle. It is also clear that the effects of new technology on world events was underestimated. The inability of Stalinism to utilize technology even to the extent that was the case with capitalism, because of political reasons, was not sufficiently recognized as a major factor in the collapse of Stalinism. And the effect of new technology on investment and globalization and therefore on the growth cycle was also underestimated. To anticipate the distortion that this will evoke from the leadership of the CWI I am not in any way saying that new technology ushers in a new upward curve of capitalist development, nor is it the modern equivalent of the industrial revolution. What I am saying is that the CWI underestimated its effects on the world situation. It is also necessary to say that the capitalist world economy is in an extremely fragile state and that a new downturn sooner rather than later is most likely. And this downturn could be very severe especially given the bubble economy in the USA.
These mistakes in perspectives and analysis led the CWI to mistake in tasks and orientation. Having broken out of our entryism tactic at the expense of losing a significant section of our membership with the Ted Grant split, we moved to the open turn. We also moved to the YRE work. As our analyze of the mass reformist parties developed and we saw them lose their working class base the CWI position evolved into the idea that we were thrown back to the situation of the 1880's and the task of the organization was to popularize socialism again and to fill the vacuum on the left by running candidates in elections. This was linked to the idea of building some sort of socialist party the character of which the CWI leadership could not decide upon. There was various other smaller turns such as recruiting left intellectuals and merging with other Trotskyist organizations. This approach reached its limits when the British organization put forward the idea that it could build a small mass party of tens of thousands.
According to the British and CWI leadership this was to have been achieved by now in Britain. Instead the British organization has fragmented and there is an active membership in England and Wales of around two hundred. The perspectives of the CWI leadership, its orientation and the tasks it set the organization have been proven continuously wrong over the past decade. To say this is not to point a finger of blame at anyone. All of us both in the leadership of the CWI and the membership share responsibility for this failure. Not only that but it would have been very hard not to have made mistakes in analysis, orientation and tasks over the past decade. It was a time of great volatility.
However along with this it is clear that the CWI had an attitude to perspectives that was mistaken in the past. The CWI came to believe that perspectives could be clarified and worked out to a degree that was not possible. In other words it was not tentative enough when drawing up perspectives. While the CWI leadership paid lip service to this idea in the early 1990's it was unable to change its practice.
The crisis in the CWI which has seen it decline from 14,000 plus members to the present 1,500 to 2,000 is rooted in these general political and organizational developments which we did not foresee. The shipwrecking of all the Internationals, the first, second, third and fourth, all resulted first and foremost from changes in the objective situation, which posed increasingly difficult challenges to the forces of International Marxism. This is also true in relation to the crisis in the CWI. This in my opinion is the main reason for the crisis of the CWI.
Roger's material deals extensively with this crisis of perspectives and orientation which has led to the present situation in the CWI. I will therefore mention this only briefly even though it is the most important factor. What I would like to do is try and draw some conclusions concerning the internal regime of the CWI and the relationship of this to the political developments explained by Roger. And at the same time look at the effect that Stalinism had on Trotskyism and all of the revolutionary left.
Ted Grant's analysis of the post war world equipped the organization to intervene in the workers' movement, sink roots in that movement, and grow. The correctness of these ideas, which led to the successes of the organization, gave an enormous authority to the leadership of the Militant and later the CWI. For myself joining in the early 1970's, as well as for many others, it was as if I went from fighting semi-blind to a situation where I could have a view of the past, the present and the future. It was absolutely inevitable that the leadership developed great authority, that is genuine political authority, from this situation.
At the same time and for the same reasons there was a powerful tendency towards unity in the organization. The analysis was generally correct and being confirmed by events, the orientation was generally correct, and as a result the organization was growing and increasingly its growth was from workers. And along with these factors the main features of the world were relatively stable. As a result there was not much of a basis for disunity, disagreement and splits. We used to watch the battles and splits of the other groups of the revolutionary left with disdain. We explained that these splits were because their analysis did not correspond to reality, their orientation was incorrect, they zig-zaged from ultra-leftism to opportunism, and so splits and disunity were inevitable. We also explained that the inability of these groups to understand their mistakes and openly discuss these and ultimately correct them, led inevitably to bureaucratic tendencies and to an unhealthy internal regime.
As we said mistakes in perspectives, policy and program if not openly corrected through discussion and debate lead inevitably to bureaucracy and undemocratic practices. Over the past decade the CWI has come to resemble the other left groups in terms of expulsions and splits. It can also be seen to be increasingly afflicted by the same bureaucratic tendencies and the same undemocratic internal life. Any wise and balanced leadership would draw the appropriate conclusion. The explanation we had for these developments in the other revolutionary left groups in the past now applies to the CWI. Wrong perspectives and orientation have not been openly faced up to and corrected through democratic internal discussion. This has led to the unhealthy internal regime, the development of bureaucratic tendencies, expulsions and splits, the accelerating crisis of the CWI.
Some Comrades may say that in the early 1990's we accepted that the perspectives were wrong on the Stalinist world, and we moved away from entryism in what were then the mass reformist organizations. Yet after having corrected ourselves we have gone into deeper decline and the expulsions and the bureaucratic methods have accelerated. I believe that there are two interrelated factors which explain this. While the CWI was able to extricate itself from the wrong perspectives and orientation it had in the late 1980's, it has not been able since that time to clarify the perspectives, orientation and tasks in order that the organization can move forward. It has zig-zagged from one position to another, it has tried to apply the same tactic to all sections regardless of circumstance, and the organization has declined further in numbers and influence.
As this political failure has been prolonged it has in turn strengthened the tendencies towards bureaucratism and undemocratic practices, as the leadership increasingly seeks to hide its political weaknesses and mistakes by expulsions and bureaucratic methods. These unhealthy tendencies in the organization's internal life developed and were present as the post war decades unfolded, the elitism, the obsession with unity at the expense of a critical membership and an internal life of debate and struggle, the effective banning of factions. But while these wrong tendencies were present, they did not strengthen and become major problems for the organization as long as the analysis and orientation remained generally correct. But when this ceased to be the case as the latter half of the 1980's unfolded, then the mistaken aspects of the internal regime began to become more and more of an obstacle.
It would be wrong to be over-critical of the leadership for making mistakes in perspectives and policies over the past period. It has been one of great change, most of it
unforeseen by the organization. It has been a period of volatility when it was very hard to see the outlines of the short and immediate term developments. Those of us who make up the US Minority certainly have not been able to see all things clearly over the past period. Any revolutionary organization with any roots in the movement would have had to go through a period of prolonged debate over the past period in order to clarify the issues. The objective situation was new and unexpectedly so. Volatility and uncertainty were the order of the day. The analysis of Ted Grant which had served the organization so well had been torn up by events. No new general analysis of the period had been developed.This change in the objective situation and the lack of a general analysis outlining the main processes and an effective orientation meant that there was no longer a basis for the unity that existed in the organization for most of its post war years. These same factors meant that there was no longer any basis for the political authority that the leadership had enjoyed in the post war period. This was the harsh and brutal reality of the organization in this period.
What was necessary at this time was for the leadership to genuinely turn to the membership and explain the mistakes in perspectives and orientation that had been made. And from this to openly explain the unhealthy tendencies that had developed in the internal life of the organization and which still existed in the organization. And to ask the membership for help in dealing with the crisis. For this to have meant anything the leadership would have had to be openly self-critical and explain their own role in the false perspectives and methods of the organization. And most important of all it would have had to accept openly that the old unity of the organization was over, gone along with the post war world and the analysis of Ted Grant.
It would have had to genuinely accept, and also explain, that differences were now not only inevitable, but were, in fact, essential if the full resources of the organization were to be utilized to clarify the ideas. The days of a confident leadership working out its position behind closed doors and then hammering it into the membership were long gone. The leadership would also have had to genuinely accept that factions were now an inevitable part of the organization as it sought to clarify its ideas. If this approach had been taken, the resources of the entire membership could have been mobilized to clarify the ideas and policies, and a new, exciting and extremely rich development of the organization could have taken place.
This is not what happened. Behind the talk of a different regime, and with the objective situation becoming more complex, and with one mistaken perspective and task following another, the leadership's old habits reasserted themselves. And as the political and organizational mistakes increased these old habits reasserted themselves with a vengeance. On the IS the secret meetings of those who could be relied upon to go along with the PT/LW line multiplied. On the British EC the same development took place. Anyone who was thought to have a different view and who was thought to have the potential to fight in a sustained manner for their views was seen as suspect. And ways were sought to undermine and if possible replace them. The US Minority were seen by the IS to be in this category. More expulsions and splits have taken place in the past ten years than in the whole previous history of the organization.
The IS staggered from one position to another, the consciousness had been thrown back to the 1880's, the organization would build a small mass party in two to three years in Britain, the organization could fill the vacuum on the left through electoral campaigns everywhere we had a couple of Comrades, the program was pushed into the background and the transitional method ditched in an effort to grow at the rate of the early 1980's, every tactic the IS temporarily seized upon was applied throughout the entire international irrespective of the different situations and unity with the USEC was considered. Now the approach is to break of all discussions with any other left group, drive out anyone who disagrees with the IS and hunker down to wait for the new
radicalization when Militant will rise again. With each zig-zag the bureaucratic measures were stepped up and more and more independent minded Comrades were marginalized or driven out.
One thing has to be understood by the CWI if it is to develop. The combination of objective and subjective factors which led to the political authority of the leadership of Militant/CWI in the post war decades and to the powerful unity of the organization are gone. And they will never be repeated. The present path of the CWI leadership which is to get rid of all who in any way will fight for a position different from the leadership and dig in and wait for the time when they can rebuild on the basis of a leadership with the political authority of the past and with the unity of the past will trap the CWI in a cul-de-sac. This is not to say the CWI cannot grow on the basis of a new radicalization and some generally correct ideas and close to one million dollars in its funds from the sale of the center in London. But what is certain is that it will be an organization of continual crisis because the model of the past that the IS has is not possible in the changed world in which we live. And what is also certain is that the CWI cannot develop into a mass revolutionary international with these methods.
This is not to say that the CWI is finished as of now. But what is certain is that unless the membership that is left find it within themselves to take up an open fight against these false methods of the leadership then the CWI will be condemned by its present leadership to irrelevance.
So far I have mainly focused on the leadership of the CWI and its role in
the crisis. But there is also the effect of the organization's development in the post war decades on the membership and the whole culture of the organization. The need to confront this issue is underlined by some of the recent events. This is the number of formerly leading Comrades who have either drifted out of activity or who have resigned from the organization without putting up a fight for their ideas. Instead of seeing that it was their role and responsibility as a member of the organization to put forward their views and fight for these within the tendency, with important exceptions the majority of such Comrades decided to go quietly. This was partly due to the difficult political situation and to the lack of a clear alternative. And it was also partly due to Comrades realizing that any determined fight for a position different from the leadership would result in the most vicious slander campaign against the comrades involved. It would also result in organizational means being used to undermine the day to day work of the comrades involved.
But it was also due to the culture of the organization which had been absorbed by the membership over the decades. The view had taken hold that raising differences only damaged the organization and loyalty meant keeping quiet and letting the organization get on with the work as decided upon by the majority. In other words the whole idea that the revolutionary organization develops through debate and struggle had been lost. If the CWI is to pull back from its downward spiral this is a view that will have to be re absorbed by the membership.
The generally correct analysis and the relatively stable world balance of
forces in the post war decades accustomed the membership to encountering a leadership which was well on top of the world situation and capable of giving a way forward for the organization. The membership came to expect this. This had an affect on the balance of work of the membership. Too little time was given to developing the ideas of the organization by the membership and too much of the time was given to the propaganda, agitational and organizational work of building the organization on the ground. Yes we all stated again and again that the membership needed time to read and study, and the only guarantee against bureaucracy was a membership with a high theoretical level, but the balance of work of the organization made this impossible.
This was not a major problem when the ideas of the leadership were generally correct. But when the ideas of the leadership began to be negated by events in the latter half of the 1980's then this situation stood in the way of the organization recognizing this in a timely fashion.
Another problem that flowed from this balance of work was that it was
more and more difficult for Comrades with leading positions in the organized working class to play a leading role in the organization. The same applied to the majority of older and very experienced Comrades. The leadership wanted the full-time apparatus to be staffed by the younger Comrades with the most energy and who would respond most quickly to the leadership. The tempering of this youthful element by a proper participation of older more experienced industrial and union Comrades was not carried out. The qualities of stubbornness and refusal to be intimidated which are developed in the day to day grind in the workplace and the union work were in short supply in the leading bodies of the organization when they were most needed, that is to stand up and question and oppose the false methods of the leadership in the recent years.
There is one other factor, which is not unique to the CWI but which in my
opinion contributed to the crisis of the CWI. Stalinism developed as a powerful force from the 1920's on. Its influence left no area of the world untouched. This included the forces of Trotskyism in the post world war two period. In spite of its proud record of fighting Stalinism, Trotskyism was influenced by Stalinism. Trotsky himself pointed out that the great years of Bolshevism were the years of factional struggle. The evidence clearly shows that the Bolshevik leadership were extremely careful in allowing the various opinions and factions room to put forward their ideas.
In spite of the betrayals of Zinoviev and Kamenev on the eve of the Russia Revolution these individuals were not expelled from the party. So how did Trotskyism develop what can only be described as its over-centralized view of the party. It seems to me that the idea took hold that a healthy party was one that was united on almost every issue and one that enforced centralist discipline on just about every issue and where factions were seen as justification for slander and expulsion. Yet this is totally at odds with the history of Bolshevism. It seems clear to me that Stalinism influenced the view of Trotskyism in terms of what the party model should be.
This should not be distorted. Trotskyism is the only political tendency on the planet to have opposed Stalinism and all its crimes to the death while at the same time standing implacably against capitalism. But this does not mean that its view on party building was not influenced by Stalinism. It seems to me that a certain inorganic element crept into the party building model. A certain mechanical element. Too much credence was given to what could be achieved in terms of party unity by enforcing centralism. Rather than seeing that in the last analysis the party could only be unified on a genuine political basis and by recognizing that differences cannot be eradicated by organizational methods, and by seeing that differences properly handled are healthy for the revolutionary organization, there was too much reliance when differences developed on organizational measures. This was much less the case in the Militant than in most of the other Trotskyist organizations.
The internal life of the organization was much healthier in the post war decades than it is now. But it is now making up for lost time. And the distorted view of the party
which has developed partly as a result of the influence of Stalinism is now increasingly that of the CWI. This should not be interpreted as an argument against democratic centralism. This remains the only way in which a healthy and effective revolutionary organization can
be built. It is an argument against the false interpretation of democratic centralism which has developed and which bears little relationship to the life of the Bolsheviks.
In trying to look at some of the false methods of the internal regime in this contribution I am at risk of being accused of not seeing that at root the crisis of the CWI is one of perspectives, orientation and program. I would like to emphasize that this is not the case. Comrade Roger's material is the crucial starting point for dealing with the crisis in the CWI. While trying to draw some conclusions in relation to the internal regime and trying to explain the degeneration of the internal life, I am trying on the one hand to see if we can guard against such mistakes in the future and on the other to understand the reasons for the degeneration of the internal life.
However it cannot be emphasized enough that if the CWI is to be rescued and if
all of us on this list are to be able to take steps forward in the coming period then this will
happen only if the issues of perspectives, orientation and program are clarified. Hopefully this list can continue with the work that it is just beginning, that is contributing to this
clarification.

Sean O'Torrain

"DURING THE SEVENTEEN YEARS WHEN BOLSHEVISM AROSE, GREW, GAINED STRENGTH AND CAME TO POWER FACTIONS WERE A LEGITIMATE PART OF PARTY LIFE.
LEON TROTSKY. 1935.

"INTERNAL CONFLICT" WROTE ENGELS, "IS THE LAW OF DEVELOPMENT' OF THE REVOLUTIONARY PARTY".

edit this comment | delete this comment

Sinister forces at work here
by Cleo Tue, Mar 25 2003, 12:33pm

There are sinister forces at work here, out to get Peter Hadden and the Socialist party. Why? because socialist party is a long running, dedicated group, who've supported the Liverpool dockers as well as all sections of northern ireland working class and trade unionist population regardless of religion, whether it be the Richardson's, or H&W workers or shorts workers. When I joined in 1990, the same members who were with the group in 1983 are still with the group. They are not johnny come lately's, they maybe a bit boring, but they are grass roots. Sinister forces are at work here, trying to discredit both the SP, SWP and tear the anti war protests apart from inside. This is government objective number 1, to destroy embarrasing anti war protests and those who organise them. Hence we have the alleged petulant playground fights between the SP, and SWP and all out targetting of Peter Hadden.

edit this comment | delete this comment

Not The Real Cleo
by Anorax - Campaign For Real Loons Tue, Mar 25 2003, 1:25pm

Message too rational.

edit this comment | delete this comment

by The Resistance Tue Mar 25, 2003 12:01

The spirit of John Throne lives on in the SP. We are continuing to resist the Troika. We are determined to return democracy to the partys internal life.

The best way to overthrow the epignones is to expose them. It is true that the party is on its last legs in Northern Ireland. Hadden is destroying it, he is not a tout, merely a very sick man.

The Natiional Committee of the SP did decide on the speaking order at the conference. John Throne was refused permission to attend as a non-speaking observor. No one was allowed to speak in defence of his right to attend. The two who voted in favour of him attending have been hounded ever since.

The party line is handed down to the National Committee by the Troika and even they get most of their orders from the CWI in London.

Anyone who questions the line is immediately suspect and steps are taken to isolate them.

Members are instructed to oppose Direct Action and to attack anyone who is in favour of it.

by cheryl Tue Mar 25, 2003 11:11

The SP has the trust and support of both working class catholics and protestants. I gone to Peter and told him, i've done such and such, beaten so and so. Peter is not immediately on the phone to the peelers, going your woman's confessed to beating so and so.

by nesta nugent Tue Mar 25, 2003 10:57

Peter Hadden is not a tout, I've gone to Peter for advice concerning numerous criminal activities I've been involved in, and Peter has never ever grassed me up to the peelers. Peter has always offers sensible advice and doesn't care what you get up to in your own spare time as long as it doesn't involve murder or children.

by Free Palestine Tue Mar 25, 2003 10:07

Hadden did do this and say this and he has done much more. This was the last straw to many in N.Ireland and Davy was advised by many groups outside the SWP it was time to let this be known outside the normal circles. Even after it happened he was reluctant to do so but when the attacks personal and vicious came from the SP on this site he reluctantly agreed to do so. Haddens attitude in N.Ireland has all but destroyed the SP with six or so active members in Belfast half of them full time organisers and members in the unions in name only and a few elsewhere this is the reality. As for the 'where do hadden lives calls' . Davy wants nothing of that, he personnaly is to isolate them and no longer deal with them and would suggest others do the same in N.Ireland. As for lies, slander etc it was the SP who threw a full force and personal attack of lies, slander and digs at Davy. As for the footage, friends in the media are attempting to get access to it and although Davy is again reluctant to show it when I get my hands on it i will fucking show it. Many people think davy is being to easy given all that has went before and now this.

by IMC Tue Mar 25, 2003 04:50

The bottom of the barrel
by Davy Carlin - W/Belfast SWP and BAWM Mon, Mar 24 2003, 3:55pm

In reply to some of the SP allegations

I have been personnaly targeted on indymedia by the SP and although I hate to I feel I must reply with the facts on the situation however hard they may be to fully contemplate.

Firsty I wish to say congrats to the Belfast SWP, Belfast Anti War Movement SAW and supportive organisations for their work over the last few days. Together on Thursday SAW in their hundreds marched down the Falls road with students from several schools along with teachers, with up to a thousand more SAW and queens students from South Belfast firstly blocking the roads before several hundred of them marched also to the city centre to join others that had arrived from North and East Belfast under the banner of SAW, while others still again under the banner of SAW marching from South Belfast. The schoolstudents around 1200 strong now blocked all three intersections in the city centre. They then marched to the US consul and again blocked that road while others wentover the barriers. On friday SAW again blocked the city centre roads.

SWP activists also brought scores of workers out of their workplaces while BAWM activists occupied BIFHE [college} On the Sat BAWM activists brought several hundred activists from a feeder march from West Belfast with another feeder march coming from South Belfast.

Thousands over those few days took part in Mass direct action initiated and organised by these groups against this war. This was acknowledged by the media - for example there is a two page article in todays main Unionist morning newspaper featuring a debate on the war and huge pictures of both Socialist Worker and SAW and while on Saturday the Front page of the Irish News again pictured socialist worker. Our work by first forming then working within the coalition has won us scores of trades unionist, students and community activists in the last few weeks to the party in Belfast and around the North. I believe to a large extent that this now dictates their rantings

On the SP firsty they state I am responsible for Young People being arrested. In relation to the thursday not one schoolstudent was arrested from the start of our action to the end of our organised direct action. When we had finished at the US consul the schoolstudents were asked to link arms which they did and march past the police which they did. Then at the bottom of the street they were informed to break up and go home, firstly as the march had finished and secondly as to not let the police pick them of in smaller numbers if engaged in smaller actions. Most of them broke up while others decided to go on, I personnally had to go on also but others stayed with those that stayed on. The police then did arrest two, one was sent home and told not to be a bad boy again and another who got a caution both of them whom I know personnally and supported vocally the West Belfast Feeder march two days later

Now in relation to the SP I feel this has to be said as it is now getting dangerous for our comrades. Although I know their leading members have stated things in the past that put our members at serious risk and that they have had us booted out of venues. Yet when I was informed on the Thursday that leading SP members were informing the police as to who was leading the Direct action. I choose not to believe it. Then on Friday:

After the ICTU minutes silence the SAW who came out again for the second day took their own initiative and with young anarchists again blocked the city centre roads. The police then started to arrive and told them to get of the road - they refused and sat down. At this stage loads of press arrived and I went at the front of the protest, Peter hadden who after that weeks coalition meeting shaking physically with anger called me a 'Fucking wanker' while on the Thursday told me that 'I would have my come upins' so on fiday seeing all the SAW banners and placcards he in a complete panic ran to his stall to find a YAW placcard then told his 35 year old organiser eithier to sit at the front of the demo with the YAW placcard or to get someone to hold it so to attempt to get that single placcard into the pictures.. I caught his eye while he was doing this then he started shouting hyserically and pointing his finger at me ranting 'You are responsible for bringing these students onto the street' - you are responsible for getting them to block the road' 'You should be held responsible' All this captured by the media as Peter Hadden informed the police openly and publicly that I was responsible shouting these accusations in the middle of Belfast City Centre. Apart from the fact that the Anarchists and students took their own decision and myself not being the organiser of SAW nevertheless he - 'a Socialist' informed the police and everyone else that me a socialist should be held responsible. In my circles this is called {touting} Yet what really worries me is why he felt he had the confidence to do this so openly - It could make one wonder -. While this was happening similar was happening to my young comrade by yet another leading member of the SP. Such was the surprise at Hadden informing the police that I was the 'ringleader ' so openingly that the police just looked at him while others in the press just shook their heads in Disbelief knowing him to be a 'socialist'.
The SAW stayed on the road for a while longer then burnt the US flag then SAW were asked to get of the road. Again no arrests were made while involved in the organised protests. Again at the end they were advised to move on in case the police try to caution them.

I was cautioned by the police on my way home as he smiled and said ' We were informed that you were an organiser'.
My young comrade who the SP pointed out also was not only cautioned later but threatened with arrest.
I felt these facts must be put firstly and to a lesser extent to the SP allegation - which bothers me not as those who know me, who were involved in the actions, know the reality - more importantly though because of the open accusations from one socialist about others to the police this has made me and my comrades very wavy. I could suggest other should be equally so.

I have written this with a heavy heart. Davy Carlin

edit this story | hide this story | delete this story
COMMENTS

The comment facility exists for a reason!
by Angry IMCer Mon, Mar 24 2003, 4:13pm

Stop commenting on previous posts as new fucking articles! If you want to reply to "SP allegations" then REPLY to them don't start a new thread you fucking moron. The newswire is already far too clogged with this shit.

edit this comment | delete this comment

Don't you get it?
by Orwell Mon, Mar 24 2003, 4:16pm

All IMCistas are equal but some (SWP) IMCistas are more equal then others.

edit this comment | delete this comment

well done Davy
by Pat C Mon, Mar 24 2003, 4:25pm

Dont let that bastard get you down. The SP are known on IMC as pathological liars.

edit this comment | delete this comment

The PSNI must be blind
by observer Mon, Mar 24 2003, 4:30pm

We must have the stupidest police in the world. There are fifty people sitting down on the road and an individual with a megaphone standing in front of them encouraging them.
Yet the police have to have informers in the crowd to tell them who organised it!

edit this comment | delete this comment

On the other hand...
by maalox - experimentalist Mon, Mar 24 2003, 4:36pm
[email protected]

Just because someone acts like they're in charge doesn't mean they are.

edit this comment | delete this comment

What to do
by Republican Mon, Mar 24 2003, 4:46pm

The decision to go on the road on friday had nothing to do with Davy and on thursday over twenty schoolstudents spoke at the sit downs as well as others not only him. It was anarchists young republicans and the SAW who went on the road on our owns. Whatever you say its the case that a supposed socialist touted on Davy that will make a lot of people very angry. I hope this hadden guy does not live in west belfast

edit this comment | delete this comment

Hadden Lives In West Belfast
by Aunty Party Mon, Mar 24 2003, 4:53pm

Have a fun time with the tout.

edit this comment | delete this comment

There will be a word in his ear at least
by Worry not - Worry not Mon, Mar 24 2003, 5:04pm

Davy there is a big picture of Socialist worker and Schools Against war also in the Norths Biggest seller the Belfast Telegraph today. Well done to you and your comrades and all those who worked with you to bring all this about in the last few days. When your man hadden was trying to drag radical schoolkids of the road to listen with about 40-50 others all from the same school at the back of the hundreds of kids in radical action to listen to speeches it was pathetic. The marches down the falls road of hundreds of schoolstudents one day then hundreds of others including Republican Socialists like myself a few days later was fucking great.

edit this comment | delete this comment

A tout living in west Belfast
by A word in his ear are you fucking kidding Mon, Mar 24 2003, 5:44pm

Fuck that something needs to be done

edit this comment | delete this comment

Shock and disgust
by Davy fan Mon, Mar 24 2003, 5:53pm

Davy Carlin's demented post above has the distinction of being the most vicious and tendentious report ever posted on Indymedia. And this is a site which has seen some very unpleasant incidents.

Davy should know what calling someone a "tout" amounts to in Belfast. And he has the cheek to sling the word around while protesting that he is concerned for the safety of SWP members. Predictably it has led within a couple of hours to a number of threats.

His accusation - that telling somebody who was smugly encouraging school students to risk a beating on his cowardly behalf that his behaviour was unacceptable amounts to "touting" is one of the most disgusting things I have seen on the Irish left. His post consists of a series of malicious lies.

Davy should be ashamed of himself on a number of counts here, but I rather doubt that he will be. The term "shameless" isn't applied to his organisation by accident. This accusation goes way beyond the usual anonymous slurs which the SWP engage in on Indymedia.

I wonder what Davy's colleagues in the South will make of his single handed undoing of all of the dedicated brown nosing they have been doing towards the Socialist Party over the last while?

edit this comment | delete this comment

Why Do The SP Oppose All Direct Action?
by Durutti Column Mon, Mar 24 2003, 6:12pm

Even blocking of roads! They are now trying to defend the indefensible. Hadden touted to the cops, theres no getting around it.

edit this comment | delete this comment

catch yourself on
by real durutti Mon, Mar 24 2003, 6:46pm

Dont get caught up in this shit. Using terms like tout to make political attacks is the act of a government agent.

edit this comment | delete this comment

What is more disgusting?
by TJ Mon, Mar 24 2003, 6:51pm

Everyone there heard him inform to the police that {pointing to davy} and looking at the police, 'he is responsible for bringing them onto the streets, he should be held responsible'. Now call me stupid but what is that. Am I more shocked and disgusted at davy being moved to state these facts after the vicious personal attacks and lies on him by the SP on indymedia and the information shouted by hadden to the police leading to the caution and possible arrest of him and his young comrade. Or am I more shocked and disgusted at a leader of a socialist party openly shouting information to the police on davy who in fact did not bring the schoolstudents onto the roads on the particular day as it was lead by anarchists or the fact that he is and was not the organiser of SAW. I can draw my own conclusions as to the whys and why not of haddens targeting of Davy and to the above posting

edit this comment | delete this comment

Warped versions of events
by Danjo Mon, Mar 24 2003, 6:58pm

I was at the protest on Thursday. It was mainly schoolkids in uniform present.

It was clear that SWP people were leading the chanting and possibly took the decision to move to the consulate.

Shortly afterwards, at the US consulate, some kids tried to storm the barricade at which point the cops withdrew their batons and started whacking those in the lead. One guy got over and was taken into a landrover. Several missiles (placards, sticks, oranges, etc) were thrown at the police at that time.

After 20 or so minutes chanting the same 2 chants there and after staff in the consulte had ironically lobbed a water bomb into the crowd of mostly school kids, the SWP told people about upcoming protests and asked people to disperse.

A lot of people there did not seem to want to disperse and headed back around to the city hall, stopping at a junction on the way to block the traffic. There was no obvious leaders at this stage. As the 200 or so kids arrived at the city hall, I noticed one of the SWP talking to a policeman present. The cop was saying, "you've had your protest, why don't you go home now" or words to that effect. the SWP person shortly after repeated the details of the upcoming protests and asked everyone to disperse. Some people started moving but some shouted back, "we shall not be moved". One protester took the SWP person to task for telling people what to do, "If you want to go home", they said, "go home, don't be telling people what to do!". The SWP person continued to approach individuals and asked them to move from the road. When this tactic was clearly not working, they sat down with a bunch of kids. A couple of kids were later arrested whilst crossing the road (perhaps not for the first time).

I don't know what the SP were up to that day but they weren't visible to me until later at the police station when a couple of them were seen going into the station (presumably to organise the release of the arrestees).

Other things might have been happening at other locations but that's what I saw. What was encouraging for me was the kids refusal to accept orders from "organisers". They wanted to protest, and protest they did. Hopefully we'll see more from them in the future.

edit this comment | delete this comment

We are talking about Friday
by Sean Mon, Mar 24 2003, 7:08pm

But swp did asked kids to disperse then it was after that that they were arrested, tallies with the original posting. And the SP went into the police station yet also ten minutes later the police came out and said they knew who was responsible. Strange that.

edit this comment | delete this comment

Scum
by Davy Crockett Mon, Mar 24 2003, 7:27pm

It is absolutely disgusting that SWP members continue to throw allegations of being police informants at other socialists. This is the most repulsive behaviour seen on the Irish left in years. Davy and "Sean" are sick reprehensible political thugs.

edit this comment | delete this comment

Caught on camera
by J boyce Mon, Mar 24 2003, 7:57pm

IT is disgusting that peter hadden caught on camera and witnessed by many shouting and pointing to davy said'' he is responsable for bringing them onto the streets. He should be held responsible''to the police. Whatever way you put it Informing , telling, announcing to the police hadden did it and it was caught on camera. it had the effect of both Davy and his young comrade being approached by the police because of this information, they were warned and threatened with arrest. You might not like to hear it but that is what happened.I know davy and I believe he would not have raised it publicly only privately but for the continued unwarranted vicious attacks by the SP on him and also to let others be aware that this happened. I believe he actually held back most of the stuff that is knowning of haddens behavoiur up here.When I raised it with davy in disbelief after seeing it he told me just isolate them and ignore them this is what I believe he is doing and now me also.

edit this comment | delete this comment

This one will be long remembered
by Davy Crockett's Hat Mon, Mar 24 2003, 11:14pm

Repeating your lies doesn't make you look any better. This has been the most amazing display of the total political bankrupcy of the SWP.

It wasn't that long ago that anonymous SWPers were claiming that Peter Hadden was a pedophile. Now he's a tout. What next? Peter Hadden masterminded the attacks on the World Trade Centre? Peter Hadden brought the black plague to Europe?

Around most of the country the SWP are mostly well meaning if ineffectual and sectarian. In Belfast it appears that they are rabid. "Davy Crockett" called them political thugs. That seems like about the best description for people like Carlin, Sean and Boyce.

edit this comment | delete this comment

Tell the truth
by A Mon, Mar 24 2003, 11:54pm

davy
you know the direct action in Belfast was fuck all to do with you and your blow hard middle class mates. A

edit this comment | delete this comment

if hadden was caught touting on camera - show us the pics!
by hunter Tue, Mar 25 2003, 12:21am

personally i don't trust anything that yer man carlin says.

edit this comment | delete this comment

by IMC Tue Mar 25, 2003 04:49

SWP, SP and other tittle tattle
by Jim Monaghan Mon, Mar 24 2003, 3:59pm

Real debate not diatribes

For my sins I am actually interested in what is going on in the various Left wing groups especially those who are able to initiate activity. Groups such as these because of this capability carry much more responsibility. The SWP and the SP are whether we like or dislike them in a position to move things along or obstruct them. It is important to know if they have an ultraleft catastrophic or an overly cautious view of the present which would lead them to advocate certain policies. Again positions of extreme pessimism or exaggerated views can lead to them destroying movements or building them. I don’t know what the debates are inside these organisations. Is there a debate? Are they genuine about working with other forces (esp. SWP)? Has the SP moved from its former “Stickyish” view of the North? Are the Greens having a debate on an anti Fianna Fail grand coalition? Is there dissent on this? Will Sinn Fein offer itself as a coalition partner to the highest bidder convincing itself it can avoid the fate of Clan Na Phoblachta? What about the Workers Party, who still exist, and the Communist Party etc. Where do they stand? What are their prognoses? Where do the Anarchists see things going? I appreciate that many have had various nasty experiences of practically every group of the Alphabet Spaghetti but I don’t think virulent abuse about this actually helps things.
The policies of all the groups are probably based on their idea of the times we are in and the old Leninist phrase “What is to be done” or at least some type of rationale. This interests me and not yaa boo or worse type of invective.
Again even though I share a degree of cynicism about the various Lenins, Trotskys, Bakunins etc which infest the Left I do not welcome groups destroying themselves and the constant splits and worse which are a feature. Every debacle such as a split or a bad policy line drives people out of politics much more than it clarifies or proves anything. This war and the opposition to it does have a silver lining of a significant sector of the population questioning the status quo. If we build and strengthen it we will have an increased base from which to work. I fear that we will march our 100,000 plus up the hill and back down again with nothing permanent achieved except a few speeches which no one will remember.
I admit to indulging myself in to say the least robust debate in the past. The more robust and self indulgent the less was achieved. Let us disagree by simply stating the disagreement and the basis for it and leave the other stuff for the pub.
Jim Monaghan.

edit this story | hide this story | delete this story
COMMENTS

This is Sad..
by Cal Mon, Mar 24 2003, 4:07pm
[email protected]

Just have a look at the other Indy Media Sites across the globe - all pretty much devoted to the anti war effort.

What do we get on indymedia.ie newswire? All load of internicine nonsense about the SWP/SP/Sparts..

Focus on the battle we are currently waging.

Engage | Inform | Protest

edit this comment | delete this comment

Questions, quesions
by Concerned yoof Mon, Mar 24 2003, 4:11pm

What does retired trot Jim Monaghan propose to do to put his ideas into practise? Does he ever rise above saloon bar gossip? How many parties has he been thrown out of? Is he having a good war? Does he ever propose to sully himself with working alongside others? Does he enjoy his role as "wise old man of the non-aliagned left"? Has he anything else to offer but commentary, a kind of lefty Walter Cronkite?
Lastly, were you able to organise any anti-war activity? Did you try?
I think we should be told.

edit this comment | delete this comment

But this isn't 'internecine nonsense'
by silo Mon, Mar 24 2003, 4:14pm

On first impressions it would seem to be genuine. Asking obvious questions in an un-sectarian and open manner. Nice to see, to be honest. Maybe we could now get a few replies in the same spirit? Please?

edit this comment | delete this comment

Sticky SP
by Leon Sedov Mon, Mar 24 2003, 4:20pm

'Has the SP moved from its former “Stickyish” view of the North?'

Sadly, jim , I must inform you that they are worse than ever. They now blame the Catholics for the violence in the north. The Hoplycross school siege is: "a sectarian turf war (Brian Cahill)" Republicans are still terrorists while the British Army are workers in uniform.

My poor Da is turning in his grave.

edit this comment | delete this comment

A quick reply
by Brian Cahill - SP Mon, Mar 24 2003, 4:29pm

I think that asking these kinds of questions is fair enough although I don't really have time to get into it now.

I do have time to point out that I did not describe the scenes outside Holycross school as a "sectarian turf war". I described the general conflict in North Belfast as a "sectarian turf war". If you are going to anonymously quote me at least do so accurately.

edit this comment | delete this comment

This was a fair comment
by Jim Monaghan Mon, Mar 24 2003, 4:30pm

Yes
I am not as active as I was. I admire those in PANA, The NGO alliance and the antiwar movement for what they are doing. I, also appreciate a lot of the rest of what is being done. For instance Saturdays march took a lot of organising. It was heartening to be on a march where the new outnumbered the "usual suspects".Again I have no problem with disagreements. For the most part there was a real debate on the Shannon events. Issues were raised and replied too. Where I have a problem is the speed that some rush into insults and worse.
On this site you see an interesting comment or posting about something and only too often it degenerates into a slagging match.
I think a lot of people who fundamentally agree with the Left are repelled when they see this.I am also sure that it amuses our enemies to see us tearing ourselves apart.
Fair enough if you think this is wrong or it lacks credibility because I am not as active as I should.Only you can judge this.But am I wrong?
Jim Monaghan

Again debate not diatribes

edit this comment | delete this comment

Anonymous?!
by Aunty Party Mon, Mar 24 2003, 4:43pm

Why dont you use your real name 'Brian Cahill'?

edit this comment | delete this comment

I hate Aunty Party
by I hate Aunty Party Mon, Mar 24 2003, 4:46pm

There's that upper class prick Aunty Party at it again.

edit this comment | delete this comment

Re: Jim Monaghan/in-fighting
by Gaillimhed Mon, Mar 24 2003, 4:52pm

"I think a lot of people who fundamentally agree with the Left are repelled when they see this (slagging match)".

I know way too many people who have little or no hope for the future because they percieve the antiwar movement (and the wider assortment of leftist groups and their causes) are immature and basically a joke. they come to sites like this in the hope that somewhere they will find representation and like-minded people, instead they find petty squabbling, backbiting, infighting, political naivite and narrow minded self interest. They turn away from you as they turned away from Fianna fail and Fine Gael.

edit this comment | delete this comment

Cut out the personal rubbish
by John Meehan Mon, Mar 24 2003, 4:57pm

I agree with Jim Monaghan.

I am sick and tired of the "criticisms" of the SWP, SP, anarchists,and others, which contain personal abuse and attacks on individuals.

I believe that the people managing the Indymedia Ireland site will have to consider adopting a more restritive editorial policy, or else people with a genuine interest in radical politics will "vote with their mice" and cease to support the project. And that would be a real shame.

I hope that today's gossip posting about the SP - allegedly written by John Throne - is a fake.

I say this as someone who sympathises with some (but by no means all) of the literary criticisms of the SP written recently by the real John Throne.

Leave the scurrility field clear for the Mary Harneys of this world - she continually retails the outlandish lie that Joe Higgins and the SP are former supporters of the late Stalinist States in Eastern Europe and elsewhere.

edit this comment | delete this comment

But John Meehan You Know Better
by Aunty Party Mon, Mar 24 2003, 5:02pm

You know what the views of the SP are regarding Northern Ireland. Whats unfair or untrue in wahat is being written about the SP?

Their internal party norms are positively Stalinist.

edit this comment | delete this comment

John, the SP Have Not Replied re Hadden
by Hebe Mon, Mar 24 2003, 5:45pm

It certainly looks as if the claim that Hadden acted as a Tout is true. It has now been confirmed by several different sources.

The only answer the SP have is to personally attack Davy Carlin.

edit this comment | delete this comment

debates
by hs - sp Mon, Mar 24 2003, 9:23pm

I think alot of the people posting abuse are actually kids who are a little immature.
And about Peter Hadden being a tout, that sounds to me like a death threat, as we know what happens to touts.

edit this comment | delete this comment

Jim Monaghan is far more intelligent than swp/sp hypocrites
by snottty Mon, Mar 24 2003, 10:23pm

His arguaments are well thought and coherent, unlike those 2 'trotskyist' sloganising 'parties' with their ninny headed comments about uniting the Taigs and the Protestant workers!

edit this comment | delete this comment

John Throne. 'This is a forgery'.
by john throne - labors militant voice Tue, Mar 25 2003, 1:53am
[email protected]

SUMMARY:
THIS IS A FORGERY.
I understand that a short piece was put up on indymedia about the Irish SP which was supposedly by John Throne. This was a complete fraud. I am John Throne and I never wrote this. Whoever wrote it was obviously trying to damage my relations with members of the SP and the Committee for a Workers International.It seems to me to be an attempt to damage my relations with the membership of the Irish SP which is a section of the CWI.

The Irish SP was formerly the Militant Group . I was the first member of the Militant group in Southern Ireland. I was the first full timer organizer in Ireland as a whole. I left Ireland to work for the CWI in London. After opposing some of the policies and internal methods of the CWI in the mid 1990's I was expelled from that organization in 1996. My expulsion was supported by the leadership of the Irish Militant group now the SP. This same leadership refused to allow me to appeal against my expulsion at the Irish organizations NC and conference as was my democratic right. I have many friends and comrades still in the Irish SP. I believe that this forgery is an attempt by somebody to damage my relations with the rank and file of the SP.

I never wrote this letter which is signed in my name. I would sincerely hope that Indymedia in Ireland can let me have the email address from which this was sent. John Throne.

related link: laborsmilitantvoice.com

by Irony is dead Tue Mar 25, 2003 00:49

Well done for organising the rally in Coleraine. A few points for clarification...
1. The SWP has never claimed to organise a rally in Coleraine.
2. C. Mulholland is an SP member as you know. He is also a member of one of the Belfast STW Coalition groups. However he was probably speaking in a personal capacity since the STW coalition was not approached to speak at the rally.

Your posting centres around 2 complaints:
That a friend of yours is under the mistake that the SWP organised 'your' march and that you have had brutal tactics used against you to 'switch' sides.
The former could have been cleared up in a phone call. The latter - those brutal emails can be stopped by the block sender option in hotmail.
However it appears that a bad taste is developing from the events in Belfast. Bare in mind that for both organisations opposing the war, whichever tactic we choose to employ, should take up most of our efforts.

by Intransigent Mon Mar 24, 2003 22:13

Organise to smash the state!

by James - WSM Mon Mar 24, 2003 21:57

Grassroots people have gone and done their own thing certainly, often without the support of IAWM etc. However we have consistently taken part and often advertised most of the demos organised by IAWM etc.

A few examples of evidence of our sectarinism would be needed to take this claim seriously.

We just don't think that marching is sufficient nor that we should wait for the majority to come around for direct action (what mechanism is there for ascertaining the opinon of the public?).

The aim is to halt the use of Shannon by the US military; the part of the war in which we arecomplicit and therefore that which we can affect.

Obviously we consider acting directly to be the best tactic - as well as a principle - otherwise there wouldn't be any point to the Grassroots' exsitence.

Any assistance the SP or anybody else would give to any form of direct action, workers strikes or plain disruption, would be really welcome. We'll continue to show up at your walks through the city in return.

James

by Chris Henry - Socialist Youth Coleraine Mon Mar 24, 2003 21:51 lavosfanfiction at hotmail dot com

Before I make my point, understand that I don't like having a go at any party's tactics. I joined the SP nearly a year ago with an open mind considering the SWP. I thought, considering the SWP were "left-wing" also, then it would be unfair to make a judgement on their operations until I had experienced them myself. Sadly, that time has now come, and as such I've had to come on here and say what I have to say. Also, I do not comment on every member of the SWP; I want to make that crystal clear. I just hope activity such as this can be acknowledged by their more rational members and such it can possibly be stamped out.

Recently, I organised a successful rally in Coleraine. Close to 200 people turned up, and it was the first rally I've experienced in Coleraine for many years. The rally was basically organised single-handedly through my own efforts, a manic week of chasing down reporters, sorting out postering, speakers... you get the picture. Balancing this with working and A-Levels at the same time, and you see the situation.

Kieron Barr of the FBU along with Kieron Mulholland (representing the Stop the War coalition, not the SP) spoke at the rally, as well as myself. The whole thing went off well, and I was pleased; for the first time, I had made a proper inroad into Coleraine, the first I've ever made after months of stalls (some conducted on my own) and other problems.

Now, after my initial delight, and around a week after, I spoke to a friend over the phone, who isn't a member of either party but follows what we do quite closely. He said, and I quote "Were you at the SWP rally in Coleraine?". I was confused and asked him when that was. 5th of March. Same time, same date, same rally. When I asked him who told him this, he stated that he had been speaking to a member of SSAW who had heard about it. There weren't even any SWP/SSAW members THERE, never mind organising it!

I'm not going to go as far as saying something like "shame on the SWP" or anything. I don't like making broad statements like that; I know how I feel when I read some of the stuff on the SP, because it feels like an unfair indictment on myself. What I do say, and say it strongly: shame on the individuals who spread this false and disgusting rumour about. I was absolutely livid about it. If I had been a less experienced socialist, I would probably have given up there and then.

If some people would be a bit less petty and more into the anti-war work, the movement would be even more impressive than it is now. I hear these reports of the SP being "politicially sectarian" and suchlike. Personally, I've been extremely patient with both the SWP, and other political parties that I have worked with in order to build up a broad anti-war base in Coleraine. I have absoutely no qualms about who is involved in my anti-war work here, as long as they're willing to work with me in a civilised and proper manner.

Sadly, the SWP members involved in this ridiculous charade remain anonomous to me. If I knew who they were, I would be protesting in the strongest possible terms to the leadership of the SWP. I may add as well, I have had a few e-mails asking me to "switch sides" to the SWP. If any of the SWP leadership are worried about this, I would be happy to give out the names in a proper fashion. I shudder to think at how many younger activists could be ruined by poaching tactics (brutal ones at that) that I have experienced first-hand.

To end, if anyone is familar to my previous postings (and they are few, but still) they would understand that an attack on SWP members is VERY unlike me. They would know that I've been very tolerant and equal in my speech. But something had to be said about this. I hope that the SWP members and supporters will take this as advice for helping their own party, rather than some sort of irrelevant tirade against their party of choice. I'm willing to talk and advise anyone who is worried about events such as those I've outlined in this posting. Feel free to get in touch.

Thanks, Chris Henry, Socialist Youth Coleraine

by Mark - SP Mon Mar 24, 2003 21:18

What I mean is that if the action alienates people then it is counterproductive. I am not for or against the action because of some abstract principled position but because of what the action can achieve. Its that simple folks.
The Grass roots network is the most sectarian element of the anti-war movement. Instead of participating in united action you have consistantly gone off and done your own thing.

by Chekov - WSM & GNAW Mon Mar 24, 2003 19:15

and it produces whiter than white regurgitation of party lines.

Think about what you're saying: "Direct action will not be premature when a majority of the anti-war movement support it"

So why not: "A workers party will not be premature when a majority of the workers support it". Or: "A strike by the building workers will not be premature when a majority of trade unionists support it", or better yet "opposing the government will not be premature when a majority of voters oppose it". The point is that this line of argument makes NO SENSE and is a recipe for quietism and doing nothing.

It is a worrying sign of the internal culture that seems to be current in the SP that their members seem to have no problem simply repeating this ridiculous mantra without apparently noticing that it is so obviously stupid (and SP practice would, as in the examples above, obviously run against this logic).

Furthermore, you have no evidence that it is not supported by a majority of people who are against this war and are not proposing any means of testing your assertion. So all I can surmise is that you mean "Direct action is premature until Kevin McLoughlin (currently the SP's little Lenin) says so".

But irregardless of the arguments themseleves, I can't understand why you are wasting your time denouncing the actions planned by GNAW. Surely we are such an irrelevant 'lunatic fringe' that you shouldn't bother about us. You folk should be busy praying to the god of industrial action so that your shannon strike might fall from the sky. And for those who are getting tired of all this sectarian mudslinging, I totally agree, but unfortunately when you are attacked, you often have to defend yourself. Why don't the SP come up with an actual credible PLAN for bringing us closer to strike action at Shannon, something that anti-war activists can do to increase the prospect of workers in shannon blacking the US military. If you do this, you will find that GNAW will fully support whatever action you propose and will not sink to backstabbing anti-war events because they do not carry our 'brand'. If you continue to do nothing and waffle about a strike that's not likely to happen anytime soon, then we will decide what is the best way that we can help stop the war and go ahead and do it.

You should reflect upon the contribution that your sectarian backstabbing is making to this movement.

by Aunty Party Mon Mar 24, 2003 19:14

At least Judas got forty pieces of silver.

by INLA all the way Mon Mar 24, 2003 19:06

lets give these bickering socialist bastards the heave ho, do we really need such bitching and backstabbing, for people who call themselves socialist they are very fuking competitive. These socialists pretend to be holier than thou, what we want is truthful politicians, politicians who say yes i've robbed banks SO WHAT, operated extortion/protection scams, fraud and credit card scams, we want excitement and honesty, politicians who truly represent working class people, politicians who aren't ashamed to say yes i've done all this to make ends meet SO FUKING WHAT, not people who feed us bullshit to line their own pockets. Yes there is bad blood between these two political parties, but does this matter in the scheme of life, no, i think not.

by ipsiphi - nice to see the swimmies still know conflict Mon Mar 24, 2003 18:43

will of course not have to wear her crown every day, her agents tell me that her work for peace will not distract from her studies, little miss sevilla the reader probably will ahve guesssed is a university student as thus not a steroetype like her predeccesors in the 20th century.
Her agents have told me that Little Miss Sevilla the current miss spain also passed her driving test first go.
and most significantly she doesn't have a boyfriend but is "still looking".

by Mark - SP Mon Mar 24, 2003 18:36

Direct action will not be premature when a majority of the anti-war movement support it. Thats how democratic organisations usually operate.
Anyway, direct action of the type that the chief crusty in the boiler suit advocates is limited in its usefullness. Far more usefull would be a general strike.

by Gaillimhed Mon Mar 24, 2003 17:59

Say goodbye to your credibility, say good bye to your chances of building a lasting movement, say goodbye to the future. The more of this squabbling you people indulge in the more support you shed, the more people you alienate, the more normal people come to believe you are a joke. 'gotta get it together people.

by p.ranks Mon Mar 24, 2003 17:15

nothing ever gets done except blah, blah, blah,

by Another Anonymous SWPer - Whatever the front is this month Mon Mar 24, 2003 17:06

Yes, of course my predictably anonymous SWP friend. Raising any criticism of the SWP means that you aren't doing any of the real work in the anti-war movement.

The mere fact that young members of the Socialist Party are at the heart of Youth Against War which has mobilised thousands of school students to strike against the war or the fact that Socialist Party members are extremely active in the Irish Anti-War Movement and have been instrumental in getting some of the union backing which the movement has recieved means nothing. They - shock! horror" - dare to make criticisms of some of the many and varied idiocies and sectarian stunts which the SWP have tried to pull! We can't have that! People feeling that they have a right to free discussion! Disgraceful!

Here we have an a crystal clear example of the SWP method.

1) Turn up to a direct action organised by somebody else - and be clear about this organising more than a thousand school students to go on strike is a direct action of infinitely greater significance than an impromptu sit down on the road. Then try your best to either sieze control of it or failing that, disrupt it.

2) Claim that you were really the people who organised it in the first place.

3) In the course of some standard issue more-militant-than-thou posturing on the next day encourage small numbers of school students to sit in front of the ever so gentle RUC while standing comfortably on the sidelines egging them on. It's easy to be really brave from the pavement when its some 15 year old risking getting his head cracked in the place of the "big men" of the SWP.

4) When your posturing gets some school students arrested, go home to post mad claims on indymedia about how your front had organised the days events. And leave them to rot in the police station until other people who do have some sense of fucking responsibility get them out.

A good couple of days work, lads.

by Janus Mon Mar 24, 2003 17:04

I was a member of *blushes* the Labour party for a few years but was more and more disgusted by the party as time went on. I finally left because of the party's support for the first Nice referendum. As for the parties, I'd fall somewhere between Sinn Féin and the Socialist Party. If it wasn't for the Socialist Party's policies on the North I'd probably join but I occasionally help out the Shinners as they're the only ones organised in the constituency I live in, Dublin Central. I understand the importance of parties but I don't think not being a member of a political party means you can't be an activist. I'm all for debate between the parties but people slagging each other off while the biggest campaign the left has ever fought in Ireland is taking place seems a little foolish.

by CruxTransBot Mon Mar 24, 2003 16:55

Janus,
Anyone serious about saying it premature to change the world will join a political party. I bet you are one of these punters that goes to demonstrations and puts your freedom on the linbe, but does nothing to sell newspaper. You say you're an activist, but you're not.

As I said most serious people will chant 'one solution, revolution' and organise 'sit-downs' on roads after we have arranged for the gardai to block them off for us. It's important to look at the methods of the various different parties as it impacts directly on how we can build a serious opposition to war and capitalism. If you do so you will see the political parties are part of the problem and not part of the solution. Now shut up, follow the line and sell the paper.

by Crux Mon Mar 24, 2003 16:50

Janus,
Anyone serious about changing the world will join a political party. I bet you are one of these punters that goes to the odd demo, but does nothing to build serious resistance to capitalism. You say you're an activist, but you're not.

As I said most serious people will join a political party. It's important to look at the methods of the various different parties as it impacts directly on how we can build a serious opposition to war and capitalism.

by observer - none Mon Mar 24, 2003 16:47

Maybe this is why Davy Carlin was going round the anti war demo in Belfast on Saturday with a bucket collecting for "Schools Against War".
Second childhood maybe!

by Junas Mon Mar 24, 2003 16:47

Mr Dillon is a fine upstanding member of the SP who has devoted his energies to fighting his main enemy, the SWP.
Let him carry on with his main priority while you and I and other sensible activists get on with spending our energies fighting US imperialism and lick spittle acolytes in Bush and Ahern.

by Janus Mon Mar 24, 2003 16:39

I'm a bit relieved to see this post as it is important at this time of rampant American imperialism, the deaths of soldiers on all sides and innocent men, women and children and the possible invasion of Kurdistan by Turkish troops that we focus on the important issue, and not let meaningless nonsense such as the war on Iraq distract us from the clear need for sectarian divisions within the anti-war movement and a slagging fest over who's youth front organisation is best.

As bombs fall on Baghdad and the limbs of the innocent are torn from them by bombs dropped by an American military whipped into fanatacism by a compliant and jingoistic media we should pause to reflect that my party is more radical than yours and your politics, and leadership figures are fools, who have sold out our mutual ideological inspirations and may be secretly working for the government.

As I type this I listen to Blair live in Westminster and I can but shake my head in wonder at how out of touch the man is, making a pointless speech about Iraq when the eyes and ears of the world are focussed on the struggle for supremeacy between various parties and factions for control of the anti-war movement, increased newspaper sales and massive recruitment.

Yes indeed, so very oout of touch.

by Joe Mon Mar 24, 2003 16:16

It's amusing to see the SWP as the receiving end of the 'its premature', 'its not well enough organised' r-r-revolutionaries. The SP still talk of not being against direct action just 'this action'. So guys when will direct action against the war NOT be premature? How well organised does it have to be before you will take part?

Seriously, the SWP have made an expected (and overdue) U-turn. I'm sure this will cause headaches as they move from opposing action to demanding that they are in charge of it. But at least they finally recognise that it will take more then marches to 'Stop the War'. When will the SP recognise this?

by It's their Method Mon Mar 24, 2003 16:09

There is not an opportunist "wing" of the SWP. They are opportunistic in their methods, that's how they opperate. They go from Opportunism in the extreme (eg SAW frontgroup, watered down liberal politics, etc) to Ultra-Leftism (eg 'One Solution Revolution' chants, etc)

As Lenin said Opportunism and Ultra Leftism are "two sides of the one coin". Currently in the IAWM the SWP are in opportunist form. They water down their politics, come across as a liberal party more akin to Amnesty International, they are dont call for anything other than liberal demands. But when the war work has gone, they will hop onto another issue and be ultra-left.