|
|
Blog Feeds
Anti-Empire
The SakerA bird's eye view of the vineyard
Public InquiryInterested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
Voltaire NetworkVoltaire, international edition
|
An open letter to the Socialist Party. (CWI)From John Throne. national |
miscellaneous |
news report
 Monday April 14, 2003 11:03 by James Cannon - SP Left Opposition
 What Kevin MacLoughlin Wanted To hide From You Read the letter by John Throne which was suppressed by the SP Troika. Make your own mind up. "The older more experienced leaders of the SP know that if the Comrades were to take up these policies which I advocate they would come under attack from the CWI leadership. After 25 years in the CWI, 23 as a full timer I was slandered , fired without any compensation or pension, left with hospital bills the CWI refused to pay, expelled from the CWI and refused my right to appeal against my expulsion. Partly this was to discourage others from taking an independent position inside the CWI. As I say the Comrades would come under severe attack. But it is at times like these that we have to decide what our priorities are, where our loyalties are, what it means to be a revolutionary." John throne "I am very worried about what I see as a drift toward seeing the Protestants as the ,"bunkered minority" as the document puts it and basing the position on the defense of the Protestant ,"minority" as they soon will be. The emphasis on the insecurity of the Protestants. The use of expressions in relation to the Protestant paramilitaries sectarian killings as ,"their sectarian counter terror campaign.". The Protestant paramilitaries were involved in a counter terror campaign? This shows a serious loss of grasp on reality. I am extremely worried by the attempt to claim that the Northern state is not longer sectarian." John Throne An open letter to the Socialist Party. (CWI)From John Throne. November 2002. The independence of the working class, the advanced sections of the working class, and building the Socialist Party as a revolutionary organization. Comrades, In the recent elections in Southern Ireland the Socialist Party (SP) retained its seat in the Dail, came close to winning a second with Clare, and the other candidates of the party got a respectable vote. These achievements are a result of the party's hard work on the ground fighting for working class people, the record of Joe H in the Dail, the policies of the SP overall, and the personal qualities and caliber of all the Comrades who stood and worked in this election. Of particular importance was the record of the party in fighting on the ground with direct action confrontational tactics such as in the battle against the water charges, the bin charges, etc. The Comrades of the SP are to be congratulated on this achievement. However, we have to be careful that the reasonable election result does not hide more than it reveals. Success in revolutionary socialist politics cannot be measured by whether more votes are won at one election compared to another. What has to be considered is whether the independence and consciousness of the working class has been increased, whether the struggle to develop a conscious layer of activists in the working class has been taken forward, whether the revolutionary organization has been strengthened. When we consider all these factors then the election result comes to be seen as much more problematic. In my opinion the most important development in the last election in relation to the SP and the independence and consciousness of the working class was the rise in support for Sinn Fein. (SF) One report in the Irish bourgeois press claimed that SF got more votes from first time voters than was received by all other parties combined. If this is correct it is a staggering achievement by SF. Another commentator wrote: "SF draws support from the sprawling housing estates for whom the Celtic Tiger is a sick joke; from young voters bored by the dull con sensual nature of orthodox Irish politics; and from those who sympathize with the old tradition of republican socialism". Comrades it is these areas, along with trade union activists and the increased layers of women activists fighting against poverty and the special oppression of women, in which the SP should be establishing itself as the rising force. But instead it is SF that is doing so on a state wide basis. It is instructive to read some of the comments in the bourgeois press about the situation that followed the last election. The decline of Fine Gael is seen as permanent. The move to the right of labor is seen as irreversible. The battle has begun to determine what new force will rise as an alternative and opposition, to Fianna Fail. It is sobering to see how little the SP is mentioned as having a chance of providing this opposition or even of being one element in this opposition. In fact I could not see one single mention of the SP in any of the bourgeois papers in relation to the possibility of the SP playing such a role. I do not think this can be put down only to the bias of the bourgeois press. There are two conclusions that are hard to avoid when we look at the pastof five years or so. The first is that the independence and consciousness of the working class has been thrown back. I say this because there is no evidence of a movement of the working class or even a significant section of the working class moving to build its own independent organizations, moving to develop its own program to that of the bourgeois. The second conclusion is that the SP has not managed to make the breakthrough into becoming the rising force in the working class. There is no spontaneous movement of even small sections of the working class and the youth to the SP. The SP's has been created by hard work and self-sacrifice in each area that the Comrades targeted. But this is very different from the SP having put down serious roots in the working class and developing as a current to which the working class and youth are beginning to turn in a spontaneous fashion on a state wide basis. Even if Clare had been elected this would not have fundamentally altered the situation. The SP has not managed to place itself in the consciousness of even the advanced layers of workers and youth as their organization, or at the very least as a force to be turned to which could be built into their organization. When I worked as a full timer in the organization in Ireland we had many discussions about o whether our paper was a paper FOR the working class or whether we had managed to reach the stage where it had become a paper OF the working class. The same concept is helpful here. The SP is undoubtedly an organization FOR the working class, it stands for the interests of the working class. But it has not yet developed into an organization OF the working class. That is it is not a party that is seen by significant sections of the working class as their organization which can be built and shaped by their involvement and their struggles. In spite of the best efforts of the SP it has not been able to make the breakthrough into being an organization OF the working class. My understanding of the strategy of the SP and the CWI leadership over the past period is that the SP would occupy the space on the left that was opened by the move of Labor to the right, the dissolution of Democratic Left into the Labor party and the decline of the Workers Party. That is that it would develop into at least a small mass party OF the working class. However what has to be honestly faced up to is that in spite of the hard work of the comrades this strategy has not worked. The space that was opened up by the move of the various left parties and the Labor party to the right is being increasingly filled by SF and the Greens or by disillusionment and cynicism. The SP has not been able to fill that space. There will be a temptation to say that while the strategy has not worked so far, at the next election Clare will get elected and everything will yet work out. This would be wishful thinking. While Clare's election would strengthen the SP's voice, it would not alter the overall situation which shows that there is not a movement, not a current, within the working class which sees the SP as their party or as an organization which can be built into their party and which is moving or beginning to move spontaneously to the SP. The Greens got a boost out of the last election. Sinn Fein made a breakthrough. These parties will not be sitting on their hands. Sinn Fein with its resources, its image of being outside the corrupt political establishment, its focus on doing the work on the ground on the day to day problems of working class and middle class people, are not to be underestimated. I believe that the rise of the Greens, the rise of SF and the inability of the SP to make a breakthrough as a state wide force add up to a serious situation facing the working class and the SP. Not only does the working class not have a rising mass party, not only is there no small or semi mass party to which the best of the left activists and working class and youth fighters are moving spontaneously, but the sections of the working class who are breaking from the old traditional parties and the sections of the youth looking for an alternative to these parties are increasingly giving support to petit bourgeois parties such as SF which has the aim of becoming the main bourgeois party in the South and the main Catholic bourgeois party in the North. It almost appears like a replay of the rise of Fianna Fail in the early decades of the state, when this bourgeois party was able to win so much of the working class vote and put down roots in the working class due to the mistaken policies of the Labor Party and the lefts such as the Communist Party and the Republican Congress at the time. What is particularly frustrating about the rise of SF is that this danger was seen by ourselves, the Irish section of the CWI, up to twenty years ago. The last time I spoke at a conference of the Irish Labor Party was in the early 1980's. It was also one of the most embarrassing for myself. (The Militant Group which went on to become the SP was still in the LP at this time). Before the conference in preparing our intervention I argued that it would be wrong to alienate the conference by speaking over our time so we should cut down the lengths of our contributions. Then I went into the conference and spoke over my time. I did so because I wanted to put on record that if Labor maintained its move to the right and involvement in coalitions with right wing parties, a vacuum would open up on the left that would be filled by other forces and the most likely force to do this would be SF. It is not of much use to argue that SF is wrought through with contradictions, that its bourgeois program and its ambition to become a major bourgeois party is in conflict with its mainly working class and petit bourgeois vote. This of course is true. However Fianna Fail have lived with this contradiction for close to eighty years. This contradiction of itself will not prevent SF from gaining in support and membership. For this to happen there would have to be a clear and viable alternative rooted in the working class and capable of mobilizing the most consciousness and combative layers of the working class and youth and these layers in turn able to reach out and influence and organize the broader layers of the working class and youth. It is my belief that the SP is hiding behind this analysis of the contradictions in SF as a way of justifying its refusal to take steps that would begin to fill the vacuum on the left and as a way of reassuring the Comrades as the party fails to make the breakthrough. I believe that the SP has to realistically appraise the present position of the working class, and the organizing of an advanced section of the working class. While recognizing its own achievements of the past years, and these have been considerable, the SP has to recognize that its strategy of building itself into a mass or even a small mass party which is a party OF the working class as compared to being FOR the working class has not been successful. And from this to review its strategy and tactics. I am sending this open letter to the SP Comrades in an attempt to facilitate this discussion and to be part of it. An opportunity missed: Potential from 1997 on has not been realized. The Militant Group was expelled from the Labor Party and went on to establish itself as a principled combative force with its central role in the water charges campaign where it worked with activists from different political backgrounds and none. From this the basis was laid for the election campaign of 1997 when Joe was elected to the Dail. Militant had not only survived its expulsion but it had grown and prospered. It had played a central role in a national militant direct action campaign, built a base of contacts and activists throughout the country, proved itself to have a non sectarian approach and shown it was prepared to put itself on the line and challenge the law and the state in the interests of working class people. With Joe's election the organization then had a state wide platform from which to explain its policies. The SP's position was dramatically strengthened. Comrades, at this time after the 1997 elections the SP was in a potentially powerful position. The timing was excellent as the vacuum on the left was opening up in a most dramatic fashion. Almost thirty years work had gone into building the organization to put it in this position from where it was possible to see it going forward to change working class politics and the class balance of forces in the country. 1997 was the most important year for the organization since it was founded as the Militant group in the early 1970's. The special correspondent for Magill magazine, Niall Stanage, had this to say about the objective situation at the time. "Following the 1997 election, for example, the once radical Democratic Left was absorbed into the larger, more middle of the road Labor Party. In the process, considerable ground was freed up on the left and Sinn Fein wasted no time in cultivating this territory." This is correct. But the question is why the SP did not have more success in filling this space. It is at this time Comrades, after the 1997 elections, that I believe the SP made a serious mistake. It did so under the direction and pressure of the IS of the CWI which on the international arena was turning increasingly inwards. The IS bears the main responsibility for this serious mistake. If the SP is to play the role it can play, if it is to face up to the needs of the working class movement in this period, the decisions taken at the time, and the present policies of the party need to be revisited and discussed. The SP's policy at the time was to move under its own banner to try and fill the vacuum on the left. The discussions with the unemployed group in Tipperary not with standing. The SP was feeling out this group to see if it could be recruited to the SP or if this failed, to have a working agreement. The SP decided that the vacuum on the left was to be filled by the SP recruiting new members in ones and twos, building its branches in the neighborhoods through ones and twos, winning respect and support through its hard work and principled interventions in struggles. Of course there is no substitute for such work. Over this period and given the small resources of the SP and the objective situation there was no other way for the party to build and to grow. Such work had to be carried out. The revolutionary organization, the SP had to be built. However, this is not the whole picture. Building the revolutionary organization is vital work that has to be carried out at all times. Any tendency to step back from this task or to put it off to the future is to betray the interests of the working class and the struggle against capitalism. But how this is done, where it is done, what tactic is used, entryism, the open banner of the party of revolutionary socialism, building a new mass party with other forces in a principled manner while simultaneously building the revolutionary forces, there are many tactics that are justifiable at different times. The SP above all other groups knows this because the base from which the SP developed was built by carrying out entryism in the Labor Party. So what should the SP have done at that time? To answer that we have to look at the objective situation and also the past theoretical position and analysis of the SP. In doing so we have to also see that building the revolutionary party is not an answer that can be given in isolation to all situations. The needs of the working class at any point in time cannot be reduced to the slogan and tactic of building the revolutionary party. We all know left organizations which tried to reduce the struggle to this in the past and we know what happened to them. We have to look at the needs of the working class in the immediate concrete situation, at the consciousness of the working class and its advanced sections, and to what extent the revolutionary organization, in this case the SP, could have and can today respond to these needs and realities. "Fight to win" The dominant feature in the world situation over the past period has been capitalism's global offensive against the working class. Flowing from this the central task of the working class in the past years has been to organize, confront, and throw back this offensive of capitalism. To do this the working class needs to develop its programmatic and organizational independence, to organize as a fighting force its most combative and advanced sections and for these layers to link with and mobilize the broader layers of the working class. Confronting the capitalist offensive using such an approach and tactics would make possible the defeat of this offensive as opposed to the policies of the present working class leadership who organize token protests and lead struggles to defeat. Of course the objective situation, in particular the growth of the economy and the rise of the Celtic Tiger has to be taken into amount. The rise in wages and living standards for a section of the working class along with the fall in unemployment meant that sections of the working class were living better than before. This gave a certain base to the bureaucratic trade union leadership and their policies. However large sections of the working class were being by-passed. At the same time there was the increased inequality. And there were the other issues, corruption, discrimination against women, the rise of anti-immigrant sentiment, the rise of opposition amongst sections of the youth to the global capitalist offensive. It is not accurate to say that the only problem with the SP not developing into a small mass party has been the objective situation. To do so is to try and hide behind the objective situation. The rise of SF and the rise of the Greens, the vote for The correct analysis of the SP and the CWI in the early 1990's explained that the Irish LP and the social democracy internationally had become bourgeois parties in all ways. That is that they had lost the roots that they previously had in the working class. These parties had gone over totally to the bourgeois and where they were in power they were openly carrying out the capitalist offensive. The prospect of the working class moving into struggle and looking to these parties for a way forward was no longer on the cards. In Ireland the Democratic Left had subsumed itself in the LP. The Workers Party was in severe decline. The LP of course had become one of the parties of the bourgeois and of bourgeois government. The trade union leaders with a few individual honorable exceptions, were traveling after the leaders of the social democracy in carrying out the capitalist offensive against working class living standards and rights. What the working class has needed more than anything else in this period are organizations that would organize the working class to take on and confront the bourgeois offensive which it has been experiencing in the direct wage and social wage, in the workplace, the neighborhoods, etc. The key task for revolutionaries at that time and still today, the key task for the SP, was to answer this central need of the working class, that is to develop a program, strategy and tactics to confront this bourgeois offensive and to build organizations of the working class able to successfully take on this offensive. I believe that on one level, that of direct action confrontational tactics, the SP, more than most other organizations on the left was trying to face up to this task. The tactics it used in the water charges were a model for confronting the global capitalist offensive and taking the struggle forward on the ground. The introduction of water charges was part of the global capitalist offensive. It was part of the offensive of capitalism known as globalization, the aim of which is to take back all the gains won by the working class in the past century and to increase the share of production going to the bourgeois. In the aftermath of the collapse of Stalinism, and with the world economic crisis of over capacity and profitability, and given the open capitulation of the mass organizations of reformism, the capitalist class stepped up its offensive against the working class internationally. It could see no serious organized force that was going to stand in its way. Cutting wages, jobs and conditions, cutting social services, cutting working peoples rights, throwing workers internationally into competition over who could work hardest and longest and cheapest and in the most polluted environment, these are all part of the global capitalist offensive. In this offensive the US capitalist class has been taking the lead. The Wall Street Journal headed its editorial in the aftermath of the collapse of Stalinism ,"We Won".. US capitalism has been on the offensive to consolidate and extend this victory ever since. The Gulf War, the Balkans War, the Afghanistan War, the ,"war against terrorism", the move towards war against Iraq, these are all part of the offensive of global capitalism and part of the attempt by US capitalism within this offensive to increasingly dominate all its rivals and to rule the world. The new rules governing the movement and regulation of capital are part of this offensive. In this area also the US capitalist class are trying to more thoroughly dominate its rivals and the imperialist countries more thoroughly dominate the former colonial countries. The traditional organizations of the working class, the trade unions, the mass reformist parties, all have capitulated in the face of this offensive. And the left organizations including the revolutionary left have been thrown into disarray and decline. This remains the case in spite of the rise in the support for left candidates recently in Latin America. One result of the collapse of Stalinism, the capitulation of the mass reformist organizations, the disarray and decline of the left, has been the development of a very deep skepticism amongst the working class and the youth about all organizations that claim to be socialist or Marxist in fact about any organization that claims to be able to provide a way forward. The rise of support of a small section of the youth for anarchism is part of this process. But much more fundamental is the skepticism amongst the working class and the youth overall about any organization that claims to offer an alternative. In fact it seems to be the case that left organizations and left alternatives has never faced greater skepticism than at the present time. This reality has to be faced up to. It is no use ignoring this and proceeding as in former times. The approach and the tactics of the left organizations have to take into account this increased disconnect with the working class, quite probably the biggest disconnect between the left and the working class in close to a century. As with all other forces on the left the SP has therefore been working in a difficult objective situation. As in all other countries the working class has been on the defensive and the layer of advanced workers which had existed around the traditional organizations of the working class have been disorientated and in most cases can no longer be said to exist as any kind of a cohesive force. In many countries it is no longer possible to speak of the existence of an advanced layer within the working class at all, if we are meaning this in the sense of a cohesive combative force. In this situation both in Ireland and internationally revolutionaries, in an effort to overcome this disconnect have increasingly been faced with the need to prove IN ACTION, NOT JUST IN WORDS, that they have an alternative to offer. What this means is that revolutionaries have to take up and involve themselves centrally in the struggles on the ground, have to take responsibility for organizing and developing these struggles to a much greater extent than ever before. "Patiently explaining" the alternative program to that of capitalism and reformism no longer cuts much ice. And revolutionaries have to take up these struggles in such a way as to actually challenge and throw back and defeat the attacks that are being made by capitalism. This means the use of direct and militant and in many cases illegal action. The revolutionaries have to be able to show that they are prepared to take action that makes the capitalists pay a price for their attacks, that actually throws back and defeats the affects of these attacks on the ground. Token protests no matter how cleverly organized, marches no matter how big and vocal, strikes which confine themselves to stopping work for an hour or two or a day or two while having no strategy for victory, these tend to add to the skepticism that already exists. The SP Comrades gave an example of the type of struggle needed when they organized in the water charges campaign to keep the water supply flowing to those who had not paid when capitalism and the state tried to turn it off. Struggles against the capitalist offensive today have to be organized in a similar type of ,"fight to win" basis, have to be organized to make the capitalists pay for their offensive, have to be organized in direct confrontation with the capitalist class and their state, as was the case with the water charges. For example when workers are fired the tactic has to be to try and mobilize to occupy and hold the plants and to halt production and distribution of the goods from other sources. This means direct action to halt the movement of goods and capital by stopping transportation and communication and energy supplies etc. When workers are evicted the approach has to be to help them organize to go back into their homes and hold these against attack. There are other examples that comrades are aware off. But the basic idea is simple, token protests and explaining what the socialist alternative are not sufficient in this time of the capitalist offensive and the deep skepticism that exists amongst the working class in relation to organizations that seek to offer an alternative. Revolutionaries have to take on themselves the responsibility of organizing effective struggle on the ground, struggles that aim to "fight to win." One of the reasons for the rise of anarchism has been the catastrophic experience of Stalinism, and the role of the Stalinist parties internationally. Another has been the absolute capitulation and betrayal of social democracy in the face of the global capitalist offensive. The non-Stalinist revolutionary socialist left have been seen by sections of the youth as being connected with these historic failures. Another reason for the rise of anarchist ideas has been the militant direct action tactics of some of these forces from Seattle, to Prague, to Quebec, to Genoa. There are many criticisms that can be made of such actions, lack of a clear alternative, no orientation to the working class, etc. But when compared with the betrayal of the mass reformist forces, both Stalinist and social democratic, and the inaction of much of the revolutionary left at least the anarchist forces have been seen to be ,"doing something".. In one classic example of this at a meeting of youth activists in Chicago recently one young woman exclaimed after an hour or two of discussion on orientation and tactics that she was not much interested in this she "just wanted to do s..." In this period revolutionary socialism cannot rebuild its base in the working class, and build a base amongst the youth without engaging in direct action, "fight to win" tactics against the capitalist offensive, such as the SP carried out in the water charges campaign. I was back on holiday in Ireland recently and attended the march for higher redundancy payments . Speaker after speaker denounced the unfairness of the present situation, compared working peoples lives to that of the greedy capitalists and corrupt capitalist politicians who run the country. But the march offered nothing by way of an effective strategy to confront the capitalist offensive. It was basically complaining about the attacks while proposing no effective action to halt them. To confront and throw back this offensive of global capitalism will take the most militant and direct and in many cases illegal actions such as mass occupations, the turning off of electricity, water, communication, transportation, etc., throughout the economy and internationally and the willingness to bring hundreds of thousands onto the streets to if necessary take on in direct battle the forces of the state. Token protests, marches which are not part of mass direct militant action will either be brushed aside or ignored by the capitalist offensive which is sweeping the world at this time. Capitalism led by US capitalism sees its victory over Stalinism as an unprecedented opportunity in history. It will not be convinced to give up its offensive to more thoroughly dominate the world and the worlds working classes by marches or speeches. The revolutionary movement and the working class will have to put itself on the line if this offensive is to be halted. Workers and youth have seen the defeats over the past decades. They have seen how union leaders call workers out onto strike to have them stand on the picket lines loosing money and time and ending up defeated. They have seen the promises of the reformist organizations forgotten when they come into government and replaced with the policies of the capitalist offensive. They have seen the catastrophic disaster that was Stalinism which took place behind the rhetoric of ,"Marxism".. In this period revolutionary organizations to gain a base, to gain an ear, have to take up struggles in a way that is effective and be prepared to put themselves on the line to confront the capitalist offensive. Only in this way will the thick layer of skepticism begin to be penetrated and a base built. The SP in Ireland has understood this to on one level. The water charges, the bin charges, etc. the SP has approached these struggles in this militant fashion. They have organized and fought not to make a token protest but to "fight to win". This is one of the SP's strengths. These actions have gained an ear for the party's policies, without them the platform in the Dail would not have been won nor would the party have developed to the extent it has. However one detail that I would raise in this regard is that while the SP have been taking up struggles in a ,"fight to win" manner and correctly seeing them through to the end, this serious responsible approach may have resulted in the missing of opportunities that have arisen on a day to day basis where militant direct action "fight to win" tactics could be used to great affect. When I was in Ireland the Ray Burke scandal broke. There was talk about him been given a house as a bribe. Was there not a case to be made for the occupation of this house, explaining that it was actually the property of working people as they were the ones who paid the cost in higher rents, house prices, mortgages etc. for Burke's corruption. Perhaps helping a homeless family move in and protecting them and calling on all activists and workers and youth to come and take part in this action. I am sure there are other issues that come up on a day by day basis which would give the opportunity for the SP to organize direct action "fight to win" struggles that would bring real results. The correct approach of the SP in taking up a specific struggle and seeing it through to the end should not result in any inflexibility, any tendency, to prevent the SP from reacting to opportunities that arise on a day to day basis. In the economic collapse in USA 1929 the workers movement as reflected by the unions was stunned and halved in membership, strikes were all but non existent up until 1933/34 and the union leadership were the right wing pro-capitalist types in the AFL. Yet the CP and other left organizations built a base for themselves in this period by taking up the struggles locally and through direct action. When working class families were evicted from their homes the local unemployed committees that were led by these left organizations put these working class families back in their homes and defended them. On a local basis and through similar actions all the different forms of attack on the working class were met with similar direct action confrontational tactics. In this way the working class while in retreat was developing some points of resistance and the left organizations were putting down roots in the working class. By 1934 this approach led to a strengthened left with deeper roots in the working class and allowed the left to lead the major general strikes of Minneapolis, Toledo, San Francisco, where in pitched street battles, occupations, mass organizing and enforcement of the workers decisions major victories were won and the offensive against the working class suffered three major defeats . This opened up the way for the mass offensive movement of the working class around the CIO and the rise of the left into organizations which represented major currents in the working class. A similar approach by the revolutionary left to that of the US left in 1929-33 is necessary today. Building local united fronts of activists around tactics that can win and on an anti capitalist program: Linking these together on a country wide basis: Rebuilding a cohesive advanced section of the working class. Comrades I have nothing but praise for the role the SP has played in the campaigns such as the water charges , the bin charges etc,. However I do believe that the full potential both for the working class and the SP itself has not been realized out of these struggles. I believe that throughout these struggles and in general the SP should have continuously and simultaneously been conducting a propaganda and action campaign, conferences etc., to consolidate on a permanent basis, the activists who had come together in the battle against the water charges and the bin charges. Basing itself on the strong position that its role in these struggles had placed it the SP should have been attempting to consolidate on a permanent basis local action committees and link these together throughout the country, and doing so around a set of clear demands on wages, conditions, housing, education, health, etc., on an explicitly anti capitalist basis and with militant direct action ,"fight to win" tactics to take on the capitalist offensive. If there was one particular issue that was dominant at any time then it might have been best to turn these committees into action committees on this issue for a time, perhaps for example health care. However it is my opinion that from the struggles in which it was playing such a central role the SP should have been conducting a major campaign to identify to the activists and the working class the global offensive of capitalism that was affecting all their lives and the need to organize to halt and throw back this offensive. And from this to identify, explain and take up the central task of consolidating the groups of activists, many of whom the SP was in contact with through the water charges and other campaigns, into permanent activist bodies committed to confronting and throwing back the bourgeois offensive against the working class and explicitly anti-capitalist. What is involved here is the SP demonstrating in action that the capitalist offensive can be taken on, and simultaneously rebuilding a layer of advanced combative workers and youth within the working class as a whole. What is involved is facing up to the damage that has been done to the advanced section of the working class and attempting to work in such a way as to help rebuild this layer to fight against the global capitalist offensive with militant "fight to win" policies . Of course it will take big events to actually make this a reality in the full sense. But the SP can be at the center of this process and can give this process an important push forward. Out of all their struggles the SP and all left activists should be attempting to address this issue, the need to confront the capitalist offensive and the need to rebuild the advanced combative layer in the working class. I know that this work would have been affected by the economic boom. I think that these efforts I suggest for the SP would have met with limited success over the past few years for this reason. It is likely it would not have been possible to keep such committees of activists in existence on a thoroughly widespread scale because of this. But in my opinion making propaganda for this idea, organizing towards this objective, challenging all activists and activist groups on this issue was a central task for the SP. To do this would have been to put in front of the working class or at least in front of a significant layer of the working class activists, and to put in front of all the left activists in the country the key task facing the working class, that of organizing to confront and throw back the international offensive of capitalism. And to carry out this task the need for the working class to have its own independent organizations based in the workplaces and the neighborhoods and the schools and colleges and linked together throughout the state. And as part of this process the need to rebuild a combative advanced section of the working class and youth. To take up this work in this way would have been a significant gain for the working class and for the SP. I am not advocating here any kind of dual unionism. I am not advocating that the SP and the left should have been trying to set up alternatives to the trades councils and the union locals. Rather that the SP would have attempted to draw together the best activists into fighting activist committees, would have attempted to build workplace and neighborhood committees to take up the fight for working people against the bosses offensive and also against the policies of the union leaders and explicitly ani-capitalist. I am advocating that the battle would have continued in the trade unions and trade councils while at the same time the activists committees would have been conducting the struggles in the neighborhoods and the shopfloor bringing together a layer of advanced fighting workers and youth. In fact I believe that success in building such activist committees, in conducting such militant "fight to win" struggles would have been the best way to organize activist opposition groups within the unions and the trades councils. Those of us who come from a revolutionary socialist tradition correctly stress the reactionary role of the leadership of the working class in controlling the mass organizations of the working class and in preventing these mass organizations from taking on capitalism. We explain that the main obstacle in the face of the working class moving into struggle are the policies and tactics of the leaders of these mass organizations and that these tactics and policies flow from their belief that the working class cannot build an alternative to capitalism. From this and their privileged position within society they then go on to support capitalism and its demands. However while continuing to explain this it would be a major mistake to ignore the role of the left activists and the left and revolutionary organizations including the SP. It would be a major mistake not to understand and to point out the responsibility that also rests on the shoulders of the left and revolutionary activists and organizations. Take the case of Dublin as an example. There are many hundreds of left activists who are still active in their respective organizations and causes in the city. On top of this there are thousands of left and militant workers and youth who would like to fight but who cannot see any effective way in which to do so. And there is a deep discontent and rising anger in the broader layers of the working class and the youth. Yes the responsibility that lies with the leaders of the trades unions has to be pointed out. But , comrades what responsibility lies with the hundreds of left activists and the various left organizations? What is our responsibility? In my opinion it is to ensure that old ways of working, that sectarianism especially, that putting the interests of the left organization above the needs of the working class does not stand in the way of the working class fighting back. Why is it that the left organizations and individual activists cannot come together in struggle around a direct action ,"fight to win" campaign against the capitalist offensive. This is what the working class needs at this time. This is what the activists should be seeking to provide at this time. This is the main task facing activists.I believe that the SP should be making propaganda for this idea, for this organizational step, for such a fighting united front it should be carrying out this work on the ground where it has resources. The SP's role in the water charges and the bin charges give it an authority on this issue. It has worked together with activists from all traditions in these struggles. But in my opinion the SP has not drawn the full political and organizational conclusions from its work and as a result has not realized the full potential from its work both for the working class and the SP itself. In my opinion through its day to day work on the water charges, the bin charges etc., in its publications and through its public voices such as Joe and Clare, through organizing conferences etc., it should be challenging the left activists, the activists in general, the thinking workers who see what is happening but cannot see a way to fight back, to face up to this task. It should be challenging the various left and activist organizations, the unemployed groups in Tipperary etc., and if the leadership of such groups seek to prevent the exchange of such ideas on these issues, then the SP should not allow itself to be stopped from direct discussion with the membership of such groups. I know that on specific issues the SP has been taking initiatives to bring together such united front type organizations. The water charges, the bin charges, the Nice treaty. But what I am arguing here is the need to identify the global capitalist offensive and the need to confront this and the need to establish on a permanent ongoing basis such united front bodies and struggles. What I am advocating is a strong offensive by the SP for these ideas and these organizations. I have no doubt that one way the leadership of the SP will oppose these ideas will be to say that the other left organizations and activists would not agree to such an approach. This is a dishonest argument. If the SP or any other sizable group of activists in an area or areas took up such struggles, began to have some success, at the same time appealing to other activists organized and unorganized, then this would begin to put this issue on the agenda of all the left and all activists. If the SP approached this in a genuine non-sectarian manner while at the same time setting up the activist committees in the neighborhoods and workplaces with other activists then it would undoubtedly begin to win support for this approach. This in turn would make it more and more difficult for organizations who might oppose this approach for their own sectarian reasons, or for their own opportunist reasons such as SF, to keep this issue out of the day to day activity and discussion of the members of their organizations. These suggestions I put forward correspond to the needs of the working class and the possibilities given the resources of the activist layer that presently exists. For these reasons they would get an echo and get support. For these reasons they would become part of the debate amongst all activists and this in turn would make it impossible for leaders of organizations with a base amongst the working class to ignore them. In the US and Canada at the moment efforts are being made to take this approach. Groups of activists from different backgrounds and traditions have set up local activist committees. They have developed the term direct action casework. They set up street stalls with banners and literature and loud hailers and discuss the attacks on working class people. Through this they meet workers who are threatened with eviction, deportation, imprisonment or who have not been paid their full wages or are paid low wages, or their rent has been put up, or young people who have been expelled from school. Whatever struggles that they hear about they select from these and take up issues where the people directly involved are prepared to fight along with them. They use direct action tactics to make the capitalists pay for their offensive. They occupy the landlords businesses, picket their homes, they occupy the restaurants, the offices, the banks, the distribution centers of the capitalists involved. They take direct action and show that victories can be won. The area in which this work has been most developed is in Ontario, Canada, by the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty. Major movements which take over empty buildings for the homeless have been built, as well as ongoing militant fight to win actions to solve the day to day problems. This approach has built a base in the working class in the neighborhoods and has managed to have the issues raised in a concrete manner in the trade unions, where opposition groups to participate in these direct action struggles have developed. At the same time these militant and in many cases successful actions have helped the many left activists and organizations to try and face up to their responsibility to the working class and to confront their sectarianism. In the face of such militant struggles which have been winning small victories it is hard to continue to hold a sectarian approach. In every working class neighborhood in Dublin, Cork, Galway, Derry, Belfast, the global capitalist offensive is attacking working people. In any working class neighborhood there are left and other activists who if they came together and on a weekly basis went on the streets offering the alternative I suggest they would very soon be inundated with problems to deal with. If they then took up at least some of these issues in a direct action fight to win manner they would begin to put down roots and they would begin to develop an experience of working together as a united front against the global capitalist offensive. Out of this approach, which could be led by the SP in many areas, which could be led by one or two left activists in other areas, new roots could be put down, victories over the capitalist offensive could be demonstrated, and the idea of developing united front activist committees linked together throughout the country would be strengthened. With this increasing base in the working class neighborhoods and workplaces it would be possible to conduct national and international actions which would have some affect. It would be possible to prepare the forces for victories such as those in the US in 1934 which opened the road to a new working class offensive. This would also begin to develop again a cohesive combative layer of advanced workers. The leadership of the CWI to which the SP belongs will attack these ideas that I suggest above in many ways. They will make the accusation that my suggestions would take the focus away from building the revolutionary organization the SP. The word liquidationism will no doubt be waved about like a cross in the face of a rumored sighting of the devil. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only is the struggle to draw together the activists into combative ,"fight to win" united front committees what the working class needs at this time, but it is also the case that the struggle to build these fighting organizations would also be the most effective way to strengthen and build the SP. Acting in such a way would allow the SP to show that it was taking up the main task that is necessary if the working class is to move forward and doing so in a non-sectarian manner. It would allow the SP to show it is not just interested in running its own campaign and recruiting to the SP but that it is seeking to respond to the needs of the working class and to realize the full potential in the situation. One of the classic approaches of sectarianism is to run only those campaigns, and to run them only in such a way, that would allow the organization involved to best to recruit new members, as opposed to organizing those campaigns and in such as way that is in the interests of the working class. Part of the skepticism amongst the working class activists and youth in relation to the revolutionary left is that it has a record of acting in a sectarian manner, worried more about its own apparatus and identity than what is in the interests of the working class. If the SP on the other hand takes the lead in the campaign for fighting united fronts, explicitly anti-capitalist, with fight to win policies to take on the capitalist offensive then it will be in a much stronger position from which to recruit and to build. In my opinion acting in this non sectarian manner, carrying forward these policies that are in the interest of the working class, rather than being a diversion from building the SP, would in fact be the best possible way in which to build the membership and influence of the SP. Strengthening the independence of the working class , building a cohesive activist layer of workers and youth, and the electoral and party policies of the SP. As part of the approach explained above the SP should also move to adopt different policies on the party political and electoral front. The SP policy has been to build the SP and that is it, to offer the working class only one alternative, that of joining the SP. To see the mistaken character of this approach we have to not only consider the immediate situation and the empirical evidence, that is the inability of the SP to make a breakthrough into being a small mass party and fill the vacuum on the left, , but we have to consider also the theoretical analysis that the CWI has had over the decades. In doing so we have to keep in mind that the consciousness of the working class at this time is to an overwhelming extent an objective factor as far as the SP is concerned. By this I mean that the SP at this time does not to any practical extent determine the consciousness of the working class or even an important section of the working class. The CWI has always argued that as the working class moves into action it will not move as a unified class to revolutionary policies and organizations. While sections of the working class, the most advanced sections, can directly take the revolutionary path where a sizable revolutionary alternative exists, the mass of the working class will take the road of least resistance. That is take the road of some kind of reformist or centrist program and organization. In the past the analysis was that this would result in a movement of the working class, at least the broader layers, to the Labor Party, to social democracy. And that the advanced sections of the working class and the revolutionary organization would have to take this into account and adopt policies and an orientation which would be able to engage with the broader layers of the working class and win them from reformism to revolution. The analysis concerning the Labor party is no longer relevant as I have noted earlier. But now as far as can be seen the SP has abandoned any attempt to clarify the movement of the working class and all its different layers in the new situation. It has set aside any attempt to look at the situation concerning the more advanced layers or whether this term is even relevant at the present time, it has set aside any attempt to analyze the situation of the broader layers and where they are likely to move as they move into struggle. And from this how the SP should orient to build in the advanced sections and how it should orient these advanced sections to link with and give leadership to the broader layers. Instead all the SP presently offers the Irish working class is to join the SP which sees itself as a revolutionary party. Build the revolutionary party, the SP. Longer term Comrades will remember how we would criticize this approach when it was put forward by various left groups in the past. Now it is the SP which is doing this. The sole alternative that we offer the working class in all its diversity and complexity is to build the SP, the revolutionary party, and a very small revolutionary party at that. So small that in most parts of the country it does not exist. This is not a serious approach to mobilizing the working class to overthrow capitalism, it is not a serious approach to building the revolutionary party with a mass base amongst the working class capable of leading the struggle to overthrow capitalism. The situation today is of course very complicated. It is not clear through what political organizations the broader layers of the working class will move when at some stage they are driven into action by the bourgeois offensive and the crisis of the system. The move of the LP to the right has meant that the former traditional roots of this party in the working class no longer exist to any meaningful degree. Therefore a move of the working class or any significant section of the working class into this party seems to be excluded. The complete capitulation of the union leaders to the international capitalist offensive makes any perspective of the union leaders building a new mass workers party totally unrealistic at this time or for the foreseeable future. This therefore complicates the situation facing the SP in terms of its demands and orientation. However this in no way justifies the SP's "simple solution" to this problem, that is to just call for building of the SP, the revolutionary party, and nothing else. It does not answer the needs of the working class, does not realize the full potential in the situation. As the Irish working class moves into struggle it will not, as a class, move spontaneously to join the revolutionary party. The present analysis of the SP if it were to be judged from the fact that it calls for the working class in all its complexity to join the SP, is that the working class will move as a class to join the SP which considers itself to be the revolutionary party with its revolutionary program and its Marxist theory and policies. This is not correct. Where the working class will move, what organizations it will throw up I am not sure. I do not think it is possible to be clear on this at this time. But for the SP to ignore this issue as so many left groups did in the past and only offer the working class the alternative of joining the revolutionary party is to prepare the SP for a crisis in the future as its policies bring it up against the reality of the situation. In fact this mistaken policy has already led the SP into somewhat of a dead end as it has been unable to make the breakthrough into becoming a small mass party on a state wide basis or to have sustained growth in membership. (In 1983 when I left Ireland the organization North and South had between 450 and 500 members). I see that in its recent document on this issue the SP tries to cover itself. It speaks of it being "unlikely that there will be a move in the direction of establishing a new mass party of the working class. We are in favor of such a development as it can be a weapon for the politicization of whole new sections of the working class". But the SP then goes on to ascribe to itself a totally passive role in this process other than mentioning it in its propaganda. It will "monitor developments" in this regard it says. By the way this seems to be different from the position on this issue in the North where the recent document says: "As with the fight to end the right wing control of the unions the subjective factor in the form of the SP can play an important role in making sure, as far as our resources allow that every avenue that opens towards the building of a political party of the working class is taken". This is a bit different from "monitoring developments" which is the position in the South. It would be good to hear how the SP explains the basis for passivity on this issue in the South and its position in the North. I believe that the first duty of the SP is to re think its present approach and to clarify within its own ranks and the working class layers with whom it is in contact the complicated process through which the working class moves to struggle. From this to then consider the situation concerning the more combative and advanced layers, or the formation of these layers, to consider the likely perspective for the movement of the broader layers into struggle, and the need for the revolutionary party to build its base amongst the more combative and advanced layers and in doing so to prepare these layers to engage in political struggle with broader reformist layers and organizations in order to win these workers to the revolutionary alternative and the revolutionary organization. It is my understanding that no systematic discussion of such ideas takes place at present in the SP, the issue is not being put in front of the party. As far as I know all emphasis is on building the SP with the idea that the SP in some sort of straight line can become the mass revolutionary party of the Irish working class. It seems clear that it would be meaningless at this time to put forward specific demands on the union leaders to build a new mass workers' party. The degeneration of these layers has gone too far for this to be a realistic possibility. The role of the union leaders and the position they occupy in the consciousness of the working class has changed dramatically. Therefore I think that this issue of where the broader layers will move will have to be clarified by events in the years ahead. I do not think that it is possible to predict this at this time. It will take time and big events to clarify the situation. However this does not mean that the only alternative to be offered to the working class should be to join the SP. This amounts to a capitulation in front of the complex situation and a capitulation which contains a sectarian approach. Only a very small fraction of the working class and even of the advanced workers and activists will join the SP at this stage. This has already been proven to be the case. There are many many more activists and advanced workers who see the need for organized activity on a class basis than are prepared to join the SP. By only building the SP at this time the SP is ensuring that the majority of the advanced workers and youth and those who see the need to organize on a class basis remain unorganized or begin to loss confidence in their class outlook and look towards SF or the Greens or become demoralized. This is not to mention the fact that the SP remains so over centralized and its view of the party so much out of line with that of Bolshevism that it will not even consider the majority of left activists for membership. The policy of the SP is damaging the struggle to strengthen the independence of the working class and to build a cohesive fighting political force out of the advanced layers of workers and youth. The SP has the responsibility to seriously discuss and consider its present policies and face up to the fact that these are preventing the working class from realizing its full potential at this time. To reconsider its policies the SP needs to look at the attitudes and consciousness of the working class in all its variation. Take for example the more politically conscious workers, those who would consider themselves to be on the left. Many of these have come through the ranks of, or have been around, the left of the LP, the Workers Party, and other left groups in the late 1960's 1970's 1980's. Many have been through the ranks of the Militant group/SP itself. Many others have had as their main experience the 1990's with its collapse of Stalinism, the total capitulation of the traditional social democratic organizations, and the decline and disarray of the revolutionary left. Many of these workers see the need to organize to take on the bosses and capitalism. The SP should be building from these layers as well as from the layer of activist youth. However the overwhelming majority of these workers and youth have either had experience of organizations which have failed them in the past or on the basis of their observations they are skeptical about left organizations and what they can achieve. To these activists, that is the very few it is prepared to approach, all that the SP offers is to join the SP. This is totally unrealistic, it is based more on the internal policies and needs of the leadership of the CWI than on the mood and consciousness and influence of the SP. These policies of the SP ensure that most of these activists remain unorganized. SP Comrades must face up to the fact that this is the inevitable result of its present approach. It is precisely those activists who are most aware and politically consciousness who understand that the SP is basically the former Militant Group with its clearly defined theoretical base, political analysis, internal structure and culture. In fact in the past we would not have considered an organization such as the SP to be a party rather considered it to be a cadre organization. While there will be scores of exceptions, it is the most conscious activists who are very reluctant to take, in fact I would say that it has already been proven that in the vast majority of cases these activists are not prepared at this stage or in the immediate or medium term future, to take the step of joining the SP. They see it as too narrow, they see it as the former Militant group with its very centralized internal life and culture, only under a different name. There are then the many workers and youth whom the SP meets in its campaigning work. These would include many of the type of activists I describe above. But they would also include what we used to call the new fresh layers moving into struggle. Yes it must surely be possible for the SP to recruit ones and twos of these to its ranks. However many of these would be involved only for the specific campaign itself and would not be likely to stay in political activity after the campaign was over given the nature of the SP and the difficult political climate of the time. But even those few who would be recruited would find it hard to integrate into the SP with its sharply defined political line and also because they would instinctively feel that the SP was not integrated in any kind of organic way with the other activist forces and the broader layers of the working class. The post Stalinist consciousness, the non-Bolshevik internal life and culture of the CWI, and how this damages the growth of the SP and the interests of the working class. The catastrophe of Stalinism and the skepticism that this has created not just about socialism but about any organizat |
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (148 of 148)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148Does anybody really care?
Show of hands? Anybody?
Joe Higgins is a socialist TD and the only socialist TD the SP will ever have because the man must sprinkle crystal meth on his cornflakes every morning. Seriously himself and Willie O Dea are the two best TDs for the "getting Ms O'Reillys drive tarmac'd" school of politicals.
In short he's built an effective machine and loyal support in his consitencys, as a bloke who gets stuff done. This is why he gets re-elected, not because Dublin West is a hotbed of socialism.
And this fact eludes the SP.
We're talking about a group who reject anything except shannon workers striking, but yet after four monthes are nowhere closer to this.
Honestly there are girlguide troops who are a leaner political machine than you.
"I argued that it would be wrong to alienate the conference by speaking over our time so we should cut down the lengths of our contributions. Then I went into the conference and spoke over my time."
No-one could have thought you long-winded who just read that letter, weighing in at an impressive, if scarey, 23,000 words.
Beyond those members of the SP who will analyse it line by line for some old-fashioned sectarian blood feuding and those people who take an interest in the doings of Trotskyite fringe groups as some sort of intellectual oddity or curiosity.
It seems that some people spend their time productively while others merely like to hold forth. Shouldn't this have been sent to the Voice's editor?
But they refused to publish any part of it. What we wanted was to have the letter circulated to the entire membership of the SP.
John Throne was refused permission to circulate it at the last Socialist Party Conference. He had to do so outside the hall.
John , You didn't put out a web address.Would you clarify the point you made about being the Irish rep on the British C.C.Would there have been an Irish rep on ,say, the French or American C.C.?
There has been some open dissent in the SP of late. At a recent Anti Bin Charges meeting SP members disagreed with each other on the way forward.
Some took the Troika line of building a more powerful committe to run the campaign. Others supported the idea of building up local groups as the way forward.
Looks as if John Throne still has some influence.
I got these details on another thread.
[email protected] (John Throne)
http://www.laborsmilitantvoice.com/
I am also curious about the British issue.
Apparently they are also having a fair old barney about Direct Action. But Little Lenin MacLoughlin slapped down the dissidents and threatened them with disciplinary action.
Back in those days, Militant Ireland would have been very much a branch office of British Militant. Their aim was for a Socialist Federation of the British Isles*. So naturally, the Irish Region would have been represented on the British CC.
* Now they are a bit more PC and call for a Socialist Federation of England, Scotland , Wales and Ireland.
I wonder if they have abandoned the Isle of Man and the Channel Isles.
Throne was in the leadership of the US section when the membership had their difficulties with him and decided to vote him out of the leadership. Over 90% voted against him. Throne continued to act undemocratically and after long debate and discussion he was asked to leave the CWI. The fact that there was a democratic decision in the US section to remove Throne is evidence that there is not an unaccountable leadership in the CWI.
A major difference that Throne has is on perspectives for a mass workers party. The fact is that the forces are not there yet to form a new mass workers party. Its only after a number of struggles where a whole number of people become more class-conscious can a mass workers party be formed. I think that Throne should read about the formation of the social democratic parties in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
I have no problem with the SP leadership not curculating the document that Throne produced. Why should they circulate a document by someone who is not a member? He was not stopped from giving out his document or making him opinion known, and he never would be.
John Throne is really a pathetic figure who has not got over the fact that he was re-called by the US membership. His accusations come in the form of a man with a chip on his shoulder. I would have had a lot of respect for Throne, afterall he did contribute to the workers' movmeent in his day. But unfortunatly he is now a pathetic character who any member of SY can argue with and win!
"he is now a pathetic character who any member of SY can argue with and win!"
The modern day equivalent of calling some-one a severely mentally handicapped individual.
It's a sign that Throne has lost his sharpness, he's no longer active in the movement. It's a testement to SY as they are far more politically knowledgeable than Throne. What I said above is a complement to SY, and it's an indication that Throne is not that knowledgeable about Irish politics. I'm sure that anyone that is active in the movmeent in Ireland (regardless of party or affiliation) could beat him in an argument!
"he is now a pathetic character who any member of SY can argue with and win!"
Which is why, I suppose, that you are descending to name calling and personal abuse, rather than addressing anything that he said. Does that count as winning an argument?
Could they beat him at Connect 4?
Chekov you just don't realise that insulting people is the way you win debates in the Socialist Party. Pat C for instance was wrong on the SP line on the north because his relationship with some SP women had come to an end. This is called 'scientific socialism' and actually was one of the favourite methods of Herr Marx.
You didn't think it was something to do with discussing the issues did you?
Then why dont you let him have a belated right of appeal to a SP conference.
Put him up against John Throne!
Where are the detailed commentaries on the Throne letter? Surely they can do better than thw Qwerty abuse.
The Troika who control the Socialist Party have consistently refused to allow any open debate on these matters. The reality is that when any descent is expressed within the party they come down on it like a ton of bricks with various members of the dictatorship playing different roles. Truth be told it isn't a Troika as there are four members of the dictatorship.
When opposition is expressed the role of the "bad cops" is played by Peter Hadden and Stephen Boyd who aim to crush their opposition through shock and awe tactics. Then Kevin McLoughlin and Michael Murphy row in to smooth things over and sweet charm people into excepting the party/trokia line. When are comrades going to stand up to these people?
Thrones comments re the SP putting forward a pro protestabt orange line, would this have anything to do with Hadden and Boyd being prods???
PH has all but destroyed the SP in Northern Ireland. With one active branch in Belfast with six members three of them full time organisers his elitism and sectarianism to others has left the SP evermore in the wilderness while others have built up community and trade union branches and respected reputations in a changing period. It is interesting to now hear what is widely known in Northern Ireland now by the writer and expelled member but it is of no surprise to even their own dwindling membership. It is both a shame and a pity that he has been allowed to destroy a once vibrant organistion but it seems from this article that the top down elitism is happening across the board therefore the pursuit of the closing curtain of the SP in N.Ireland growing closer as PH attempts to isolate his few hangers on within the SP from the rest of the left, the working class and the rest of society as seems is happening elsewhere in the CWI. A worry though is that as this gets closer that his reaction to others will become more bitter and sectarian as he clutches to his final straws. It is those few dedicated members that I feel sorry for and I hope that even at this late stage that they can attempt some change in this disasterous and possibly final direction he and the international elitists are taking them.
SA couldn't write a 23,000 document for sure. Well actually where was that position paper that was meant to come out 'soon after xmas'?
Joke!
Well that's one of the most ridiculous things I've seen here and I've seen a lot of silly things on the IMC newswire.
23,000 words is a lot. Some of it is even interesting but all of it shows quite a distance from Irish politics and from the lively discussions about the way forward which take place in the Socialist Party.
John Throne did a lot of good work as a member of the Socialist Party's predecessor. When he moved to America he was a leading figure in our American sister organisation. After a series of disagreements the overwhelming majority of the American organisation's membership (more than 90%) voted to change their leadership. John and a couple of others in the old leadership refused to accept that and were eventually kicked out. A sad story but not a particularly significant one. As somebody who is not an SP member and who is hostile to the SP he was not allowed to attend our conference. He was not prevented from circulating his document to anyone who wanted one.
After the lengthy post all of the usual people with an axe to grind jumped in, Pat, an anonymous SWPer and so on.
In case anyone is confused by anything anyone has said:
1) The Socialist Party in the North is growing fast. It has significant trade union influence and a vibrant youth wing which played a central role in organising the huge school student walkouts. It presently has five branches, spread across the North. I'm sorry to spoil our anonymous attacker from the SWP's day.
2) Irish Militant many years ago had a representative on the leading body of the British Militant, in addition to having its own leadership structures. This was to ensure that the Irish organisation had an input into any decisions which the British organisation might make which could effect Ireland.
Now back to the bickering I suppose.
Why does John Throne expect the SP to pay his hospital bills? Or did they put him in hospital?
This posting is not really by Throne or the Thronites it has been put up by the Troika so they can monitor the replies put up by SP members. The replies will be carefully be taken note of and used in the next purge!
Either that or the Troika are preventing any dissent by threatening dissenters with the return of the evil Throne. Like in Animal Farm!
Pat C what is wrong with being linked to a British party. Are socialists not menat to be intternationalists.
There is only a part active branch in N.Ireland which is in Belfast.As for their youth. The Youth And Socialist Youth Against war walkouts in Belfast last week produced six people a far cry from the fantasy 10,ooo they said they organised.
Apart from Peter Haddens personnal destruction for elite and egotistical reasons [I am right and everyone else is wrong, I am the greatest living Marxists writer etc, as stated on SP website ] their madhatter position on the North will also ensure their eventual and soon demise. Putting aside the leader lead isolationist and clan politics of the few, and decreasing membership now counted on your two hands, Peter hadden has started to dig a hole for his group with a spade and has now gone to look for a tractor in recent times to help out such is his attitude in recent times towards others including those few party faithful that remain, for the moment. I agree it is a sorry sight that an organisation with a good history is getting the nails hammered into its coffin because no one has stood up and argued against him and won. I believe it may be to late in the North to win change [but maybe not elsewhere] as apart from Hadden and two other paid full timers, the three other activists that remain are die hard party liners who raise their frustrations only on occasion. As for their other few union only activists I dare say they will plod along as they have done only with their union work as other political activity does not seem to interest them. I can understand the concerns raised in the posting and I say quite simply if that is the way they are treating their long term life long members then The issues raised in relation to their attacks on other socialist activists on this site rings home again even more strongly.
The first casualty of degeneration is the truth.
Lies, sectarianism and personal actacks of genuine and respected activists is the threads that are being used to hold the SP in the North together. Do you want to get into another fact putting situation with us all seeing how Peters Fantasy politics and reports from the North to the Southern Comrades measure up with the facts?
Can the Belfast SWP really not find somebody a little more coherent to spout anonymous shite about other groups?
By the way, when did Michael O'Brien get demoted from the Troika which supposedly runs the Socialist Party. I'm sure he'll be very upset to see Peter Hadden and Michael Murphy take his place.
But I'm off round the pub!
I sympathise with comrade Throne. I was once a member of an organisation but was purged and some of the SP contributions above are telling for what they say and possibly what they omit. Some SPers moan "its a very long article" well, try reading the SP position on the North (its alot longer with alot less to say). The letter is an attempt to voice an opinion on why the SP isn't growing if compared to the Greens or SF. ST has been a thorn in the side of the SP as he is the guy in the crowd shouting THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES!!!!!!!
Gripes like "I knew ST and he was a great person but then he left and became a - counter revolutionary, a social democrat, an ultra leftist, lossed the plot, became a SP critic (heresy, a madman etc etc etc. Do us a fuckin favor, read what you wrote and then publically apoligise to ST for being complete arseholes. This sort of shit is so pathetic and really paints a poor(er) picture of the SP to anyone outside the 'revolutionary (ever decreasing) circle'. You have not even given the man the decency of a coherent reply.
Sean, I understand that you are trying to appeal to the genuine SP members who are committed to socialism and I respect you for that. The little I know about your work in the US is impressive, building broad alliances to work in struggle with the working class wherever THEY decide the struggle is.
Im afraid Sean your good character has been destroyed by these people. Keep on fighting for the people who matter and fuck the begrudgers!!
dont the rally group/militant/labour militant/sp get a sense of deja vu,ted grant is senile,john throne is bitter. is a founder member who sweated his hole off really going to be dismissed as some individual with a gerry healy complex?
Bin charges campaign, SP members arguing, DC out window, is this the end.... they always seemed so united....but now the cracks appear....will SWP move in and pick up pieces....we will just have to see....ST has put cat amongst the pigeons...
I did not put this document on the indymedia.I do not know who did so. But now it is there I would like to comment. The issue for me is what is the nature of the present period and what is the task facing anti capitalist revolutionaries. I believe the main feature of the world situation is the offensive of Imperialism world wide to take back all the gains won by the working class in the past 100 years, to increase the domination of the former colonial countries and within this the attempt by US iumperialism to dominate all.
Flowing from this i believe that the main task facing the working class is to build a movement capable of confronting and throwing back this offensive. And the main task facing the anti capitalist revolutionaries and all activist workers is the building of such a movement. In my open letter to the Sp I was addressing what i saw as the way in which the SP could assist in this work.
I argue that the SP should be building anti capitalist action committees uniting themselves and all other activists in the neighbourhoods, the work places, the schools etc to take on this offensive. That in doing so it should be challenging all the anti capitalist and activist forces in the country to work together to this end.
I also argue that the struggle against the capitalist offensive has to be carried out in a serious way, that is that direct action fight to win tactics should be at the center of such work. Token protests and marches just add further to the sentiment that nothing can be done. I cannot understand why the SP seems so set against direct action these days as in the water charges for example it was direct action tactics which led to the gains and which built the movement.
I also argue that the SP should use its resources to campaign for the building of a broad workers political front. That instead of intervening in the movement and then solely calling for people to join the SP that it should be intervening in the movement and campaigning for all anti capitalist activists to work towards building a united political front or mass party.
I believe that these policies would be much more in line with the needs of the working class and the existance of many many activists and groups who are prepared to struggle against the capitalist offensive.
Look at the anti war movement and how many new forces came into activity. But where do they go after the anti war movement recedes. The many left groups socialist and anarchist groups call on them to join their own particular political group. I believe that the sectarianism of all should be challenged and the struggle for united action committees, direct action fight to win tactics, a broad united political front or party should be put at the center of the struggle in Ireland.
This does not mean that all the groups liquidate. I am still a revolutionary socialist and believe in building an organization along these lines. There are others in other revolutionary socialist groups, in anarchist groups. The suggestions I put forward above allow for these groups to build and develop as their own particular group but as part of a broader movement through which wider and wider layers of the working class can take on the capitalist offensive.
In the open letter printed above i go into these issues in detail. Sure i am not in Ireland and have not been for some time. So these suggestions can be wrong. But they are my ideas at the moment and i am very interested in having them discussed. I believe the abuse and sniping at me for my role here or there is unhelpful to the struggle of the working class.On the other hand it is useful to look at the policies all of us carried out in the past.
In this regard I have no probelm facing up to the mistakes I have made in the past and i am prepared to discuss these. For example up until 1990 I along with the rest of the CWI was arguing that capitalism could not go back to the stalinist countries. This was no small mistake in perspectives and it lies at the heart of the crisis and declinbe of the CWI. Along with the rest of the CWI I also underestimated the boom of the 1990's. I also believe that the interal life of organizations that base themselves on trotskyism have developed a far too centralised life. i was part of building such an internal life in the past. I believe that trotskyism was influenced by stalinism in its internal life.
I could go on and on here. I am glad to say that even after all the years of political life and membership of a left organization that I am still open to learn and develop. I would be very interested to hear a good discussion on issues such as these.
Finally let me say that i am not in the business of attacking the SP. I am not in the business of attacking my old comrade Joe Higgins or anybody else in that organization. Nor am I in the business of attacking other organizations in Ireland. What i am interested in is trying to raise ideas that can bring together in struggle the many many activists so that a more serious battle can be taken up against the capitalist offensive.
Finally i will ignore all the personal attacks and sniping except one. That is that i am not active in the movement. The truth is that I am as active as i ever was. Comradely Sean
PS If anybody wants to they can see the issues involved in my expulsion in the web site laborsmilitantvoice.com or contact me direct and i can give more information. JT
I think it is quite pathetic to attempt a dialogue with the SP over indymedia. Sean why don't you send them a letter like everyone else who is serious about debate does.
Why did you not contact the SP formally asking to be invited to the conference instead of just turning up and demanding to speak? The SP are not hard to contact, the details are in the paper.
Why do you think you should be given the right to speak at the conference. You left the organisation, you have very little support and it was a very packed agenda it is very arrogant to think you should have the right to speak at the conference.
Another thing why are you wasting all your time debating with the SP. In a time of mass radicalisation why don't you spend your time winning people over to your organisation. If you just wish to change the leadership why don't you join the party and try to win over the membership?
Sean I think you are very wrong about the launching of a mass party now. The fact is that the conditions are simply not there for it. Workers have not moved into struggle in any significant way. You should take the advice given to you and study the emergence of the mass workers parties in the late 19th & 20th centuries. You will find that these parties only emerged after massive movements.
i am an internationalist, but i think it rather odd that someone based in ireland should be on the leading body of a British organisation.
if you are genuine in your comment them why doesnt the Irish SP have reps on the leading bodies of CWI sections in England, Scotland, US, etc etc and vice versa?
i think jonno is genuine in his reply, but thats just the answer that was handed down to him. back in those days, Irish Militant was very much a branch office of British Militant.
I think that Throne is very wrong about launching a new mass workers party at this stage. He is right to say that over the past while a number of people have got active in the anti-capitalist movement and in the anti-war movement. Unfortunatly this is not what it takes to lauch a broader formation. If a party was to be launched who would make up the membership?
I think that John Throne should do some research into the formation of the Labour Party in Britain and the social democratic and labour parties across Europe. These parties only came into existence after serious struggles of the working class. Class consciousness needs to be raised to a far higher level.
John Throne says that he has no gripe against members of the CWI. Then why has he established an 'organisation' whose sole aim is to attack the CWI? It's really pathetic.
Why not go to
www.laborsmilitantvoice.com
you will see that Throne and his organisation is into a lot more than just attacking the CWI.
He may be a Leninist but he is to building grassroots organisations. Now why cant the SP and SWP be like that
I think you will find that that is not what the difference over the mass workers' party centres around. The SP do want to build grassroots organisations. Look at the role of the SP in building the anti-water tax and anti-bin tax movements. Look at the role the SP played in getting people involved in the Anti-War movement.
The differece with Throne is not about building grassroots organisation where wider numbers of people can get active. He think that a new Party should be launched. In my opinion there are not the people out there and active, and class consciousness is not developed as it could be. In my opinion it would be a mistake to launch as mass party at this stage. Just look at the farce that is the Socialist Alliance in Britain!
No one from the SP has commented on the in humane way that John Throne was treated. Do they think this is the appropriate way to treat a worker with 23 years of service? No redundancy, no pension, not even paying medical bills run up in the US when he was working for the CWI.Having no medical cover in the US can be a life or death situation.
What a bright shining future we can all look forward to under the benevolant leadership of Taafe, MacLoughlin and Hadden. Work free on Saturdays for the benefit of the Glorious Workers State!
Retiring age shifted to 70 by popular demand; workers are dead keen to work longer to advance Socialism!
Protestant working class people need to be represented too, protestant working class people are also socially aware and are class consious. . We have a number of protestants who go to their local sinn fein representative with their grievances, so what. At the end of the day the northern irish state is not pro protestant working class state, but pro brit establishment/protestant upper class state. Working class protestants are beaten up by peelers too, in the 80s working class protestants suffered terrible beatings at the hands of the peelers. Although peelers have colluded with extreme right wing neo nazi loyalist elements in the past, they have also beaten class consious working class protestant community representatives and those who challenge the peelers iron grip on our loyalist working class communities. At the end of the day what suits the peelers and what the peelers are happy to do business with, is the likes of neo nazi dog eat dog ultra capitalist scum like Coco and johnnny adair running our working class protestant communities. It doesn't suit peelers if working class protestant communities became class consious, rebel, go on strike, and fight for better living and working conditions for our communities or cooperate and become friends with our working class catholic neighbours. Within our loyalist communities we have many shades of political opinion, we have ulster independence people, who want a northern irish state independant from both Britain and Ireland, and these people are tolerated within our communities and put out their ulster independence maroon and blue flags over the 12th. There are many tolerant loyalist people within our working class loyalist communities. Many smart working class protestant people who do not choose to be pawns of the brit establishment state. The SP does give ordinaray protestants the chance to see outside of the dog eat dog ultra capitalist mindset of the likes of Coco and johnny adair. At the end of the day its not working class protestants who are the cause of the suffering in northern ireland, but their exploitation by brit establishment and their security force lackeys.
Hadden is a Lear like figure in the SP, with O'Brien, Boyd and MacLaughlin as Lears daughters. Michael Murphy would fit in as Lears fool (he has comnpetition for this role from Brian Cahill).
The reason Irish Militant had a place on the leading bodies of British Militant was because at that time Irish Militant was very small. British militant was assisting in building in Ireland.
Pat, I do not see it strange whatsoever that a section of the CWI assists in building in another country. I can understand your dislike of British imperialism but it would seem to me that you extend this dislike to British workers organisation as well.
Throne treated inhumanely by the SP! what pish!
What did the SP do? torture him or something? No it seems to me they just had political differences and he split. Is that in humane?!
Maybe telling to feck opff at the conference was inhumane?!
That sounds fairly bad.
Just to correct a few details. I did not start this discussion about the SP on indymedia somebody else did, who I do not know.. I did not leave the CWI but was expelled and travelled to many different sections and to its world congress to try and get my right to appeal against my expulsion but was refused my right to appeal. I do not want to relive this all again on this list. Anybody who is seriously interested can see the issues on the website.
But just a few more general points. Whenever an organization's world analysis comes into serious conflict with the real developments in the world this causes a crisis in that organization. The CWI analysis was seriously wrong in the late 1980's and early 1990's. For this i bear as much responsibility as anybody else in the leadership of that organization at that time. This is the root cause of the collapse in membership and the splits and expulsions. Instead of opening up the organization to facilitate a thorough going discussion in an effort to clarify and correct our world analysis the majority of the leadership tried to do the opposite. I was expelled as part of this process. i would not go along with pretending that no mistakes had been made or go along with an internal life that was not conducive to building an organization in which the full potential of its membship could be realized.
By the way on the issue of a labor party and all the advise I am getting about studying the rise of mass workers party in the past. The general political issue over which my struggle in the CWI broke out was over the US labor party. Myself and the other Comrades who were expelled had the position that the Labor Party that was set up there by a wing of the union bureaucracy would not develop and that our forces should be orientated to the struggles in the neighbourhoods, workplaces, schools colleges etc. It would be more useful to clarifiying issues if Comrades read the background. The CWI majority at the time insisted on the Labor Party orientation. In 1998 this had to be dropped and the CWI section then took the orientation myself and the minority had been fighting for.
I hope we can have more discussion on the political issues. So far the main point taken up has been the building of a mass workers party. I would like to point out that my position is that the SP should put its resources into building action committees in the work places neighbourhoods. schools colleges to take on the capitalist offensive. I also believe that these should be based on direct action fight to win tactics not token protests. I also believe that these bodies should be explicitly anti capitalist. From this i raise the idea of building a united political front or a mass party. I do not know which as i am not in Ireland and therefore not sufficiently in touch with the mood. The idea that I advocate simply a mass party is incorrect. I would hope that Comrades could also read what I suggest in terms of the program of such a united political front or party. If you do you will see there that i am not suggesting in any way a party such as the mass reformist parties of the past.
The main general point i try to raise is that there is this vicious capitalist offensive, that what the working class needs more than anything else is to confront this offensive. That in order to do this we should try and overcome sectarianism and build in action united front movements drawing together all anti capitalist activists and all those who are prepared to fight this offensive. Within this process all different revolutionary groups could maintain their existance and present their ideas to the workers movement while at the same time working together in struggle.
I believe this is in line with the needs of the working class but i am very open to others ideas and suggestions. John Throne.
"The reason Irish Militant had a place on the leading bodies of British Militant was because at that time Irish Militant was very small. British militant was assisting in building in Ireland."
And as I pointed out, in my opinion, Irish Militant at the time was treated very much as a branch office of British Militant. You haven't proved otherwise.
"Pat, I do not see it strange whatsoever that a section of the CWI assists in building in another country. "
Of course its not strange to give support etc. What is odd is when a seperate section is treated as a region of the bigger organisation.
"I can understand your dislike of British imperialism but it would seem to me that you extend this dislike to British workers organisation as well."
This is typical SP slander, if I disagree with them, then I must :
1. Be Mad.
2. Hold a personal grudge.
3. Have been dumped by a SP member.
4. Be anti protestant.
5. Or on this occasion, dislike British workers organistions.
Actually, I like anti imperialist British workers organisations.
The point I raised was a rather minor one in comparsion to what is really at issue here: John Thrones open letter.
I really wish the SP would address this.
Why the need for an Irish rep on British militant's C.C.? Basset thinks the British Militant was helping Irish militant to build a group . Jonno says it was to ensure the Irish group had an imput into any decisions the British organization might make which would effect Ireland. It all sounds rather patronising. Basset,it's good to know that you can "understand" Pat's "dislike" of British imperialism. Do you dislike it yourself?
And still not a single attempt from a SP member to address any of the points that he actually makes in the article!
Instead we have the normal mix of ad hominem attacks (pathetic, out of touch...), distortions (not the time to build a new Labour party) & evasions (indymedia isn't the place for this...). I must say that the SP comes across as a healthy organisation with a lively culture of internal debate and honest discussions.
I think its terrible, how english outsider Hugh odd bored has run the RUC into the ground, the RUC's name is now dirt and Hugh odd bored would like to bury the RUC, as he is ashamed of the RUC. Many rank and file RUC members are totally fuked off, that english outsiders like Derek bulldog boulroot, colin crapporn and other outsiders can come over to northern ireland and take our jobs, jobs which were promised to rank and file RUC members with long histories and a family tradition of dedication and service to our Queen, crown and the good name of the RUC. RUC officers who were in the front line battle fighting working class scum like Adams, Hutchinson and co, are now put out to pasture. Its enough to push us fine RUC officers over the edge, no wonder so many of us, turn to wife beating, child molesting, crack cocaine, johnny adairs brothels and combat 18 neo nazi goons to support us in our hour of despair.
I really hate Johnathan McIvor, he's another example of daddy pulling strings to get him a job which could have gone to a local RUC officer. They send us their english muck like Johnathan Mc Ivor who'eve been kicked out the english police over here to take our jobs. Johnathan only got that top postion because of his daddy pulling strings on his behalf, it just makes me sick, all my years of service in the RUC, my sacrifice and dedication so that some bungling long streak of piss of a spotty skinny school boy like Johnathan can waltz over here and take away jobs that were promised to experienced local rank and file RUC men. Johnathan should have stayed where he was, in the Met with his fellow english fairy chums.
Some of the responses to John Throne's piece tell more about the current state of the SP than the writers realise. First off, this man devoted his life to the movement and is very experienced. If he has something to say, it is worth hearing. Lets have some respect for the people who put so much into building this movement in the first place.
Second, SP loyalists seem obsessed by the notion that Throne got only 10% support in the US organisation before being expelled. Whether he got 10% or 90% is irrelevant - it is his ideas that matter. Stalin put Trotsky in a minority in the Russian CP in the 30s - did that make Stalin right and Trotsky wrong? Absolutely none of the commentary here from SP loyalists addresses John's central arguments.
Third, they seem concerned to say that he is no longer in Ireland, and therefore out of touch. Bollocks. His reflections raise general issues about many things, including the internal life of the CWI. SP members routinely pontificate on the politics of far away countries, about which they know much less than Throne does regarding Ireland.
Fourthly: Throne is spot on when discussing the internal life of the CWI, especially in Northern Ireland, and especially in relation to the role of Peter Hadden. Hadden, never known for modesty, describes himself as the foremost Marxist writer on the North, though few have ever heard of him. At every stage he has manoeuvred against and marginalized anyone who has criticised his ideas, and is still at it today. And he continues to pretend infallibility - the 'Eddie the Eagle' of Irish politics. Young people and workers get involved in revolutionary politics because they dissent from capitalism. They won't tolerate this tin pot dictator telling them what to think. So Hadden gets his absolute control, but only over the tiny forces left when he has driven out anybody who thinks differently from him. I have no problem in saying that this is pure Stalinism. If he had state power, I don't think that executions in the cellars would be far behind.
Those involved in left politics need to learn the lessons of sectarianism, so well outlined by Throne - and move on. I doubt whether pathetic oddballs like Hadden will have any role in such a movement.
Lastly: how the CWI? SP degenerated into the sect it is today is an important issue for the left. Its internal life is part of the equation. Lets open up some frank discussion on all these issues.
I am reading with some interest the comments regarding our expulsion from the U.S. section of the CWI.
I was on the national Committee with John Throne.
The trumped up reason for my expulsion for was violating party discipline and the 90% support for that expulsion claimed on this forum was orchestrated around lies and distortions. We have a pamphlet responding to this.
The real reason was that a few of us, particularly those of us who had the most experience in the trade union movement, saw that there was an incorrect approach developing toward the newly formed labor party (it was simply called labor party advocates at the time)
We raised this shift in our position and it was denied by those who were orchestrating it behind the scenes. Inshort, we were expelled for these differences and the IS of the CWI, who initially agreed with our concerns, shifted gear and used the opportunity to rid themselves of Throne and another IS member from the U.S. who dared criticize them.
The CWI here has degenerated further from what was an organization with tremendous potential here and in canada. Those of us expelled have gone on to lead wildcat stikes in a major AFL-CIO union, we have occupied city offices and institutions with victimized tenants through the tenants rights group that we have formed and that is composed of people mostly outside our organization.
Throne himself, despite suffering some personal health setbacks has helped build a direct action/labor group in Chicago with young people who were very much active in the Seattle events that shut down the WTO in 1999.
I regret my expulsion and the degeneration of the CWI which was my political life at the time. This is why I, like John, fought so hard to remain in it and link with others who were despondent about the developments and have since left or been expelled themselves. It's a revolutionaries obligation not to abandon an organization and the great cadre in it simply becasue the leadership degenerates.
In the end though, I am the more healthy for the struggle.
One of the defenders of the SP hierarchy wrote the following:
"After a series of disagreements the overwhelming majority of the American organisation's membership (more than 90%) voted to change their leadership. John and a couple of others in the old leadership refused to accept that and were eventually kicked out."
As one of those who was kicked out with John, I'd like to make a couple of points: We hear over and over this mantra about the fact that we "lost" the debate. But it's no shame to "lose" a debate in the sense of being in the minority. I seem to recall a few other times in history when those who were proved right "lost" similar debates. In any case, it never was a matter of refusing to accept being removed from leadership; it was a refusal to accept certain political positions and we kept raising our ideas about these; this is why we were expelled.
And look what's happened with those who "won" the debate here in the US. In Chicago, they have joined forces with the "progressive" wing of the union hierarchy, or at least refuse to oppose them. Here in the San Francisco Bay area, they have completely left the CWI. In the East Coast they are fragmented. In Seattle nothing is heard from them.
Why is this?
The reason is that they chose to be the cheer leaders for the progressive wing of the union hierarchy within what was called the US Labor "Party". They turned their backs on the rank and file of the unions in this regard. They also turned their backs on the youth movement as it was about to develop.
And the CWI as a whole? Since our expulsion, there had been one common theme: Any section or group within a section that develops real, solid links within the working class, or develops any independent base is bound for conflict and either expulsion or being driven to leave voluntarily.
It is sad, really. I learned a lot while I was in the CWI. But their leadership became so obsessed with being always right, with seeing any questioning as being a an attack on "their authority" that the group has really degenerated and massively declined in influence and numbers. And this just as the movement overall seems about to revive itself a bit.
Regretfully I have to inform you that a number of articles contain over a hundred comments so you're going to have to try harder.
From start to finish the document is a pile of sectarian attacks as are most of the comments on this thread. This is the sort of thing which drags Indymedia into the gutter.
Why do apparently intelligent people come onto this thread and lie about the state of the SP in the North?
What do they gain from it? Advancement in the party? Anyone who has even the slightest knowledge of Left affairs in Belfast knows how reviled Peter Hadden is and how he has reduced the SP in the 6 counties to rubble.
You really demolished the arguments there.
This inability to address even the mildest of criticism is the sort of thing that drags the SP into the gutter.
This is one of the calmer responses to John Throne's interesting piece from an SP loyalist:
'From start to finish the document is a pile of sectarian attacks as are most of the comments on this thread. This is the sort of thing which drags Indymedia into the gutter.'
I simply note that even this does not address John Throne's analysis in any shape or form. For example, what is the internal life of the CWI like, and what should it be like in order to build an effective party against capitalism? To raise such issues is not sectarian but a vital contribution to discussion on the left. What is sectarian is to pretend that everything is alright, that the SP is the only serious left force in Ireland, and that if we all simply rally around the wise sayings of such gurus as P Hadden all will be well. By the way, I liked the description of him as the Eddie the Eagle of Irish politics. After 30 years activity, what has he got? A branch of six members in Belfast, and hundreds of ex-members who think he is a wannabe Stalin. Even making allowances for the objective situation, this is a record second to none. Come on Peter - you just can't cut it at all!
A lot you would know about building real campaigns with working class people. You virtual warriors just sit at your PCs and carry on your Cyber battles.
The Libertarian Leprechaun Chekov is pathetic he never does anything, turns up at a few meetings, spouts out shite then never takes part in action.
A waster who is less than useless, why dont you just fuck off back to your hippie commune.
I agree Peter hadden has destroyed the Socialist party in Northern Ireland or what is left of them. His attitude to others and his self inflated ego worked years back as there was little others around. Now with new kids on the block who have gained respect and growing reputations as leading Marxists writers and activists in Belfast his old way of dealing with it through Sectarianism and personal attacks is not working, Why? Because outside small circles Peter Hadden and his writing is unknown whereas other young Marxists writers are widely known and read mainstream as is their Marxists activities. Therefore attacks on such persons are seen as the Sectarianism that it is, as these people are known and respected within large circles [even by those who may not agree with their politics] for their dedication to their Beliefs. Secondly the SP who once were the main Socialist group now are not known outside those small circles. They have active members in Nipsa but most of them are just active in that union. The reality is that they have only one active branch in N.Ireland of six members half of which are full time. They have some youth members of which only two are political with the other handful seeing it as a 'cool thing'. While other groups have built up respect within communities, trade unions and elsewhere Peter Hadden has built up isolation and the destruction of the SP in N.Ireland because his ego which is irrelevant now as few know both of him or his organisation he is destroying.. Thirdly in a period of relevant radicalisation other groups are activily setting up new branches within communities around Belfast and making working partnerships with other groups, Peter on the other hand has brought the SP to one active branch in N.Ireland of six person with half full timers for them while completely isolating himself and the handful that remain from the rest of the left and the working class as a whole. The articles above show examples of this leader lead slaughter of their organisation around the globe. In N.Ireland Peter is not known [ which he hates]and by those that do know him he is futher isolating them by his sectarian attitude. In the past he got away with it as there was little others around, now that there are larger Marxists organisations,more profiled Marxists writers and activists emerging and emerged his old reaction no longer works. Yet he continues with it and it has been the SP that has greatly suffered.
The degeneration of the CWI/SP: is it a political cult?
by Dennis Tourish Wed, Apr 16 2003, 1:22pm
The CWI/ SP has hopelessly degenerated into a tiny sect. This article argues that its fate and that of many Trotskyist groups can be partially explained by considering whether in fact it is in fact a political cult.
INTRODUCTORY COMMENT
The article that follows was written about 5 years ago. It was for a semi-academic journal, so my apologies if there are too many concessions to the norms of academic writing in it. I have been prompted to post it here by recent discussions about the role of the SP in Ireland, some of which refer to the internal atmosphere within the organisation, and the role of characters like Peter Hadden. But none of them seem to consider that this is part of a wider problem - that is, that the way such organisations are organised makes them liable to develop the type of internal cult(ure) we see in cults like the Moonies.
I anticipate, in advance, that the dominant SP response will be to criticise me personally rather than respond to my ideas. After all, Ted Grant was senile; Alan Woods schizophrenic; John Throne, opportunist; Dennis Tourish - mentally degenerated?. I would welcome the latter for a change, but know it is unlikely: for the SP, only a lunatic or a heretic could disagree with them. For the record, I used to belong to Militant in Ireland and worked full time for it for a number of years. I left in 1985. I am now a Professor of Communication at a Scottish University. I published a book a couple of years ago with a former US Trotskyist, Tim Wohlforth, looking at these ideas in more detail. It is called 'On the Edge: Political cults right and left.'
Cheers
Dennis
Ideological intransigence, democratic centralism and cultism: a case study from the political left
By Dr. Dennis Tourish
Dennis Tourish B.Sc. M.Sc. Ph.D.*
[email protected]
Introduction
Cults embrace the fields of psychotherapy, religion, new age, self help, business training - and politics (Hassan, 1988). Thus far, the latter area has attracted little attention. One reason may be that the frantic activity and intense feelings of party loyalty which often characterises political life makes it difficult to differentiate between ‘normal’ political involvement and that which qualifies groups to be regarded as a cult. This is particularly true of fringe political groupings, on the extreme left and right. This paper argues that the phenomenon of political cultism is more widespread than is normally assumed. In particular, it focuses on the ideological and organizational dynamics of left wing groupings which fall within the Trotskyist tradition, and argues that these predispose such groupings to cultic practices. Accordingly, those criteria which it is authoritatively agreed constitute diagnostic criteria for the classification of groups as cults are reviewed. This is then refined into specific criteria which are particularly pertinent to the activities of political groups. Flowing from this, a case study approach is adopted. A prominent British Trotskyist grouping (variously known as the Committee for a Workers International, Revolutionary Socialist League, Militant Tendency - henceforth referred to as CWI), which acquired significant political influence in the 1980s is discussed. Sources utilised in the study include interviews with ex-members, journalistic accounts, internal documents and open publications.
Members of the CWI had a long standing tradition of working within the British Labour Party, a policy known as ‘entrism’. It also, beginning in the early 1970s, built small groups of supporters internationally, including within the United States. By the late 1980s it controlled the British Labour Party’s youth wing (since dissolved), counted three Labour MPs among its approximately 8000 members, employed 200 full time staff, had a national headquarters in London, published a 16 page weekly newspaper, and led large movements on some issues which at times dominated the domestic British political scene. In short, the CWI became probably the most successful Trotskyist organization in the world since the 1930s.
However, a huge dispute erupted within its ranks during 1991 over whether to remain inside the Labour Party. This led to a split in early 1992, during which the organization’s original founder and many others were expelled. They instantly set up a new Trotskyist international, still committed to entrism. The CWI reconstituted itself as a new ‘open’ party named ‘Militant Labour’, since relaunched as ‘The Socialist Party’ in early 1997. The evidence is that both groups have since sharply declined, and that the remains of the CWI in particular may now number no more than a few hundred members. Its theoretical beliefs, organizational practices and the 1992 split are assessed in the light of the extent to which they match the criteria under discussion. The data is also reviewed from the standpoint of Lifton’s (1961) suggested criteria for what he termed ‘ideological totalism.’ Finally, the implications for the ideological underpinnings and organizational cultures of political organizations (particularly those on the left) are examined.
Defining traits of cults
Broad agreement exists in the literature on general characteristics which delineate cult groupings. The American Family Foundation (1986, p.119-120) defined cults as:
"A group or movement exhibiting great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing, and employing unethical manipulative or coercive techniques of persuasion and control (e.g. isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgement, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it), designed to advance the goals of the group’s leaders, to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families or the community."
Langone (1988, p.1) further proposed that cults tend to share the following characteristics:
"1. Members are expected to be excessively zealous and unquestioning in their commitment to the identity and leadership of the group. They must replace their own beliefs and values with those of the group.
2. Members are manipulated and exploited, and may give up their education, careers and families to work excessively long hours at group-directed tasks such as selling a quota of candy or books, fund-raising, recruiting and proselytizing.
3. Harm or the threat of harm may come to members, their families, and/ or society due to inadequate medical care, poor nutrition, psychological and physical abuse, sleep deprivation, criminal activities and so forth."
These conditions broadly match those which Singer (1987) has suggested characterise programmes of thought reform - i.e. attempts to reframe a person’s sense of individuality, core belief systems and overall self concept within a totalistic ideology which ‘explains everything.’ Specific measures which might be employed in such an effort include:
"1. Controlling an individual’s social and psychological environment, especially the person’s time.
2. Placing an individual in a position of powerlessness within a high-control authoritarian system.
3. Relying usually on a closed system of logic, which permits no feedback and refuses to be modified except by executive order.
4. Relying on unsophistication of the person being manipulated (that is, the person is unaware of the process), and he or she is pressed to adapt to the environment in increments that are sufficiently minor so that the person does not notice changes.
5. Eroding the confidence of a person’s perceptions.
6. Manipulating a system of rewards, punishments, and experiences to promote new learning or inhibit undesired previous behaviour. Punishments are usually social ones, for example, shunning, social isolation, and humiliation (which are more effective in producing wanted behaviour than beatings and death threats, although these do occur)"
(p.1470).
Extensive data is now available on the extent to which such methods have been used in a variety of settings. However, this is limited in its application to political cults in general and left wing cults in particular. The main case study material hitherto available concerns a Marxist-Leninist party (the Democratic Workers Party - DWP) based in California from 1974 to 1985 (Siegel et al., 1987; Lalich, 1992; 1993). A summary of these accounts will be helpful in identifying the specific thought reform techniques most widely used by left wing cults, and which must therefore be taken into account in any formal definition of political cults.
Fundamentally, the DWP ideology and organizational practice completely dominated the lives and psyches of its members. Siegel et al. (1987, p.62), in an account written by ex-members, testify that:
"It challenged its members to devote their lives to revolutionary struggles as others were doing around the world, and to see themselves as part of a world movement; to do less when one could do more was profoundly unserious. This was a compelling moral imperative."
This ‘moral imperative’ is a leitmotif in many accounts of extreme left wing politics, and historically has had the effect of extracting extraordinary levels of commitment from people. For example, Valtin (1988), in a text originally published during the 1940s, chronicled life within the Communist International (Comintern) during the 1920s and 1930s, when it came increasingly under the control of Stalin. Particularly with the rise of fascism the organization could plausibly represent itself as a last barrier to barbarism ( thereby engendering a moral imperative in many people), particularly if it denied that anything untoward was occurring within Russia. The effect was to generate what George Orwell described as a religious veneration of the Russian experiment, and a sanctification of the personality of Stalin. This ensured a frantic devotion to ‘building the party’, slavish conformity to the party’s often contradictory nostrums, and a habit of responding to suspected dissent with a heresy hunt.
Within the DWP, indoctrination started at an early stage of membership. Thus:
"...members went through an intensive new members program, which included in-depth analysis of their class history and intensive criticism of their practice and attitudes. The discipline demanded of a cadre member included 24 hour-a-day availability and submission of all aspects of one’s life to the needs of the party. In principle one’s personal life was one’s own business; in practice the party’s discipline and control were total. A very unified but stratified community was developed as party members were taught that we were preparing to be an elite, and we took pride in our submission to criticism and discipline in the name of political commitment. The ideology of the Leninist party as an instrument of the working class, and each member as an instrument of the party, was the overriding justification for party functioning and discipline" (Siegel et al, 1978, p.63).
This account also makes it plain that, whatever formal controls were supposed to operate, all power was concentrated at the top, and in particular in the hands of the party’s General Secretary. There were intensive sessions of ‘group criticism’, during which alleged mistakes would be picked out and the individuals concerned denounced by the other members. Several effects flowed from this regime. Members experienced enormous pressure to conform. Dissent led only to group criticism sessions, which everyone was naturally anxious to avoid. To avert such an eventuality all members eagerly denounced the others. In turn, this display of devotion to the party combined with a radical departure from the norms of decent everyday conduct reinforced the belief systems of those involved, by creating an intense private world, cut adrift from how everyone else thought, behaved and handled difficult feelings.
Within this world, a peculiar paradox may have been that members came to depend on the leaders precisely because of the abuse which was meted out to them. Aronson (1997) has reviewed research within the paradigm of cognitive dissonance theory which suggests that people prefer to maintain close involvements with those whose evaluations of their abilities are in line with their own evaluations, even when these are negative. This takes precedence over being with people who have a positive evaluation of the person, if that is out of line with what the person believes. In this way, feelings of dissonance (i.e. an unpleasant awareness of the gap between self-perception and that of others) is avoided. The odd effect is that when cult leaders damage the self concept of their recruit they activate the dissonance reducing process just described, and so leave the recruit more dependent than ever on their relationship with the cult leader.
More subtly, since it was assumed that the group leader had a special insight into social problems above and beyond that of anyone else members came to believe that disagreements with her analysis, even before they had been clearly articulated, were liable to be wrong. Thus, Lalich (1992, p21) refers to "...the intensity of the members’ faith in the political model and the fact that unquestioning belief in that model led each member to accept and contribute to a stern discipline and a harsh fate." Doubt dared not speak its name. Such unquestioning belief has been a recurrent theme in many accounts of extreme left wing politics. For example, Valtin’s (1988) description of his career as an agent of the Communist International between the wars makes it clear that unquestioning obedience, veneration of the Soviet experience and a feeling of living under siege were vital factors in the ideological, organizational and moral domination of foreign Communist Parties by Stalinism.
Conformity within the DWP was also reinforced by the fact that intense activism prevented members from having a personal life outside their role as party members. This high speed political existence ensured that rival social networks atrophied through neglect. The unrelenting pace induced exhaustion and depression, while making it harder to ‘think your way out’ - too many commitments had been made, all bridges back to sanity were long dynamited and too little time was left over from party activity for reflection. In a paradox far from unique to political cults, the more deeply ensnared people were in the perfumed trap of activism the harder it became to escape. Members tended not to leave as the result of rational reflection and conscious decision, but dropped out in despair, exhaustion and crisis.
Further reinforcements for conformity were institutionalised into the party’s modus operandi. Lalich (1992) reports that a buddy system of a one to one helper assigned to new recruits was instituted, to ‘integrate’ the newcomer into party life. This confirmed the new recruit’s perception that:
"...submission to the organization was the ruling principle, There was intense pressure to conform. Any group meeting was one obvious place where this came into play and the tone was set. For example, the leadership would give a presentation on a change in the direction of some work or would open up a denunciation of a comrade for some error. Once the leadership finished, each militant would be expected to say how much he or she agreed with the presentation or the criticism. Ideally, each person was to say something different from what had already been said; but more to the point each person was expected to agree with ("unite with") whatever was going on. Questions, should there be any, had to be couched within an overall agreement. After years of this kind of participation, people were quite incapable of any kind of creative or critical thinking, could only parrot each other, and had shrunken vocabularies riddled with arcane internal phraseology" (Lalich, 1992, p.47).
Underlying these practices were the cardinal assumptions that social, economic and political catastrophe lay on the immediate horizon, that a vanguard revolutionary party was essential to lead the working class back from this abyss and towards the conquest of power, and that the nucleus of such a party was to hand in the form of the DWP. This encouraged illusions of correctness, unanimity and total political prescience. As Lalich (1992, p.71) explains it:
"...there was always a correct answer for everything. It was a black and white world, even though at times black was white. Nevertheless, the party had the answer and the party was always right."
These accounts, building on the definitions of cults discussed above, suggest that political cults tend to be characterised by the presence of the following traits.
1. A rigid belief system. In the case of left wing political cults this suggests that all social, natural, scientific, political, economic, historical and philosophical issues can only be analysed correctly from within the group’s theoretical paradigm - one which therefore claims a privileged and all-embracing insight. The view that the group’s belief system explains everything eliminates the need for fresh or independent thought, precludes the possibility of critically appraising past practice or acknowledging mistakes, and removes the need to seek intellectual sustenance outside the group’s own ideological fortress. All such thinking is dismissed as contaminated by the impure ideology of bourgeois society.
2. The group’s beliefs are immune to falsification. No test can be devised or suggested which might have the effect of inducing a reappraisal. The all-embracing quality of the dominant ideology precludes re-evaluation, since it implies both omniscience and infallibility. Methods of analysis which set themselves more modest explanatory goals are viewed as intrinsically inferior. Those who question any aspect of the group’s analysis are branded as deviationists bending to the ‘pressures of capitalism’, and are driven from the ranks as heretics.
3. An authoritarian inner party regime is maintained. Decision making is concentrated in elite hands, which gradually dismantles or ignores all formal controls on its activities. Members are excluded from participation in determining policy, calling leaders to account, or expressing dissent. This is combined with persistent assurances about the essentially democratic nature of the organization, and the existence of exemplary democratic controls - on paper.
4. There is a growing tendency for the leaders to act in an arbitrary way, accrue personal power, perhaps engage in wealth accumulation from group members or in the procuring of sexual favours. Activities which would provoke censure if engaged in by rank and file members (e.g. having a reasonable standard of living, enjoying time off, using the organization’s funds for personal purposes) are tolerated when they apply to leaders.
5. Leader figures, alive or dead, are deified. In the first place, this tends to centre on Marx, Trotsky or other significant historical figures. It also increasingly transfers to existing leaders, who represent themselves as defending the historical continuity of the ‘great’ ideas of Marxist leaders. In effect, the new leaders are depicted, in their unbending devotion to the founders’ ideals, as the reincarnation of Marx, Trotsky or whoever. There is a tendency to settle arguments by referring constantly to the sayings of the wise leaders (past or present), rather than by developing an independent analysis. Even banal observations are usually buttressed by the use of supporting quotations from sanctified sources.
6. There is an intense levels of activism, precluding outside interests. Social life and personal ‘friendships’ revolve exclusively around the group, although such friendships are conditional on the maintenance of uncritical enthusiasm for the party line. Members acquire a specialised vocabulary (e.g. they call each other ‘comrade’), which reinforces a sense of distance and difference from those outside their ranks. The group becomes central to the personal identity of members, who find it more and more difficult if not impossible to imagine a life outside their organization.
A number of features of extreme left wing political organizations are now considered, particularly as they apply to the CWI, with a view to identifying the most salient features of its guiding ideology and organizational practice, and assessing the extent to which they match the criteria suggested above.
The concept of a vanguard party and its effect on conformity
A central tenet of Trotskyist politics is its insistence that a ‘vanguard party’ is required to guide the working class to power. This is conceived as an organization of professional revolutionaries, steeped in Marxist ideology, tightly organised and determined to win the leadership of the working class. The idea was most forcefully advanced by Lenin at the turn of the century (Deutscher, 1954; Cliff, 1975), and justified by reference to the particular needs of a revolutionary movement operating under an autocratic regime (Volkogonov, 1994). As Milliband (1977) has pointed out, this was a departure (Leninists would describe it as an extension) from the original ideas of Marx, who was much more inclined to argue that the task of liberating the working class was the task of the working class itself. Ironically, Trotsky himself initially resisted Lenin’s views (Poole, 1995). He argued that a vanguard party would inevitably seek to substitute its own activity and insights for the activity of the working class. Within the party, meanwhile:
"...the party organization (the caucus) at first substitutes itself for the party as a whole; then the Central Committee substitutes itself for the organization; and finally a single ‘dictator’ substitutes himself for the Central Committee."1
However, during 1917 he finally accepted the Bolshevik model of organization, and defended it with increasing insistence until his assassination in 1940 (Deutscher, 1963; Trotsky, 1975). In the last year of his life he wrote that "...in order to realise the revolutionary goal a firmly welded centralised party is indispensable" (Trotsky ,1973, p.141).
From the perspective of this discussion a number of important consequences follow. Firstly, the notion of a vanguard party inherently predisposes its adherents to view themselves as the pivot on which world history is destined to turn. Revolution is seen as the only route by which humanity can avoid annihilation, but revolution is only possible if a mass party is built around a group of ‘cadres’: that is, devotees of the party with a particularly deep insight into its ideology. Thus, Trotskyists are possessed of a tremendous sense of urgency and a powerful conviction of their group’s unique role in bringing about the transformation of the world: what could be described as delusions of historical grandeur. Trotsky himself confided to his diary in 1935:
"...now my work is ‘indispensable’ in the full sense of the word... The collapse of the two Internationals has posed a problem which none of the leaders of these Internationals is at all equipped to solve... There is now no one except me to carry out the mission of arming a new generation with the revolutionary method over the heads of the leaders of the Second and Third International" (Trotsky, 1958, p.54).
This approach leads to the belief that the vanguard party has a level of insight into society’s problem unmatched by anyone else. The grouping under consideration in this paper, the CWI, provides many instances of such a conviction in its publications. An internal document from 1977 averred:
"What guarantees the superiority of our tendency ... from all others inside and outside the labour movement is our understanding of all the myriad factors which determine the attitudes and moods of the workers at each stage. Not only the objective but the subjective ones too."
This conviction is combined with contempt for all other organizations on the left. The closer such organizations are to the group’s own ideological lineage the more likely they are to be the targets of abuse. A CWI International Bulletin in 1975 declaims:
"...we consider that our organizations are alone in upholding the banner of Marxism... we repudiate every sectarian fragment appropriating the name of the Fourth International."
One interviewee (David) told me:
"We were taught to absolutely hate every other political organization that there was. Anybody on the left who wasn’t a Marxist were called left reformists, and we were absolutely convinced that they didn’t have a clue. We looked on them as hopeless people. People outside left politics at all were dismissed as ‘liberals’, but we probably hated them more than extreme right wingers - we used the word liberal as a sort of political swear word. But other Trotskyist groupings were the worst. We just laughed at them in internal meetings. We called them ‘the sects’ and took the view that they were incapable of any development at all. They were good for a laugh at best, but really the attitude towards anybody else claiming to be Trotskyist was that they were the complete enemy of everything we stood for. If we ever had taken power God knows what we would have done to them."
However, an additional feature of Lenin’s conception of a vanguard party is that it was to be governed by the principles of what he termed democratic centralism. It would not be a loose federation, but a tightly integrated fighting force with a powerful central committee and a rule that all members publicly defend the agreed positions of the party, whatever opinions they might hold to the contrary in private. Between conferences the party’s leading bodies would have extraordinary authority to manage the party’s affairs, arbitrate in internal disputes, update doctrine and decide the party’s response to fresh political events.
As Lenin expressed it:
"The principle of democratic centralism and autonomy for local party organizations implies universal and full freedom to criticise, so long as this does not disturb the unity of a defined action; it rules out all criticism which disrupts or makes difficult unity of action decided upon by the party" (Lenin, 1977, p.433).
Given what is now known of social influence this approach is almost certainly destined to prevent genuine internal discussion. Firstly, it is not at all clear when ‘full freedom to criticise’ can actually be said to disturb the unity of a defined action. The norms of democratic centralism confer all power between conferences onto a central committee, allowing it to become the arbiter of when a dissident viewpoint is in danger of creating such a disturbance, normally presumed to be lethal. The evidence suggests that they are strongly minded to view any dissent as precisely such a disruption, and respond by demanding that the dissident ceases their action on pain of expulsion from the party. It should be borne in mind that the leadership of Trotskyist groupings views itself as the infallible interpreter of sacred texts which are seen as essential for the success of world revolution, which in turn is seen as vital if the world is to be saved from complete barbarism. This ‘all or nothing’ approach to political analysis reinforces the tendency to view dissent as something which automatically imperils the future of the planet, and a justification (perhaps unconscious) of whatever measures are required to restore the illusion of unanimity. The following quotation, from a document written by some members expelled in 1992, suggests that such unanimity was endemic to the CWI method of working:
"The immense authority of the leadership created an enormous degree of trust ... In reality, the leadership of this tendency enjoyed more than trust. It had virtually a blank cheque (even in the most literal sense of the word) to do what it liked, without any real check or control. No leadership, no matter how honest or politically correct, should have that amount of ‘trust.’"... we built a politically homogeneous tendency . Up to the recent period there did not appear to be any serious political disagreements. In fact, there have been disagreements on all kinds of political and organizational matters, but these were never allowed to reach even the level of the CC (Central Committee) or IEC (International Executive Committee). Nothing was permitted to indicate the slightest disagreement in the leadership... There was uniformity, which at times came dangerously close to conformism... The tendency became unused to genuine discussion and debate. To be frank, many comrades (including ‘leading comrades’) simply stopped thinking. It was sufficient just to accept the line of the leadership... We have a situation where the leadership enjoys such trust that it amounts to a blank cheque; where there is uniformity of ideas, in which all dissent is automatically presented as disloyalty; where the leadership is allowed to function with virtually no checks or accountability, under conditions of complete secrecy from the rank-and-file" (their emphasis).
This document, independent testimony from journalists and other observers, and my own interviews and conversations with ex-members supports the view that intense fear of real debate and discussion was a defining characteristic of the CWI. All resolutions at party conferences would either come from the leadership or be completely supportive of its position. If branches or members submitted resolutions which were insufficiently enthusiastic about the general line CWI leaders exerted enormous pressure for them to be withdrawn. They invariably were. The leading role in the elimination of dissent appears to have been played by the CWI’s General Secretary, determined to inherit the mantle of Lenin and Trotsky in modern day Britain. The ‘Oppositionist’ document already quoted above recounts on this issue that:
"To cross the General Secretary would result in a tantrum or some kind of outburst. Comrades became fearful of initiative without the sanctions of the General Secretary. Incredibly, even the opening of a window during an EC (Executive Committee) meeting would not go ahead without a nod from him! Under these conditions, the idea of ‘collective leadership’ is a nonsense... The EC as a whole - which is supposed to be a sub-committee of the CC - is out of control. In 99% of cases the CC is simply a rubber stamp for the EC."
The picture that emerges is of elected bodies usurping the normal democratic rights of members and becoming increasingly removed from formal controls. It was reported in early 1992 that over two years had elapsed between party conferences, during which time the leadership was effectively removed from all practical accountability to the membership for its actions. It also appears that power continued to flow upwards to the General Secretary and the full time staff which he had ample scope to mould in his image. The Oppositionist document quoted above recounts:
"...no decisions of any significance are taken without the full knowledge and consent of the General Secretary, and that the great majority of them are taken, either on his initiative, or at least with his active participation.... The full-timers tend to order and bully the comrades, instead of convincing them. They rely upon the political authority of the leadership handed down from the past, in order to get their way. If you do not accept the targets handed down by the full-timer, you are "not a good comrade", you are "conservative", and so on."
Secondly, Cialdini (1993) reviews a variety of studies which show that when people take a public position in defence of a proposition there is then a strong tendency for their private attitudes to shift so that they harmonize with their public behaviours. In short, if people tell others that they support X (for whatever reason) their belief system will begin to agree that indeed they do support X. The more public such declarations have been the more likely it is that such a shift will take place. This will then contribute to future public activities in line with a now firmly held belief. Such findings suggest that if, in the name of democratic centralism, party members publicly uphold the party line it becomes increasingly difficult to hold a private belief at variance with attitudes publicly expressed. The evidence suggests that it is not possible to have a group of people presenting a conformist image to society at large while maintaining an inner party regime characterised by frank and full discussion. Conformity in public tends to equal conformity in private.
The gospel of catastrophism
It has been widely noted that apocalyptic images pervade the ideology of cultic groups. Cultic religious groupings routinely predict the end of the world (Richie, 1991), some psychotherapy cults also claim that unless their methods of producing rationality are widely adopted global catastrophe is assured (e.g. Jackins, 1990), and what some writers have termed ‘catastrophism’ (Callaghan, 1984; 1987) pervades the ideology of Trotskyist groupings (e.g. Cannon, 1969). A leading Trotskyist theorist expressed this position thus:
"Monopoly capitalism...considerably limits the development of the forces of production... Crises become longer and more frequent, from the beginning of the twentieth century. Monopoly capitalism becomes more and more a fetter on the development of the productive forces. Henceforward its parasitic character explodes in the world’s face in a new epoch of history, filled with convulsions: the age of capitalist decline, the age of war, revolutions and counter-revolutions."
(Mandel, 1962 p.437)
This mode of analysis is the norm rather than the exception in Trotskyist circles. A 1981 CWI document, written by a leader with a penchant for death analogies, anticipates the closing decades of this century in the following terms:
"On a world scale capitalist economies not only find themselves in a crisis, they find themselves ensnared in an epoch of crisis, stagnation and decline... short-lived half-hearted booms, followed by downturn and recession in an ever tightening cycle - these are the characteristics of the new period of general decline of world capitalism... the search for lasting concessions and lasting reforms is now as futile as the search for flesh on an ancient skeleton."
It is further held that this economic contingency will have enormous political repercussions. In particular, it is argued that it poses a ‘black and white’ choice for society, in that there will be either a triumph for socialism or the planet will be engulfed by unprecedented barbarism. A CWI internal document from 1975 proclaims that the period of class struggle inaugurated by the 1973 oil crisis will
"...end either in the greatest victory of the working class achieving power and the overthrow of the rule of capital with the installation of workers democracy or we will have a military police dictatorship which will destroy the labour movement and kill millions of advanced workers, shop stewards, ward secretaries, Labour youth, trade union branch secretaries and even individual members of the Labour movement."
Such a toxic perspective poisons the internal atmosphere of the organization concerned. Firstly, it tends to black and white thinking in terms of prognosis, combined with a straining sense of urgency. Mutually exclusive and totalistic options for the future are assured. Either there will be a completely new form of society, hitherto unknown in human history, or there will be a relapse into forms of Nazism, this time threatening global nuclear destruction. No other options are available. The future is presented as a choice between imminent salvation or eternal damnation, and one which hinges on every action which party members take. Secondly, such a perspective is a classic cult means of extracting maximum involvement from people alongside a minimum critique of the group’s position. It imbues the organization’s routine activities with a sense of colossal urgency, purpose and conviction which normal politics can never hope to match. This reinforces a conviction on the part of members that they are destined to play a more vital and indispensable role than any previous group in human history.
Power dynamics, and life within the CWI
It has already been noted that the organizational norms of democratic centralism imply a concentration of power at the top. There is abundant evidence that such a concentration has been a defining feature of the CWI.
A passive membership uncritically adopted a political position handed down by the leadership. Structures, communication systems and organizational behaviours ensured a one way transmission of information and precluded the possibility of corrective pressure being exerted by the rank and file. Callaghan (1984, p.180), writing of the CWI, observed:
"...it is unclear what the contribution of the ordinary supporter can be. For a perusal of the group’s internal documents... reveals that these consist of unsigned articles carrying instructions, reports and, in general, attempts to co-ordinate or in some way organise the membership. There is no evidence of discussion and debate or of the involvement of the rank and file... The national meetings which (CWI) does hold appear to be organised more like rallies than conferences with the audience playing a relatively passive role."
The question arises at this point: what did life within the CWI under such a regime feel like to the average member? How were they recruited and how was their compliance and then conformity to the group’s ideology obtained? The following comments on these issues from one interviewee is typical of the accounts gained from many former CWI members. (One told me that when meeting other former members he felt that they had all been through a shared religious experience together!) Ronnie spent a number of years working full time for the CWI. Much of his experience echoes the points made by Siegel et al. (1987) and Lalich (1992; 1993) concerning the DWP:
" 6/ 7 day weeks for activists were common, particularly those full time. We nominally had a day off, but I can remember another leader saying to me proudly of another that ‘he uses his day off to prepare his lead-offs (introductory lectures) for meetings’. Full timers were also kept in poverty. Wages were virtually non-existent, and I found out recently that from 1985 to 1991 they got no pay rise at all!
When we worked, the pressure was awful. Key committees often met Saturday and Sunday 9 to 5, on top of your normal week’s work. There would be different sessions, with a leader making an hour long introduction which laid out the line. Everyone else then would come in and agree. The more you agreed with the leader the more he or she cited your contribution in a 15-20 minute summing up at the end. If you disagreed, your contribution would be unpicked, but if it wasn’t sufficiently enthusiastic about the line it would - even worse - be ignored. In this way you soon knew who was in and who was out. There was a distinct tendency to promote the most conformist comrades to key positions, even if they were also the most bland.
High dues or subs were extracted from members. A certain minimum sub per week was set, which at several pounds a week was far in excess of what normal parties extract. But people were ‘encouraged’ to go beyond this. At big meetings a speech would be made asking for money. Normally, some comrade would have been approached beforehand and would have agreed to make a particularly high donation - say Ł500. The speaker would then start off asking for Ł500, its donation would produce an immense ovation and people would then be pressurised to follow suit.
Everything was also run by committees, and we had plenty of those. Branches had branch committees which met in advance of branch meetings to allocate all sorts of work, this went on to districts, areas and nationally and internationally. Very often it was the same people on these committees wearing different hats! But nothing moved without the committees’ say-so. This was accompanied by persistent demands for people to take more initiatives, but in practice there was no mechanism for this to happen. Also, at national conferences, leaders were elected by a slate system - i.e. the CC proposed a full list of names for CC membership. If you opposed it you theoretically stood up to propose a full list of new names, but needless to say no one ever did. New members were regarded as ‘contact members’ and allocated a more experienced comrade who was supposed to have weekly discussions as part of the ‘political education.’
I do remember feeling absolutely terrified when I first left - what was there for me now, what would I do, where did I start? I eventually managed to get my life together, but it was a hard slog."
Indoctrination began with the recruitment process. Given the CWI’s secret existence within the Labour Party, people who came into contact with it would not have immediately known that it was an organization, with its own annual conference, full time officials and central committee. Potential sympathizers encountered CWI members in the normal environment of the Labour Party or trade unions. Once their left wing credentials were established they would be asked to buy the CWI newspaper, make a small donation, and support CWI motions at other meetings - a process of escalating commitment. Only after a series of such tests had been passed would the person be initiated into the secret of the CWI’s existence, and provided with further internal documents detailing aspects of its programme. As many ex-members have testified, the effect of this was to create a feeling that the potential recruit was gaining privileged information, and being invited to participate in the transformation of history. Furthermore, they could only access more of this knowledge by escalating their involvement with the group. The excitement at this stage was considerable.
In the 1970s, before the CWI grew to any significant size, the mystical aura around joining was heightened by the formality with which it was concluded. New recruits traveled to London, where they were personally vetted by the organization’s founders. When this became impractical they were formally welcomed ‘in’ by the nearest member of the Central Committee - an exercise close to ‘the laying on of hands’ found in baptism ceremonies. Tremendous feelings of loyalty were engendered by this process, and fused together a group which saw itself as intensely cohesive and blessed with the evangelical mission of leading the world revolution. Research suggests that merely being a member of a group encourages the development of shared norms, beliefs systems, conformity and compliance (Turner, 1991). Belonging to a group with such a deep and all embracing belief system as that offered by the CWI encourages this process all the more.
Once in, however, the picture began to change. More and more demands were placed on members. In particular, they were expected to contribute between 10% and 15% of their income to the party, buy the weekly newspaper, contribute to special press fund collections, subscribe to irregular levies (perhaps to the extent of a week’s income), recruit new members and raise money from sympathizers. Tobias and Lalich (1994) argue that cults have only two real purposes: recruiting other members, and raising money. These certainly emerge as central preoccupations of the CWI. Crick (1986, p.178) cites a former member as follows on some of these issues:
"A lot of it boiled down to selling papers. The pace didn’t bother me, but one day I suddenly realised that after a year my social circle had totally drifted. I had only political friends left, simply because of the lack of time., There’d be the... branch meeting on Monday evening, the Young Socialists meeting another evening, ‘contact’ work on Friday night, selling papers on Sunday afternoon, and on top of that, to prove to the local Labour Party we were good party members, we went canvassing for them every week and worked like hell in the local elections."
Such a level of activity could be physically and emotionally ruinous, and required members to redefine their entire existence in terms of their membership of the CWI. Crick cites another interviewee as recalling:
"The most abiding memories of life (in the CWI) are filled with the sheer strain of it all. If you were even moderately active, you would be asked to attend up to six or seven boring meetings in one week.
You built up an alternative set of social contacts as much as political activity. It can easily take over people’s lives. It became obsessive. They were almost inventing meetings to attend. There was a ridiculous number of meetings held to discuss such a small amount of work. Even if you didn’t have a meeting one evening, you’d end up drinking with them.
The kind of commitment...required was bundled together in the form of highly alienating personal relationships. You had to make sure your subscriptions were paid and your papers sold so as not to feel guilty when you chatted to other members. The only way out seemed to be ‘family commitment’ and the unspoken truth that as soon as a young... member got a girlfriend he either recruited her or left"(p.182).
What runs through all these accounts is the boredom which accompanied CWI membership, after the thrill of initiation and the feeling of being special had worn off. For example, recruitment itself, and much of party life, consisted of hearing the same basic ideas endlessly repeated: there might be variations, but they would be variations around a minimalist theme. As Scheflin and Opton (1978) point out, paraphrasing no less an expert on mind control than Charles Manson, such repetition, combined with the exclusion of any competing doctrine, is a powerful tool of conversion. Even if the belief is not fully internalised a person hearing nothing but a one-note message will eventually be compelled to draw from it in expressing their own opinions. But once inside the CWI this became akin to spending every night listening to an orchestra playing the same piece over and over again. However well accoutered the musicians or however superb their performances boredom, tiredness and cynicism inevitably set in.
The recruitment process can also be interpreted as a means of indoctrinating new recruits by presenting them with an escalating series of challenges, or ordeals. Wexler and Fraser (1995) have argued that this is an important method of establishing the cohesiveness of decision elites within cults, thereby activating the extreme conformity known as groupthink. However, within the CWI, it seems that such methods were used on all new recruits in order to embroil them more deeply in CWI activities. Thus, the prospective recruit first expressed private agreement with some CWI ideas. They were then required to advance this agreement publicly at Labour Party or trade union meetings, then contribute money, buy literature, and sell newspapers on the street. This continued until their entire life revolved around the CWI. The process seems to be one of extracting commitment and then forcing a decision. The full extent of the group’s organization and programme would not be immediately made clear, and given the secretiveness of the CWI about its very existence would not be readily known via the media. Nevertheless, a commitment to some form of activity was obtained, and sounded on first hearing to have nothing in common with a life-transforming commitment. One interviewee told me:
"We would routinely lie to recruits about what their membership would involve. They would ask what level of activity we expected, and we would talk mostly about the weekly branch meeting and tell them that they could pick and choose what else to do, if anything. But once they were inside there would be systematic pressure to do more and more. Once they were in, very few could resist. But we knew that if we told them in advance all that was involved they would never join. I remember telling a full-timer once that I thought this new recruit we had met didn’t have any friends. He looked absolutely delighted, and told me that meant we would at least get plenty of work out of him!"
Thus, recruits soon found their initial levels of activity rising: "come to one more meeting," "attend one more conference," "read an extra pamphlet this week." Whether they had consciously decided anything became irrelevant: a real commitment had been made to the organization. They often then found that their attitudes changed to come in line with escalating levels of commitment, and eventually reached such an intense pitch that a formal decision (if it needed to be made at all) was only a small final step - a classic demonstration of cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957).
The evidence therefore suggests that, until the mid-1980s, the CWI was a growing political force, with several thousand predominantly young and enthusiastic members. Prospects seemed limitless. Members were certainly encouraged to believe that the British revolution would develop within a 10 year period, and that their organization would play a decisive role in history’s most crucial turning point. It was at this point, with pride at its peak, that everything began to go wrong.
Collapse and disintegration
The steady growth which the CWI experienced in the late 1970s and 1980s created the twofold illusion that the party’s entire programme had been confirmed, and that permanent expansion was assured - if everyone merely redoubled their already incredible work rates. New members were recruited without the period of lengthy indoctrination which had hitherto been a major condition of CWI membership. Consequently, their loyalty, conformity and respect for CWI methods of working were much less pronounced. Simultaneously, the Labour Party began to take action against CWI members, expelling them in large numbers. This created the first ripples of doubt concerning the organization’s rationale for its existence.
Fundamentally, the CWI was hoping to remain a highly cohesive grouping, but with a mass membership: in essence, it was attempting to design a round square. Given an influx of new members not prepared to devote all their energies to party building, nor to avoid challenging CWI leaders when their predictions failed to materialise, this proved impossible. For many, after a short period of time, applause gave way to a slow handclap. The consequences are well summarised in a document published in 1992 by those expelled from the organization:
"...1987 was a watershed... The membership fell each year.... Then the sickness of commandism and substitutionism rose apace. The leadership hid the real situation from the ranks. Instead of ‘success’ we were faced with retreat, which did not suit the prestige of the leadership. Comrades were telling other comrades what they wanted to hear. The Centre became more and more out of touch with the situation on the ground. The CC generally accepted this state of affairs as they were too fearful of raising real criticisms and being labeled ‘conservative’. The situation led to the burning out of a whole layer of comrades and Full Timers. Since 1988, the organization halved in size.... the turnover reached 38% in 1990... we have lost 1000 comrades since Jan. 1991 - a turn-over of 20%... according to the census conducted at the 1990 congress less than 1100 were attending the branches, which includes 200 FTers."
"For years the uniformity then exhibited began to be transformed into conformity. Those who stepped out of line were clarified as "pessimists", "conservatives", "troublemakers" etc. More and more the pressure was exerted to accept the line - more or less to stop thinking for yourself. The need for a critical minded membership was transformed into its opposite."
Latest reports suggest that the CWI has continued to decline since the early 1990s. An official history of the organization (Taaffe, 1995) boasts of increased membership figures up until the late 1980s, when it seems to have peaked at around 8000. Thereafter, no figures are claimed. However, material published by expelled members of the Opposition suggests that membership had fallen to below 3000 by 1993, with only a small proportion of that active in any meaningful sense. It appears that this has since dwindled to well under 1000, and falling. It has lost its three MPs, positions in trade unions and a great deal of money. In a real sense, the glowing future which its leaders anticipated is by now well behind it.
Ideological totalism
The rise and fall of the CWI can also be understood in terms of Lifton’s (1961) classic study of thought reform programmes in China. This introduced the term ‘ideological totalism’ into the literature on social influence. Lifton defined this as "...the coming together of immoderate ideology with equally immoderate individual character traits - an extremist meeting ground between people and ideas" (p.477). He made it clear that the potential for such ideological totalism is present within everyone, in that extreme conformity exists at one end of a continuum, consisting at the other end of extreme dissent. However, totalistic convictions are
"...most likely to occur with those ideologies which are most sweeping in their content and most ambitious - or messianic - in their claims, whether religious, political or scientific. And where totalism exists, a religion, a political movement, or even a scientific organization becomes little more than an exclusive cult" (p.477).
As this discussion makes plain, extremist Trotskyist organizations adhere to what could only be described as such an ambitious and messianic ideology, thereby holding an enormously exalted view of their role in society. The case history of the CWI suggests that conformity, the banning of dissent, intense activism and ultimate collapse are inevitable features of such a political landscape. This analysis is reinforced if we consider the extent to which the practice of the CWI accords with the eight main conditions which Lifton identified as indicating the presence of ideological totalism. These are:
1. Milieu control
As Lifton postulated it, this is primarily the use of techniques to dominate the person’s contact with the outside world but also their communication with themselves. People are "...deprived of the combination of external information and inner reflection which anyone requires to test the realities of his environment and to maintain a measure of identity separate from it" (p.479).
In the DWP, discussed earlier in this paper, blatant measures were employed to achieve such effects - e.g. members were ‘encouraged’ to share party accommodation. However, within the CWI, this seems to have been managed in a more subtle way. Firstly, the norms of democratic centralism (which, it will be recalled, require members to only put forward the party’s position in public) disrupts their capacity to critically appraise party ideology. It is difficult to say one thing in public and hold to a set of private beliefs at variance with what is publicly expressed. Secondly, intense activism means that the party environment comes to dominate every aspect of the member’s life. In this way, they are bombarded with party propaganda, in endless meetings, through reading party literature and by virtue of the fact that there is no time to read anything but party publications. Most points of contact with the external world are eliminated or drastically curtailed. As the material pertaining to the CWI’s collapse suggests, this form of milieu control can be more subtle than in its most blatant cultic manifestations, but is still capable of exercising a profound influence on those affected.
2. Mystical manipulation
Lifton argues that:
"Included in this mystique is a sense of ‘higher purpose’, of ‘having directly perceived some imminent law of social development’, of being themselves the vanguard of this development" (p.480).
This becomes a means of achieving higher and higher levels of commitment. Frantic work rates are intrinsic to vanguard notions of party building, and to the philosophy of Trotskyism, which claims in its starkest form a special ability to illuminate all intellectual discourse. Thus, Woods and Grant (1995), two leading British Trotskyists, have recently published a book on science, which attempts to apply a Marxist understanding to the origins of the universe, chaos theory, time travel, geology and evolutionary theory. The discussion above shows the extent to which the claim of privileged insight is central to the appeal of Trotskyist organizations and is ritually invoked to encourage supporters into binges of party building.
3. The demand for purity
Here, "...the experiential world is sharply divided into the pure and the impure, into the absolutely good and the absolutely evil" (Lifton, p483).
Within the CWI, this process was best illustrated through its enormous emphasis on unanimity. For most of its history internal debate was effectively squashed, since ideas which challenged party orthodoxy could be beaten off as tainted by ‘the pressures of capitalism.’ But when the organization experienced significant setbacks in the late 1980s internal debate became unavoidable, particularly since an Opposition was declared by several of the most prominent leaders. However, and again this is more the norm than the exception in Trotskyist politics, this rapidly led to the formation of factions, uproar and expulsions, with each side to the dispute claiming (a) complete fidelity to sacred traditions and (b) that opponents were under the influence of bourgeois ideology. The ‘demand for purity’ is thus central to Trotskyist practice, but is inimical to the norms of democratic debate.
4. The cult of confession
In essence, this requires people to confess their inadequacies, their relative unsuitability to act as a vessel for the group’s pure ideas, and the many ways in which they have let the organization down. The DWP, discussed earlier, institutionalised the ritual of confession into its programme of criticism, a norm at party meetings. There is no evidence that such practices gained such a hold in the internal life of the CWI. This may be partly because, up until the 1991/92 schism (and as noted earlier), vigorous measures were taken to sustain an illusion of unanimity within the organization’s top ranks. Without the role models of lively discussion above it appears that the ranks retreated into an abject conformity unusual even in Trotskyist circles. This minimised the opportunity for confession rituals in party practice.
There is some evidence that in the 1992 split this changed. People who initially sided with the Opposition but then ‘changed their minds’ were required to publicly retract their previous opinions. However, this was obviously mild in comparison to the practices of the DWP.
5. The ‘sacred science’
This aspect of ideological totalism is particularly apt to Trotskyist politics. Lifton describes it as follows:
"The totalistic milieu maintains an aura of sacredness around its basic dogma, holding it out as an ultimate moral vision for the ordering of human existence. This sacredness is evident in the prohibition (whether or not explicit) against the questioning of basic assumptions, and in the reverence which is demanded for the originators of the Word, the present bearers of the Word, and the Word itself... the milieu... makes an exaggerated claim of airtight logic, of absolute ‘scientific’ precision. Thus the ultimate moral vision becomes an ultimate science; and the man who dares to criticise it, or to harbour even unspoken alternative ideas, becomes not only immoral and irrelevant but ‘unscientific’ " (p.487).
This could be a purpose built characterisation of the CWI, as discussed above. Trotskyism, as defined by the CWI, is the only pure strain of such ideology (and hence of Marxism) left in the world, since the many others claiming such sanctity have in reality capitulated to ‘the pressures of capitalism.’ Only the group’s ideology offers salvation. The effect is to secure a redoubled effort from the members in party building, presented as a race between the creation of mass revolutionary parties built in the image of the CWI and world destruction.
6. Loading the language
Lifton has described this as the extensive use of what he termed "the thought-terminating cliché", used as "interpretive short-cuts" (p.488). Repetitive phrases are regularly invoked to describe all situations, and prevent further analysis. Expressions such as ‘bourgeois mentality’ are bandied around as a signifier of something which is an ultimate evil, in contrast to the ultimate goodness of the group’s beliefs. Lifton describes the overall effects thus:
"For an individual person, the effect of the language of ideological totalism can be summed up in one word: constriction. He is ... linguistically deprived; and since language is so central to all human experience, his capacities for thinking and feeling are immensely narrowed" (p.489).
This is observable in the CWI’s documents, and has been widely commented on by independent observers. The writings of CWI leaders are a compendium of clichés - ‘dazzling’ prospects are always said to exist in the immediate future, ‘colossal’ opportunities to build are identified in every situation, the years ahead are invariably referred to as ‘the coming period’, the group’s prognoses are frequently signaled by the tautologous expression ‘we predict in advance.’ The spectacle is one of thought attempting flight, only to find, in mid-motion, that all its moving parts have been superglued together.
In addition, the language of demonisation is used to describe dissidents. Both sides in the 1991/92 split accused the other of ‘bending to the pressures of capitalism.’ It is inconceivable that honest differences could exist which should be debated on their merits - they are invariably viewed as signifying the presence of alien class interests, to be engaged in mortal combat. The language is one of all or nothing - complete agreement or absolute separation becomes the norm.
It is also startling, in reading CWI documents over an extended period, to see how the same catastrophist ideas are repeated over and over again, without members apparently noticing that the predictions of 20, 30 or 50 years ago are the same as today and have yet to be borne out. A 1996 document produced by the faction expelled from the CWI in 1992 closes by advancing the by now familiar prediction that:
"The coming period into the new millennium will be a period of convulsions for capitalism nationally and internationally. The socialist transformation of society will once again be on the agenda. The whole world situation is such that one victory in an important country, would electrify the masses and lead to the socialist transformation of the entire globe."
The impoverishment of language used by these groupings, in which historical analysis regularly gives way to hysterical analysis, is clearly a major reason for the members’ inability to grasp either the repetitious nature of its perspectives or the derivative nature of its analysis. Linguistic asphyxiation leads to intellectual paralysis. By narrowing the range of thought it also hinders falsification. Members lack the information required to compare predictions with reality, to distinguish between evidence and assertion, and eventually to think.
7. Doctrine over person
Essentially, Lifton argues that historical myths are engendered by the group as a means of reinforcing its black and white morality. Then,
"...when the myth becomes fused with the totalist sacred science, the resulting ‘logic’ can be so compelling and coercive that it simply replaces the realities of individual experience... past historical events are retrospectively altered, wholly rewritten, or ignored, to make them consistent with the doctrinal logic" (p.490).
Trotskyist organizations have no shortage of such historical myths, but the one which is most doggedly advanced concerns the 1917 Russian Revolution - often simply referred to in CWI circles as ‘October.’ A recent article in the journal of those expelled in 1992 is typical, and reads in part:
"The October Revolution was, and remains, the most significant event in history...perhaps the most important lesson of the October Revolution, and the failed revolutions which followed it, is the role of Marxist leadership. Among Lenin’s greatest contributions to the ideas of Marxism are his writings on the role of the party - ideas
Throne thinks that the SP should concentrate all theri efforts into building 'action committees' in the workplaces and communities etc. This would be a very good tactic however the mood is simply not there for it at the moment. To go and set up such organisations at this time would be a mistake.
Yes the SP in the late 80s made some mistakes regarding perspectives for the fall of stalinism. But this is not the reason fo rthe fall in membership of the SP during the 90s. The objective conditions were largely responsible for the decline.
Come on now! Blame the objective condotions rather than the subjective leadership!
It still doesnt address the points about campaigns, the North or the internal regime.
Yes, objective conditions are mainly to blame for the decline in membership in the early 1990s. If you recall it was a time when the Stalinist regimes in Eastern Europe and the capitalists went on a ideological offensive against all forms of left wing politics. This was in conjunction with the complete sell out of the trade union leadership and the leadership of the traditional workers parties. These things combined to throw back workers consciouness and this had its effects in terms of membership to all groups on the left.
In the North the SP is a thriving organisation as has been already noted by others. I don't see why I should repeat what was already said.
As for internal regime, the SP is a highly democratic organisation unlike some other groups on the left.
Campaigns. What exactly is in question here. The SP has been involved in many campaigns like bin tax, water tax, anti war, anti fees, etc. I don't think I would be too wrong if I was to say that the SP members involved in such campaigns are some of the best campaigners.
One of the critics of Peter Haddon wrote about him: "After 30 years activity, what has he got? A branch of six members in Belfast, and hundreds of ex-members who think he is a wannabe Stalin. Even making allowances for the objective situation, this is a record second to none. Come on Peter - you just can't cut it at all!" They should realize that Peter had one of the very best of teachers - Lynn Walsh.
Whatever section that Lynn visits is sure to go through crises and splits as it enters its death agony. The only exception to this is Pakistan, where the leadership and membership as almost one solid whole rejected his machinations. They survived his visits by... being expelled as a whole from the CWI!
It is the same school that Peter Haddon belongs to and it really is a shame. The CWI played a fantastic role for a period. Now it is just a mockery of its former self.
67 comments not one of which contains an iota of credible fact or coherent arguement. Written in the main by people whose main "political activity" focuses on slandering the CWI. According to some of the above postings the SP in the North has only 6 members. On the February 15th anti-war demonstration in Belfast 63 members of the SP intervened selling the Socialist Voice, handing out leaflets etc. The SP contingent on the demonstration was by far the biggest of any "left" organisation. The SP is the biggest "left" party in Ireland, North and South, and is the only such party with any elected political representatives, as well as having the most members on union executives and currently its members hold the posts of president in the CPSU and NIPSA. This brief posting exposes many of the above postings as idle childish nonsense.
I think that John Thorone makes some very wrong assumptions. The fact is that there is not the mood there to build a mass workers party at this stage. A previous poster made the point that John should read up on the formation of the mass parties of the working class over 100 years ago. The class consciousness needs to be far more developed.
Throne is also inaccurate about the decline in the left in the early 1990s. The reason why the CWI, and most other left groups, declined was because of the objective conditions. The apparent 'victory' of capitalism and the ideological offensive was a set-back for the movement. Only recently with the rise of the anti-capitalist movement and more recently the anti-war movement do we see a turnabout and we are starting to see people move into struggle.
Most of the people posting here are just having cheap shots at the SP. It really puzzels me to see people on the left using the rhetoric of the Labour right of the 80s and the Tories when attacking the CWI.
How can anyone say that the SP is an insignificant sect? In Ireland the SP have a whole number of Trade Union positions. SP hold the presidentcy of NIPSA and CPSU. SP have executive positions on a number of Unions, including FBU, PSEU, INTO.... In terms of public representatives the SP nearly go a 2nd TD elected, in the upcoming local elections they will probably win more seats. Amongst the Youth, SY is a vibrant organisation that is growing rapidly. SY played the key role in the School student strikes against war, North and South. SP have been among the best activists in the anti-fees movement in the South. Recently the Party won a full-time position in the largest University SU in the country running openly as an SP candidate.
If you were to ask any SP member they would be very proud of their international links. Pat C seems to have a problem with Irish Militant having close links with thier British comrades. I think that is an indication of his own petty nationalism.
Most of what is written on this thread is just mud, and some are hoping that something will stick. Any self respecting left activist should think twice before he throws Tory anti-militant propaganda.
I think that John Thorone makes some very wrong assumptions. The fact is that there is not the mood there to build a mass workers party at this stage. A previous poster made the point that John should read up on the formation of the mass parties of the working class over 100 years ago. The class consciousness needs to be far more developed.
Throne is also inaccurate about the decline in the left in the early 1990s. The reason why the CWI, and most other left groups, declined was because of the objective conditions. The apparent 'victory' of capitalism and the ideological offensive was a set-back for the movement. Only recently with the rise of the anti-capitalist movement and more recently the anti-war movement do we see a turnabout and we are starting to see people move into struggle.
Most of the people posting here are just having cheap shots at the SP. It really puzzels me to see people on the left using the rhetoric of the Labour right of the 80s and the Tories when attacking the CWI.
How can anyone say that the SP is an insignificant sect? In Ireland the SP have a whole number of Trade Union positions. SP hold the presidentcy of NIPSA and CPSU. SP have executive positions on a number of Unions, including FBU, PSEU, INTO.... In terms of public representatives the SP nearly go a 2nd TD elected, in the upcoming local elections they will probably win more seats. Amongst the Youth, SY is a vibrant organisation that is growing rapidly. SY played the key role in the School student strikes against war, North and South. SP have been among the best activists in the anti-fees movement in the South. Recently the Party won a full-time position in the largest University SU in the country running openly as an SP candidate.
If you were to ask any SP member they would be very proud of their international links. Pat C seems to have a problem with Irish Militant having close links with thier British comrades. I think that is an indication of his own petty nationalism.
Most of what is written on this thread is just mud, and some are hoping that something will stick. Any self respecting left activist should think twice before he throws Tory anti-militant propaganda.
A few weeks ago somebody wrote material and put it on indymedia under my name, that is John Throne. They also downloaded material from the labors militant voice web site, changed it slightly by putting in a vicious attack in the SP leadership and put it on indymedia pretending it was I who had written it in that form. This present discussion started because somebody, again i do not know who, downloaded the open letter to the SP from our website and put it on this list. I am not sure exactly what is the motivation of this person or these people.
I would not have put this open letter on this list but now that it is there I believe that i am justified in responding to the ideas raised. However many people who wish to put the knife in the SP have jumped in. This is their right of course. However i would like to underline the following point.
My intention is not to attack the SP or any other revolutionary group in Ireland at the moment. I am interested in trying to identify the situation facing the working class and the needs of the working class in the present period and clarifying how revolutionaries should work to try and address these needs. I believe that building united fronts around anti capitalist and direct action fight to win policies are what is necessary. I believe it is necessary to address the fact that in Ireland for example there are thousands of left activists and there are many thousands more workers who want to fight the capitalist offensive. And from this look at the policies of the SP and in fact all the left groups and left activists in relation to how to unite and mobilize these forces. All those who are attacking the SP on this list I would ask you to address yourselves to this issue and also explain what your own policies are to deal with this. It is easy to attack the SP. At the same time let us hear your own ideas to address these issues. After all if we cannot discuss our own weaknesses then we are pretty much similar to what the SP is being accused of.
I addressed my open letter to the SP for a number of reasons. It is the organization to which I belonged and which I played a central role in building. It is in my opinion the left organization with the most clear orientation to the working class. It is the left organization which has shown itself to be willing and capable of mobilizing workers in direct action tactics. I am speaking here of the water changes campaign. I do not know why the SP has moved away from direct action in the anti war movement.
I do not know who are all the people who are attacking the SP on this list. But I assume that there might be a few SWP voices. If so I address the same questions to the SWP as I do to the SP. What is your organization doing to address this issue of building a united front against the capitalist offensive. To all the individual activists or commentators on this list who are attacking the SP what have you done to address this question. Sectarianism is not confined to one organization or view point. It is something that all of us on the left have to fight against. If we are serious about addressing the needs of the working class we can have a very useful discussion on this list. I hope that we can all give more thought to this.
I would also like to ask those contributing to this discussion to give your names. It seems that with the exception of four or five of us everybody else is posting some sort of false name. Whoever started this discussion and the last one a few weeks ago had no reservations about putting my name up there for all to see. I am not convinced that people are not giving their names for security reasons as the state can find out who you are through your email account. So how about letting us know who we are talking to, or at least the organization or movement you belong to if any.
I would like to thank those on this list who have objected to the personal abuse and slander that has been directed my way. Thank you also to the Comrade who sent me an email a few weeks ago to tell me that there were emails on the indymedia in Ireland that I was supposed to have written. Without your email i would never have known that somebody was writing under my name.
In this discussion the main political point that SP Comrades have made against me is that the mood is not there to build a mass workers party. This is not a serious reply. In the USA the political issue on which we were the minority in the CWI was the Labor Party. The CWI leadership wanted us to put all resources into the Labor Party Advocates which was a committee of union leaders and a few activists who were for a Labor Party. Then when this body changed its name to the labor party the CWI wanted to us to continue to orient to this and put our main forces there. This was throughout the first half of the 1990's. There was no mood of struggle and class action in the US at this time. On the contrary the labor movement was in decline and retreat.
There was not a word from the CWI or Irish SP leadership about the lack of a mass movement and that because of this no mass workers party or labor party could be built. The leadership of the Irish SP supported the CWI leadership on this issue. Not a word from them either about the mood not being there. One leading member of the Irish SP made a secret trip to the US to discuss only with the pro Labor party faction and agree with their position. Comrades in the SP what we have here is a glib answer given by the CWI leadership to try and avoid any discussion on the real points raised in my open letter.
Let us look at things a bit closer to home. The North. For decades the SP has campaigned for a mass workers party in the North. For the overwhelming majority of this time the workers movement in the North was in crisis and retreat and this is putting it mildly. What about the lack of a mood in the North over these years. Comrades let us hear from you on these points. Comrades in the SP I repeat, this is a glib answer given out by the SP leadership to avoid discussion on the real points that I raise.
At the conference of the SP where I gave out my letter one leading SP member scornfully demanded of me that i point out where these thousands of activists were that i spoke of. I think that the anti war movement in Ireland has shown that there are indeed many thousands and tens of thousands who are prepeared to be active if they can see how to take up the issues.
In my open letter I called for the building of action committees in the neighbourhoods, workplaces etc, based on direct action fight to win tactics, based on anti capitalist policies and from this the building of a mass workers party or a united political front. I think that arising from the discussions that I have had with irish comrades in the past months my emphasis would be on the building of the action committees and the struggle for the policies of these committees. In relation to a united political front or a mass workers party while still raising the latter my emphasis would be overwhelmingly on the former.
I would like to try and make my ideas concrete. For example in Ireland now i think that we would all agree that Joe Higgins and the SP played a prominent role against the war. I do not agree with the refusal of the SP to take direct action but nevertheless I feel that the party's support will have gone up, especially through Joe's role. What should the party now do with this increased base. I believe that the SP will now try and recruit in ones and twos to the party. I have no disagreement with this in and of itself. But I do disagree if this is all the SP does.
I believe the SP should now reach out to all other activist groups and activists and call for joint rallies and meetings around the country to discuss continuing the fight against the war and imperialism, to deal with the need to set up permanent action committees, the need to pursue anti capitalist, fight to win tactics. In the course of this i also believe the party should state clearly that it believes in a united political front and call on all parties and groups to overcome sectarianism and work together and in the process of working together debate these issues.
As part of this process the SP should also explain that it has its own particular policies and method and call on activists who agree with these to join it, while at the same time explaining to all other groups that they should do the same. In other words I am not in favor of the SP liquidating itself.
By taking this approach the SP would be addressing the need to bring together all those workers and activists and activist groups who are prepared to fight and would be preparing the ground for a movement to throw back the capitalist offensive. By taking this approach the SP would be adressing first and foremost the needs of the working class and moving to realize the potential that exists at the moment with the many activists who are prepared to fight if they could see an effective way to do so.
I can hear the SP Comrades say well the other groups would not cooperate. Again a false argument. When did the SP take action based on what the other groups decided. I think it is likely that the SWP would not agree to this proposal as they would be focusing simply on getting as many members as possible out of their anti war work. Well let the SP show that it is not simply focused on recruiting new members as is the case with the SWP but it is also focused on the needs of the working class and the potential to draw together a fighting movement of activists. A campaign along these lines would put this issue on the agenda of all left groups and would put pressure on them all to address these issues.
For the sake of debate let me address here the SP members from the narrow point of view of the SP. Such an approach as i suggest above would demonstrate that the SP was rising above sectarianism, was addressing the needs of the working class in the present situation, was seeking to realize the full potential of the existing situation. Imagine how this would increase the stature of the SP, how it would increase the membership of the SP. With the present resources of the SP, with the good work it has done over the years, with Joe and the platform in the Dail, the SP could put this task on the agenda of the left and of the activists who are seeking a more political and effective way to fight. In fact the SP could begin to put this on the agendas of the broader layers of the working class. Far from attacking the SP the ideas I suggest would benefit the SP. But this is not the central issue to me. The issue is what is in the interest of the working class at this time.
Now comrades of the SP if you read the open letter you are aware that these are the issues that i am addressing. But you continue to give the one answer. "The mood is not right for a mass workers party." Comrades this is not a serious reply. You are not addressing the issues I am raising. You are attempting to give a glib answer that distorts the issues i am raising. By doing so you are not acting in the interest of the working class movement and the struggle against capitalism.
Let me try and concretize my suggestions in another area. The SP for example has a couple of Comrades or a branch in an area of a city or a town. These comrades can campaign as the SP and try and build the SP. Or they can campaign for all the activists in the area to come together to take on the capitalist offensive. This would not just be putting out propaganda. But setting up
its stall every weekend in the town center and dicussing with workers the problems they are facing. Intervening in the struggles that would arise. And taking up these issues in a direct action fashion. If it is an eviction, resisting this and identifying and exposing and disrupting the business of the landlord. If it is wages , if it is discrtimination, whatever it is taking up the local issue in a direct action fashion.
Here in the US we have a campaign in one city on housing. Some tenants were being evicted recently and repairs were not been done. The owner had a swanky hotel. We helped the tenants locate this and occupy it and anybody evicted went there and booked in. An other lady was not paid her last weeks wages. We occupied the office of the employer. In Canada the Ontario Coalition Against poverty has played a leading role in this kind of direct action case work as it has become known.
At the same time as taking these type of actions which would begin to demonstrate that it was not correct that nothing could be done, that would demonstrate that the capitalist offensive could be takenm on and victories could be won, the SP should approach directly and formally and publically all the activist groups, all the revolutionary groups in the area including the shop stewards and the tenants associations etc and campaign for unity on these issues and methods and at the same time identify capitalism as the source of the problem and campaign for the action committees to oppose capitalism explicitly. I know this is quite a change. That one revolutionary group would seek to have its regular campaigning work based on the day to day issues of the working class and on taking these up as a central part of this work state clearly that all activists and revolutionary groups should unite in the anti capitalist direct action fight to win committees.
But we live in different times today.
Look at another issue, the rising anarchist movement in Ireland. This new movement has been carrying out serious and good work over the past period especially during the anti war movement. The approach that i outline above opens the door to the activists of the anarchist movement, the activists of the revolutionary socialist movement, the activists who just at this time want to fight the effects of the capitalist offensive, on jobs, wages, housing, sexism, racism etc etc working together. This is surely in the interests of the working class. This strengthens the working class and in particular takes forward the work of developing a new activist layer of fighting workers.
I would like to raise a related issue here. Over one hundred years ago Frederick Engels looked at a movement of a few tens of thousands of workers taking action internationally and wrote that the new international was being born again and how he wished Marx were alive. I an not trying to antagonize our anarchist comrades on this list, Comrades please stay with me a moment longer.
Febuary 15th I think was the date when ten million plus took action on the streets of the cities of the world. Before this international anti war movement there was the international anti capitalist globalization movement. Comrades it is my contention that we are already witnessing the birth of a new international. Not something called for by some group or party. Not something that is pretending to be a spontaneous movement when in reality it is some party front. The genuine organic movement of the working class and youth against capitalist globalization and now against the war is the beginning of the new international.
Comrades revolutionaries can be very conservative. Having to hold on in a hostile environment can make us very resistant to change. I would like to pose the issue this way. Any organization that is today still raising the issue of an international in the way it was a few years ago should take a hard look at itself. Take the CWI or any other international group. There is no possible way that this developing international movement is going to express itself in a mass way through these groups. It is going to move forward and develop through its own experiences and mistakes and victories. It is going to throw up some kind of mass international reflecting the differences and confusions that exist within the existing movement. It will not march to the orders of any revolutionary group.
So what do we say interationally. Labors Militant Voice campaigns for the building of an anti capitalist international. That is an international along the lines of the first international. That is an international along the lines of what I am advocating in terms of the anti capitalist action committeees in the workplaces neighbourhoods etc. The anti capitalist globalization movement, the anti war movement in Ireland is part of this wider international process. As far as I can hear the CWI international policy is build the CWI and that is that. The SWP and other internationals the same approach. But Comrades look at this elemental international movement that is developing. It is our responsibility to assist this movement and help it find organizational and political form that reflects its own reality not demand it pass through the eye of needle and join our small groups.
Look at the First International. It sprang up from workers struggles. it was not build by a resolution from Marx or Bakunin or Engels. It came out of workers struggles complete with all kinds of ideas and confusions. Within this movement serious political struggles took place while at the same time it carried out serious and important work. This is how the new international will be built. I believe we are witnessing the early beginnings of the new international.
This analysis does not mean that I think that the SP and all revolutionary groups should liquidate. It means that while building our own groups internationally, while clarifying our own ideas, we see the elemental international movement that is rising and that from this we recognize that it is entirely inadequate to call for the building of our own international group and this is all. Limiting ourselves to this is like standing by the ocean and ordering the tides to fit with our schedule. We need to help this new international movement to become conscious of what it represents and to see the need to move forward on a more united and more politically clear and cohesive basis. We need to struggle for this new international to be able to discuss and debate all the various ideas and consider the various revolutionary positions.
I know that many activists in Ireland consider that discussion on this list means discussing with people who only sit by the computer and who get their kicks by attacking others. I do not know what is the truth of this. I expect it is only partly true. But I would say this to all serious activists who are reading this. Even if this is the case to whatever extent these issues that I am trying to raise are central to the work of activists. So please do not turn up your nose and walk away. intervene in this discussion and turn it into a discussion that has roots in the day to day struggles and that involves the serious groups in the country that could play a role in taking the workers movement forward to the fullest extent possible given the present situation. This is also part of adjusting to the new movement and the new period. Opening up discussion in the wider arens and without having agreed on every issue in advance. If we do not do this then we will leave the incredible possibilites of the electronic media to those without a base in struggle.
John T.
I enjoyed John Throne's last piece on this discussion, and I think the points he makes, drawing on many years experience, are very valid. Personally, I can kick at the SP and its barren leadership with the best of the them, but in truth when that is divorced from the politics maybe that isn't really productive, even if it feels like therapy.
I would add this. It seems to me (I don't know whether he would see it in these terms) what John is proposing is a radical break from the traditions of the Comintern, the 4th International etc. In other words, what was ok in the 1920s might not be okay in the 2000s. This is a different time; we have had the experience of stalinism; people in the workers movement are much more concerned about both democracy and the need for a diversity of opinion than they were in the past. It simply won't work to try and build so-called revolutionary parties in this environent (modelled on Lenin's attempts and those of all the Trotskyist groupings since the 30s) - all you will get will be tiny monolothic sects, whatever your intentions. But I can imagine that part of the holy grail for the CWI as for many others is that 'we are rebuilding the 4th International.' EVERY attempt to do leads to some diminished formation like the SP rather than a genuine mass force. There can only be a mass force, I think, if it is much more open and inclusive along the lines that John Throne argues. So we have a choice. Do we want a small group of highly active people organised along 'democratic centralism' and agreeing with each other about everything (up until 'the split'?) OR do we want some kind of really annoying, conflicted, mass movement with real debates and argument and a chance to influence and change society? I think I know which one I would prefer....
John you are very mistaken if you think there are thousends and thousends of anti capitalist activists in Ireland. You point out that the IAWM showed that there was, I was active in the IAWM and this is not the case. What happened in the IAWM was that thousends were prepared to come to demonstrations but very few were prepared to do the building for the demonstrations. Most activist meeting consisted of members of already existing organisations.
What this shows is that there is a mass mood against this government however this is not yet met with a mass activist base.
John could you please point out which posts are your and which are not, there's a bit of confusion.
SP have six active members in Belfast N.Ireland that is the situation no matter what they tell you . As for the largest party on the left in N.I people here will take that with the pinch of salt it deserves as there are others in Belfast alone with memberships reaching 150 members. As for the unions they have members in the unions but the majority of them are SP in name only and are not active elsewhere. As for 63 members on Feb 15th I don't know were that came from unless they bused them in from around the globe giving the fact that SP's 'paper membership' states they only have 30 'paper members around N.Ireland. Much of the points also on Peter Hadden is true as is the SY or YAW walkouts last week which had about nine people at it.. The SP are renowned for vastly inflated figures both of its membership or any thing they say they organised in an attempt to pretend to their Southern membership they are a different organistion. I raise this as I have seen the SP go from a decent organisation to a hand full of die hards because of Peter Haddens attitude. I also find throne's article interesting but not surprising
". Pat C seems to have a problem with Irish Militant having close links with thier British comrades. I think that is an indication of his own petty nationalism."
As I have already stated above twice, I have no problems with links with British Socialist Organisations. What I criticised was the way British Militant treated Irish Militant as a branch office.
Whenever the SP cannot answer a political criticism in a political manner, then they resort to abuse, lies and distortion.
I want to add a thought on the difference between personal abuse and political criticism.
There has been some discussion here about the internal life of the SP, and of the role of Peter Hadden in particular in its downfall. Some of it is admittedly intemperate. But when you consider how much damage he has done maybe this is understandable.
I think the internal life of left organisations is an important issue, and in that context you cannot completely set aside personalities. SP loyalists have argued here that their decline, if they admit it at all, is all down to what they always call the objective situation. I admit that the objective situation was hard. BUT that does not mean that the subjective situation in general and the role of Peter Hadden in particular played no role. Think about it!
Many hundreds of people have now been through Militant/SP over the past 30 years, most of them out to seriously change society. Many were so disillusioned by what they found that they gave up on politics altogether. I repeat: partly this was political conditions. But to a very large extent it was also the role of Peter Hadden, as you find when you talk to these people. It is a succession of horror stories. Everything is all fine - until you begin to question his ideas. Then the witchhunt begins.
You cannot build a serious force around the imaginery genius of one man - one, moreover, who is utterly intolerant of dissent, who denies he ever made serious mistakes, whose idea of teamwork is everybody else agreeing with what he says. Nobody in the SP gets to play a leading role other than PH - only he can write the key documents etc. I think it is legitimate on this site to say that a critical issue is that this flows from two things:
1.A bizarre theory to begin with about what the internal life of left oragnisations should be like (a monolithic leadership, everybody in agreement, no factions, all main ideas coming from the top etc)
2. The particular personality of people like Hadden, who are attracted to the above dysfunctional model of party building, precisely because it offers them the appearance of power and control.
The only thing I can think of to exonerate Hadden is that he is not alone. Many if not all Trotskyist groupings have been in the same position - run by people who think they are geniuses, and who hate open discussion. The model is flawed to begin with, and it attracts flawed leaders for that reason.
In that context, what John Throne and others have written all points to the need for a different approach to organisation, if the left is to become a serious force for change in society rather than something on its margins.
lastly, I note that Hadden and co, maintain the old traditional sectarian approach of just ignoring this discussion. They are above reproach, and therefore above engaging with issues raised by those outside their ranks. Maybe they hope that what few members they have will never hear of it either. I believe that also tells us something important about the insular internal atmosphere of this organisation, and others like it.
Do people really expect the SP to respond to this. You all think we have nothing better to do - unlike you armchair revolutionarys(Chekov etc).
The world is rapidly changing - huge politicising events are taking place, that is where future developments will take place. ST or JT or whatever name he is calling himself has a right to raise whatever he wants - the SP also have a right not to give a bollocks.
You really are desperate, calling Chekov names. Where is your brilliant Political Analysis.
Yeah its really odd some of the SP/SY crowd seem to have developed an fixation with Chekov. We've had Startrek and cherry orchard puns and now the above which is especially odd as its rather obvious who has actually been in the armchair of late!
I guess he must have said something that hit home at some point.
Err anonymous SP guys don't you think that the fact you respond to ALL political criticisms with personal attacks makes it look a little like you are unable to defend yourselves in any other way.
The SP has more than 6 members in the North. I could name you at least 20 or so off the top of my head that I know personally and are active. The figure of 63 at the Belfast demo is probably correct.
Maybe a reason for a number of SP members being primarily active in thei unions is due to the political situation in the North rather than their own commitment to politics.
One of the last posting say YAW walkouts were not a great success. But this is due largely to objective conditions. If it is entirly subjective why have we not seen large demos in the south and internationally? The fact remains that YAW lead large and significant walkouts in early March.
Interesting comment. Is that why Peter has destroyed the SP unchallanged to make it now all but an irrelevance in N. Ireland. Many ex milant members and others who have come across him have raised the same genuine concerns that he is and now has virtually destroyed the SP in N .Ireland. Yet your response which you have a right to express is not to give a bollocks. I would agree with you though on the point that huge political events are taking place so it is a bit strange as one SP member told a colleague recently that at their only semi regular branch meeting in N.Ireland held in Belfast, seen the five or six of them in the bar spending most of their time talking about another socialist organisation and their leading members, this at a time that a war was under way. I suppose in reading the points from ex and expelled members old habits die hard. That type of attitude along with Peter's mad and sectarian attitude has brought the SP to a handful of active members. Could it be that this attitude though might in fact be well thought out by Peter as the less people he has in the room the more chance that people will think that he is right, which is true as he will have his own vote his two full timers who need to vote the right way to keep their job, leaving the other two if they dare vote against him out voted! AAH the master tactician!
Fair enough - however where's your political anlaysis. The SPs position on all these issues is clear.
Actually why am i bothering
Fact, They have 6 active members in Belfast while eight others are only active in their unions in Belfast. I will not go into what YAW versus SAW said about what they lead but putting aside the fact that at most 2-2500 students walked out most not organised by any one as YAW or SAW had no members in most of the schools at the time, the situation of inflated figures as some one raised earlier is an indication of why people take the SP figures with a bucket load of that salt. The walkouts had three thousand an SP member first said [a bit of an inflation but could just about get away with it], but this then went to several thousand some time later, then it jumped to ten thousand after that, then over ten thousand a week later, then fifteen thousand a few weeks later a multiplication of 5 over the period of a few weeks which could now be anywhere between twenty thousand and one hundred thousand who knows? The same goes for their public meetings and membership what they say is of absolutely no relation to what is on the ground here. As for 63 members at the feb 15th at most they had was 15 -20 at a push and thats being generous, from across N Ireland unless they included the kids they ran around giving placcards to and asking them to get behind their banner.
The fulltimers are not employed by Peter Hadden they are hired by the National Committee of the party and it is only that body that can fire them.
... is that some kind of record??
I just broke your recod
HA
And if peter hadden wants them fired then they will not be fired, or if he wants a member expelled then they will not be expelled. Funny that he has did it so often with the backing of other old hands before, so being left now with a handful of sheep in the North just the way he likes it as 'The General Secretary of N .Ireland' [of approx 20-30 members] or 'the greatest living and foremost Marxist writer [virtually unheard of outside his party and some on the left in N.Ireland]. Whatever grand title he has or is using now to front himself it is those few members who are left and the SP in the North in general that has and will suffer most.
"And if peter hadden wants them fired then they will not be fired, or if he wants a member expelled then they will not be expelled."
Any hiring and firing is the job of the national committee which is elected at the conference and accountable to the membership. Any person that is let go or expelled has rights to appeal.
Are you talking about the same rights afforded to life long member John Throne?
He left the party he was not expelled.
Has anyone even read 'the foremost marxists writer' PH pamphlet. Abstract, wide of the mark, unreal, head up his arse, another planet, are just some of the softer comments I got from two people who are established writers and commentators on N'Irish politics who job it is to read all such articles. I myself put it down after eleven pages and picked up a more entertaining book of fiction. I heard it had sold 36 copies to date in the North, I would check under Haddens bed though.
and talk and talk and talk and ......
Did you lads ever think that Hadden is not 'ignoring the debate' rather he just doesn't give a flying fuck about indymedia debates? The marginalised pseudo lefts may think IMC is the centre of the fucking universe but I hate to break it to you all IMC is not where the workers debate the political issues of the day.
Re the previous comment: no I suppose Ph doesn't give a flying fuck about debates on this site (note the way this answers the points raised!!!!). He is too buys with his two other full timers and three other members, to care what conclusions people outside The Magic Six will draw. Better i suppose to reign in hell (and believe me, five minutes in his company is like hell) than serve in a new broader workers movement....
Come off it lads. This sort of debate is what makes the Socialist Party look like an irrelevant dinosaur. It's the petty factionalism and sectarianism that has riven the party, seen falling membership and declining electoral success and allowed the SWP to take over key positions in the anti-war and anti-bin tax campaigns.
Its time to end the bickering and to unite together for a mass-based workers party. I'm not laying any blame on Joe Higgins or the rest of the leadership, just trying to point out a few home truths.
Less talk and abstract paper analysis and more action is whats called for now.
So you think that the SP has a falling number of votes! The SP had massive increases in thie vote in the last election. Off the "other" parties (as the media called them) the SP make over 70% in the last election. The SP only narrowly missed out on getting a second seat in the Dáil.
Mr. McCarthy also seems to think that there is a declining membership. This is incorrect. The radicalisation that the war and other issues has had has been reflected in an increase in SP membership, and membership of most left wing political organisation (anarchists, socialists etc.)
Mr McCarthy also calls for a mass based workers party. That is something that the SP does want to create. The problem is that the numbers of activists are not there. There is not the class consciousness in society at this moment that would sustain a genuine mass workers party. Why bother launch as party or alliance that will in effect just be a collection of the existing left wing groups? Surely a new mass based party should be a MASS party that is not just a collection of the SP, SWP and a few others.
You say what is there should be discussion on what is needed now. OK. What is needed is for people to get active in their Unions, in their communities, etc and build for a mass workers party. Look at the formation of the Labour parties, it was only through struggle that mass workers parties can be formed. So my advice is to get active in you trade union, in community campaigns (against racism, against bin tax etc) and raise the idea of a political alternative for working people.
At this stage it is a case of writing for people's amusement. C'mon out you chickens- those who lambast us with your spurious lies and quasi- psychobabble and identify yourselves. Tell us your names and what activity your involved in, and then you will be taken seriously (well ok, you won't- but at least the discussion is a bit more honest than hurling insults and slurs)
Pat C - GET A LIFE AND MORE TO THE POINT GET A GRIP!
What activity are you lot who are writing these insults? What kindof society, movements,parties do you think that need building or don't you consider these issues and instead decide to undergo your studies at the University of Sterility at the Faculty of Sectology.
In defence of the organisational appartus that the CWI has inIreland and internationally, I say we are a party of hundreds north and south with over 20 branches and with a separate youth section that has had the ability to mobilise at varoius events hundreds of young people and introduce them to politics.
We have deeper roots in the working class than any other far left organisation. We have active organisations in 30 countries or so including Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, India, Israel, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, South Africa as well as the white and European countries.
www.socialistparty.org.uk carries more detailed documents on our politics.
Denis Tourish(RE: his book on Cults) Bsc Ma Phd- what a muppet
Denis,
Are football fans cult followers?
Members of the Catholic Church?
Members of the Trade Union movement?
By your criteria just about everyone is a brainwashed clone of a cult.
Yours sincerely,
Garrett Mullan BSc, MSc comrade and activist and someone who tries not to write such shite as Denis or others on the INDYMEDIA MUPPET SHOW.
Dear Garrett
It really isn't much of a response to call my arguments 'shite'. They may be wrong or they may be right. But this is a good example of what passes for SP argument. Your true faith 'must' be right, so anything different merits only abuse. As others have noted, this is a reflex response you have learned in the SP towards discussion/ dissent, and I would respeftfully suggest you grow out of it.
I believe that CWI is a cult and in my article in this site say why. You say that by the criteria I use frooitball fans, members of the Church, trade unions etc are a cult. This is a familiar response to me, and I think it is wrong.
The difference is very simple. To take the Church. Of course, the Pope would just love to control people's lives, dicate how they do everything (even when married people should have sex!). Etc. BUT the fundamental difference between such organisations and the CWI is that most people nominally in the Church ignore 90% of the Church's teaching. In trade unions etc there is no monolithic belief system, divine leader etc. There are debates. There are factions. The leaders are generally critiqued by their membership. You do not have some guru writing lengthy documents and conferences unanimously passing position statements. Do you understand?
In the CWI on the other hand we have:
A monolithic belief system - we are 100% right. Everyone else, however close to our belief system they actually are, is 100% wrong. Ergo, we cannot have real alliance with anyone, in case it dilutes our purity.
You have semi-divine leader(s). Taaffe, Hadden and Co are convinced that they are geniuses (it must be the magic mushrooms), and that what they call their 'works' are vital historical documents etc.
Members, especially full timers, work like hell, and the more active you become the less of a life you have outside. This also means that your whole social reality is defined by your membership of the group. Eventually, you imagine that any other world view can only be 'shite.'
All dissent is penalised - I cite no better example than John Throne. But there are now literally hundreds of others.
I could go on, and refer you back to my article, but these limited example do show that for you or any other SP member to ssimply say that your internal dynamics is no different to a trade union is very wide of the mark. No trade union I have ever belonged to has anything like the internal dynamics of the cWI. The Church might like to have, but with a mas membership can't do it. (For that matter, few capitalist employers would get away with treating their employees the way Throne and others were treated by these would be liberators of the working class.) The CWI by any yardstick has only a small membership of hyperactive True Believers, and so long as it retains the desire to have 100% conformity to its belief system and an authoritarian leadership this is the way it will remain. Given what I know of your leaders, this is maybe not a bad thing.
One little thought: if you are so open and inclusive and non-cultic, how often do you bring in non-SP members to debate in front of your members about the way forward? Why for example was it such a terrible idea to have John Throne actually defend his ideas at your conference, and in that way educate your members through debate?
Garrett, we are both entitled to our views and have them discussed, not labelled as 'shite'. That is the sort of thought stopping comment I would expect to find in a cult, actually, but not in a serious political organisation. Time maybe to reflect a little bit more critically on your organisation. For a non cult it is remarkably monolithic. And in my mind if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck it is a cult. In Peter Hadden, you have the prototypical cult leader, and I imagine that eventually like 99% of former SP members you will see the destructive side to his approach only too clearly.
Facts only = lies if SP does not like it. You have six active members in Belfast. Last week YAW and SY walkouts delivered less than ten people. You have only one semi active branch in the whole of N .Ireland who spend most of their time talking about another organisation.
Peter Hadden is really irrelevent outside his own party in N.Ireland and has all but destroyed the SP in N.Ireland because of his sectarianism and personal attacks on other more well known, read and respected socialists. His inflated ego is replicated in the massively inflated figures for their activities the example above when they claimed that they organised school walkouts, that report is completely accurate. All this is not lies but what it is on the ground. Of course most want to believe PH but you just cannot put a square peg in a round hole.
The above is the honest reality and I hope his Southern comrades can bring some change as he has put his self inflated importance above that of the party. He has taken a once respected organisation to a situation of six people sitting in Belfast who few know and even fewer wish to work with because of him. People may not like to hear it but it is the truth and not those spurious lies. Just come up to Belfast and talk to any others who may actualy know him on the left, talk to the hundreds of Ex militant comrades, even talk to one or two of the six remaining active comrades and maybe then you may believe and understand why the N.I SP has become an irrelevence and then it is easy to understand why they feel they need to always greatly inflate their activities so to pretend every think is fine to thr Southern comrades. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Denis,
Just because people happen to agree on matters and have an agreement on methods, it does not mean they are part of a cult. Cult is a slur. I work with homeless people and in that work come across alcoholics who on occasion turn to religion. When they find the comfort of a sect or indeed AA they become evangelical (George Bush is a classic example). Then matters sometimes and sometimes they dont conspire to overpower them at certain stages when the drink takes hold again.
You are right because unlike trade unions you would not find these organisations or indeed other political organisations publishing for example 5 lengthy documents of all sides of an argument for international debate (that is the example of the Scotland debate). Matters were rigourously debated over an extended period of time.
The ex Scottish members who left, left after they found that no other section of the international agreed with them and that a sizeable minority within their own section disagreed also. They wanted the CWI to surrender to their programme - the SSP- which was a petty and immature way of conducting themselves.
regarding Peter Hadden, there seems to a growing obsession with his influence and position within the CWI. Is he a Protestant Pope? No, but he writes good documents giving near crystal clear and yet tentative perspectives as to what is happening in Northern Ireland and utilising a Marxist method on the national question, he has been influential in developing our position on Israel, Balkans and other areas where the national question features.
You ought not to construct political and sociological theories based on your own dislike for someone. Regarding full timer and activity. I say hats off to anyone who goes full time but a life work balance is important also. It is a statement of the obvious that the more one does in one aspect of their life the less they do elsewhere. That is an individual decision.
Everyone has the choice on their level of activity. We are an organisation of volunteers. I am a member 12 years. I have been active throughout that period but at certain stages I have been less active than others. At no stage did I feel the wrath of the pope!!
We didnt invite John Throne to speak at our conference because he turned up on the day when standing orders were already agreed. Had he spoken, he would have said things that would have meant a discussion based around his agenda. People would have had to respond.
Further he is not a member, so why should he be invited to hold us up in our conference proceedings.
Public Debates about the way forward
Alan Dukes and Joe Higgins on the Nice Treaty was a thouroughly good debate we organised. Interesting isn't it because we pay for the room of that meeting, pay for the leaflets, posters, volunteer to go and distribute such material and Dukes gets a platform.
There was a good crowd and it was benefit to us but we are not in general in the business of subsidising others who dont organise public events.
If Mr hadden writes your articles for CWI then you are sunk. I dont't know about his position within the CWI but I do know and agree that he has brought the socialist party in Northern Ireland to the verge of insignifigance. If the 'Cystal clear articles in his book is to go by, on his position on Northern Ireland then you need to get someone else to write it as he has missed the picture. Is it true that he is the only one allowed to write on this issue? Amazing. Maybe then apart from all the other aspects of his attitude which has been raised, that another reason that their membership has crumbled in Northern Ireland is his article is wide of the mark and I can understand why established writers and those that comment on such matters as raised above me would make such statements as for the most part I would tend to agree with them.
"In defence of the organisational appartus that the CWI has inIreland and internationally, I say we are a party of hundreds north and south with over 20 branches and with a separate youth section that has had the ability to mobilise at varoius events hundreds of young people and introduce them to politics."
Why do you lie to yourself? You know the true state of the SP in the North. You are not fooling anyone. Such self delusion is pitiable.
"We have deeper roots in the working class than any other far left organisation. We have active organisations in 30 countries or so including Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, India, Israel, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, South Africa as well as the white and European countries."
The CWI has fallen in membership from 14,000 to (at best) 2,000 members. What about the lost Scottish Majority? What about the 1,000 members in Pakistan you expelled?
You froth over insults andsneers and then tell one of your critics to ' get life and a grip'. Do you think this is a political response? In your mind does it demolish the argument of your opponent?
This is Moscow Line type propaganda.
No, actually its worse, you could stand in for Comical Ali.
I am delighted that garrett mullan at least tries to address the issue of whether SP is a cult rather than merely abuse my ideas. It is very welcome. Maybe a new departure for the SP.
However, garret, I think you have some way to go to really focus on the issues. You still keep confusing my emotional state with the actual argument. My view of the organisation is not based on my dislike of Peter Hadden - the well known CWi approach of trying to pyschoanlyse the motivations of people who dissent, rather than address their arguments, and imagining that if some one can be labelled a crank/ senile/ full of hatred/ paranoid then their argument is disposed of. Very dialectical! Even if I was a certified inmate of Purdsyburn, my argument is what counts rather than my mental state, real or imagined.
On the thankfully rare occasions when I think of it, I do dislike Hadden (as do most people who come in contact with him - a recurrent pattern that you might want to reflect on!) but mostly I am indifferent. I certainly have not constructed a whole theory around him, no more than I would construct a theory of mobility around a dog turd on the street. I recall that Trotsky displayed certain emotions towards Stalin, but his theory of stalinism did not rest on this. My analysis is based on a whole analyse of group processes, and is contained at length in my article. This you do not address. For that matter, nobody has seriously contested the other material on this site principally from John Throne (who is responsible for his own analysis, different to mine), challenging the internal dynamics of the organisation. I find that interesting.
In any event, since the word cult seems to act as a red rag, I propose instead that I simply say: the CWI is a very dysfunctional organisation, with bizarre group practices that hinder its growth. Hadden is really only of interest, and modestly at that, as a symptom of a problem. many of these are documented on this site, and indeed in my own article. I will leave my argument at that. Those interesteed in building any type of organisation need to consider these issues. After 30 years of activity in NI, some of which I shared, and nothing substantial to show for it a little humility about existing methods might be in order.
I thought John Throne's original posting tried to do this in a very interesting way. The essence of the issue is I suppose: is this method of organising really the best way forward? It would be useful for those on the left to address preciusely this sort of question, but for now I bow out of the discussion.
There has been a lot of talk about people being expelled, a lot by people who left, so I would be interested to hear if anyone can state definitely who has been expelled?
I have tried to point out that my emphasis in terms of the policies for SP and the rest of the left in Ireland is on building action committees based on direct action fight to win anti capitalist policies, that this struggle should have as a central element the bringing together of the many activists and workers and groups who are either struggling against the capitalist offensive or who could be brought into struggle if they could see some sort of serious non sectarian way to do so. That from this there should then be the struggle for some sort of united political front which in my opinion could possibly lead over a period to a mass workers party. The SP emphasis on the last of these points, the mass workers party, distorts what i am saying and makes it easy to "answer'. Also no SP member has answered why we fought for a mass workers party in the north for decades when there was a worse mood in the working class than now and why we did so in the USA in what was also a period of decline and retreat.
The issue will always be confused unless we start from the objective situation and the needs of the working class. If the SP agrees with my analysis that the dominant feature in the world situation is the capitalist offensive and the main need of the working class is to build a movement that can throw back this offensive then how is it addressing this need. Is it just building occasional united fronts on specific issues, the war, the bin charges, the water charges and from this building the SP. I think that there are many positive features in this approach and the SP has done great work in many of these struggles. However I do not think that it comes close to realizing the full potential in the situation. I do not think that this approach makes the most of the many many activists and ex activists who could become active again, the many workers who would become active if they could see their local issues being taken up in a direct action fight to win non sectarian manner. Nor does it sufficiently address the issue of the many left groups and individuals and what their role should be.
I am trying to start from what is the present situation, what is the main need of the working class and what is the potential that exists in terms of activists. In my open letter I try to address the issue of the more combative layer of the working class, what used to be called the advanced layer of the working class. The need to recognize that the layer of more combative workers has been thinned considerable by the defeats over the past couple of decades, the need to recognize that this issue has to be addressed, the need also to recognize the new forces that have come into action over the past few years. I think we would have a very useful discussion if these issues were addressed. It is not useful to the working class or the anti capitalist movement to do as the SP members on this list does that is call names and distort or as some others on this list do just try and get a dig at the SP.
I went through the back posts and found some interesting thing. SP members so far have referred to me in these ways: longwinded. a crank, undemocratic, lost his sharpness, no longer active, pathetic figure, chip on my shoulder, pathetic character, any SY member could defeat me in debate, no longer active, not knowledgable, pathetic, (this seems to have some sort of special attraction as it is repeated many times), arrogant, pathetic (again), sectarian. I would just comment on one of these. That any SY member could defeat me in debate. This is very interesting in what it says about the SP attitude. I personally would like nothing better than that any SP member could defeat me in debate. This would mean that the SY would be an experienced group and this would strengthen the working class movement. To think that I would be annoyed by this is to confirm the wrong approach to leadership in the SP and the left organizations with few exceptions. Nothing gives me greater satisfaction than the rise of a new movement of youth that is able to take over from the older activists and this includes me.
One Comrade asked me to identify my posts. The one that started it all, the open letter, then "what the working class needs and the role of the left" april 15th, 5.51 am, "correcting a few details" april 15th, 1.50 pm, "not interested in attacking the SP." april 17th, 6.42 am. These are mine.
I would like to try and deal a bit more with the internal regime of the revolutionary left in gerneral but I have to go to work for a few hours. I will try and do so later. But just a couple of details. A member of the SP says that I was not expelled that I left. I do not think that anyobody can believe this. I spent a weekend in the corridors of the north Star hotel in Dublin trying to get into a CC of the SP to appeal against my expulsion, I spent a weekend outside the London HQ of the CWI and British section trying to get in to appeal against my expulsion, I was ejected from the World Congress of the CWI in Belgium when I went there to try and appeal against my expulsion, I also wrote to many sections including the Irish section to ask to speak at their conferences to explain why i did not think I should be expelled. I had no success in any of these fronts. But the point here is these are not the actions of somebody who left the SP. Unfortunately the SP Comrade who said this is probably new to the SP and was told this version of advents by some longer term member who did not want to acknowledge the past.
In relation to acknowledging the past. I am sure that many SP members will be enraged that all this dirty linen is being washed in public. When I was expelled from the CWI I said that I was not going to shut up about this issue and that the CWI would have to deal with it again and again unless it looked honestly at its own mistakes and changed its internal life. This is what is happening now.
I believe that the SP and the CWI (or any revolutionary organization including the SWP etc) can never become a mass revolutionary organization in this period unless its internal life is changed and it comes to be able to see that factions and sustained internal struggle and different factions over a prolongued period are what is inevitable in this period in any mass revolutionary party. I do not see my speaking out on these issues as damaging the CWI. On the contrary I see them as being part of trying to open up the CWI so it can become a mass party. The fault for all these issues being discussed in public lies with the leadership of the CWI and the SP when they denied me my rights in the organization including my right to remain a member and then tried to cover this up. I would also remind us all that i did not start this discussion on this list.
I would like to return to the issue of the internal regime that exists on the revolutionary left when I get back. In my experience I now believe that the revolutionary movement was influenced by stalinism, at the same time it did not sufficiently recognize some mistakes of the Bolsheviks, it also made serious mistakes in drawing conclusions from the actual life of the Bolsheviks, and all this was further reinforced by the isolation of the revolutionary left from the working class. The result was that what came to be seen as the norm for the internal life of revolutionary organizations was an over centralized distortion. But more on this later.
One detail before I have to go. Think about the leaders of the Bolsheviks who squealed about the bolsheviks plans for the insurrection.Out right betrayal. They were not expelled. Jesus compared to my sins, refusing to shut up about our past mistakes, opposing the orientation to the so called Labor Party in the US and questioning the internal life and culture of the organization, these Bolsheviks leaders sins were major. Yet I was expelled. I will go on later.
Over here in the US I am thinking of James Connolly this weekend. And thanking him for his role. John Throne.
I've read through most of this thread.
The fact is that the forces are not there to form a mass workers party. That is a fact. There is not the level of working class consciousness, born out of workers' struggle, in Ireland at the moment to form 'action committees' in the workplaces etc.
Yes, the CWI did call for a mass workers party in the north. Why would they do this when the class consciousness is not there to launch such a prty in the north? the reason is obvious, the sectarian nature of things there. The call for a Workers party will reach workers and hit home in the north more so than in the south. It's the nature of the sectarian communal conflict there.
I think that JT should take a step back and look at his attempts to 'debate' with the CWI membership. Most SP members look at Indymedia as not a place for debate of this character. Some would even say it's not a place where much genuine debate happens at all! Yet you have initiated his thread and you have contributed to it repeatedly, this certainly will not help you.
You turn up outside conference and expect to be allowed to take part, this is despite not asking before hand- as you should know conference agenda are usually packed. You (a non-member) send a lengthy document to the Party and expect the Party to pay for postage, photocopying etc of it for all members. I certainly refuse for my subs to be wasted on that when members are free to go to your website themselves.
John, I disagree with your points about mass formations. I think that your contributions are born out of a misunderstanding of the day-to-day realities of Ireland.
Heres a piece on Labour Youth from another thread which is relevant to this debate.
OK - SP Rewriting history, is the truth not convenient enough?
by New Direction - Old Bastard Fri, Apr 18 2003, 9:02pm
I'm amazed to see that the politics of Labour Youth in the mid-to-late 80's of the last century are being debated, and it's nice to see someone cares, but if OK - SP wants to fill in the gaps of what he knows he should start by asking someone who was there and not by inventing the most convenient (for his/her politics) version.
Labour Youth wasn't abolished, but it had been systematically ignored as irrelevant and membership was quite low and had an enormous turnover (lots of people joined, were very active for about 6 months, and when the world-wide revolution didn't happen before the end of their mid-term break as promised went back to their life). The structure of the time meant that every Dail constitutency party of the LP couldset up 1 youth section (and no more) if they had 10 members under 26 and each of these had the same number of delegates (8 I think) irrespective of their membership. Donegal North East (10 members) ended up with the same number of delegates as Kildare (150). This made the organisation more than a little unrepresentative, but that didn't bother the party leadership, it made it all the easier to ignore them.
A group of folks around Labour Left (you'd probably describe about half of them as 'stalinist' if you're a troskyist)the rest were generally 50/50 between hard left/republicans and soft-left anti-coalitionists came together, set up a group called "New Direction" as mentioned above, got a new constitution where it was 1 delegate per 5 youth members (and which allowed rural constituencies split their youth section, e.g. North Kildare etc) passed (against the Militant at the time, although beyond the fact that it would result in them losing power I can't recall a single reason they came out with against the rule changes other than the fact that they didn't come up with them) and they lost the leadership the following conference, by about 63;37 again if I remember correctly.
For the following few years LYth became a support base for Labour Left, a grouphat I presume has long since collapsed.
This led to a couple of purges in the Millies at the time, with one prominent member being banished to the Gulag of Cork, and soon after a number were expelled for 'incorrect' views on what was happening in Eastern Europe (one guy ruefully remarked to me at that time that he'd been expelled form a party that didn't exist ! ;-)
Soon after they ceased to be much of a force in LYth, their share of the following youth conference vote was lower.
Looking back, it was an odd time, as the Millies while undoubtedly on the left of the party still had bizarre blindspots. They refused to second a motion on the right to choose that a Dublin South East delegate proposed for example, and they also refused to second a motion calling for gay rights. On both occasions their official position should have been to support it, but they felt these issues were 'diversions'. They also seemed to think that anyone who disagreed with their then position on the North (A motion from a millie delgate at youth conference '88 described working class unity in the north as "a reality")
was demonised as a provo.
Thank you Ted for your response. You answer on the SP and its position on the LP in the North is very specific to the situation there. What about the CWI position on the LP in the USA. Or on the position of the CWI where just about every section was fighting for a mass workers party over a period of decades irrespective of the local conditions and mood. I find the response of yourself and the SP that the mood is not there for a mass workers party not only a distortion of what i am saying but also a position of passivity on this issue in front of the objective situation. By the way if I remember correctly the main reason the CWI changed the names of many of its sections to the Socialist Party was based on the analysis at the time that they could build small mass parties. And build them on their own not on the basis of united front work. And the mood was much more difficult then than it is now. Comrade Ted your position has not a leg to stand on. And if I am wrong now then how much more incorrect was the CWI back then. Have you explained this to the new Comrades Ted. How wrong the past analysis of the CWI was. Or are you just interested in explaining how wrong I am.
I would like to try and concretize my position again. If for example there are five or ten Comrades in Crumlin Dublin. I choose Crumlin as it is where I used to live. These comrades take up the local issues housing, unemployment, poverty, police brutality, sexism, racism etc etc. using direct action. That is identifying and exposing the landlords, employers, cops, government agencies and capitalist parties. Then seeing that these elements activities,functions and lives are disrupted, their suppliers and their markets disrupted, and their neighbourhoods and churches and clubs and haunts are informed of the vicious anti working class actions they are carrying out and these actions are if possible reversed by direct action. In other words making the capitalists pay a price for their offensive and reverse the effects of this offensive where possible. (See the work of the US CP and left from 1929 to 1933 for example, see the work of the SWP in Minneaplois in the period leading up to 1934 for example).
At the same time as carrying out these actions the other anti capitalist and left groups and individuals in the neighbourhoods are visited and asked to participate. The shop stewards committees and shop stewards, the tenants associations, the union activists and locals, the schools and colleges activists groups, these are also visited and asked to participate. This approach, this calling on the other groups to unite in struggle, to become involved in the action committee, this would be a permanent central part of the day to day struggles, carried out through written material, discussion in the day to day work, local rallies, conferences etc. A sustained approach along these lines would begin to get results and put the party's work and its campaign for united front action committees and the involvement of all other groups and activists and workers organizations at the center of the agenda of the activists and groups in the country.
In my opinion this would begin to lead initially to some small victories. This in turn would gather new forces. The SP's resources and its platfrom in the dail could be used to develop this work. This would begin to present a non sectarian and serious approach to fighting the capitalist offensive. Resources would be gathered over a period for more significant victories. These in turn would add more strength to the attraction of the ideas. In this way the united front action committees would begin to develop. And this work would also be helpful in developing a militant opposition movement in the rank and file of the unions. Given the situation in the unions at present it might be the case that the impetus for an opposition could develop, in fact might have to develop, first of all outside the formal structures. From this work in turn would come the question of taking up the more general national and international issues. Pulling these committees together would be possible at a certain stage at a local, city, and national and international level.
Along with this work would come the issue of more specifically political tasks. This I believe should be approached by the SP presenting the idea for discussion and debate of working towards a united political front. Perhaps at the beginning this would only take the shape of making propaganda for the idea through material, conferences, speaking at meetings etc. Cooperation on referanda, electoral pacts, would be on the cards. As this developed it would then become clear what the mood was, what resources were available and what was possible and what was desireable. Moving on to set up the core of a mass party or maintaining the work at the level of a united political front.
In this way I believe the SP would be putting its resources to work in a way that would realize the full potential of the situation, drawing together in struggle the activists and the groups and the workers who want to fight but cannot at present see an organization through which to work. Of course the SWP and sectarian groups would oppose this. The SWP I am familiar with for over 30 years during which it has unfortunately in my opinion put the narrow interests of its own organization over the interests of the working class movement. But the opposition of such groups is not decisive. The issue is what is in the interests of the working class and what is the potential of the situation and from this how should the SP work. Such an approach in my opinion would enormously increase the stature of the SP and the size of the SP as it would be seen to be acting clearly in the interests of the working class struggle.
This is my position and it cannot be answered by saying the mood is not there for a mass workers party. Nobody says it is. But revolutionary politics demands that we do not stand passive before events and moods. The role of the revolutionary party or parties or groups is to see to what extent they can act on events and change things.
Thank you again Ted for another reason. It is good hear from the SP without being described as pathetic, sectarian, crank, undemocratic, etc, etc. But you repeat the point I have been hearing again and again about why did I just turn up at the SP conference why did I not contact the SP in advance. Thank you Ted for your advise. The SP members certainly have a united position on this. Why did I not contact them in advance is the usual answer given in a slightly offended and indignant tone. The insinuation is that I might have had a better reception, even been allowed to attend.
Perhaps Ted you could advise me what your position and the position of the SP leadership is on two other party events and my approach to them. The Party congress where I contacted the Comrades well in advance and asked for my right to explain to the party members my view and explain why I thought I should not be expelled. And the CC in the North Star hotel where I went and asked for the same right. Ted I am looking forward to hearing from you on this. Because it utterly without credibility to suggest that if I had contaced the SP earlier I would have had any chance of being allowed to attend. By the way if my memory serves me right I asked to attend as an observor, I did not ask for speaking rights.
And to your other point. I did not start this discussion on this list. Some person I do not know put my open letter on this site. This is what started this discussion. By the way the last discussion that took place here was started by somebody pretending to be me and writing material signing my name. In the course of this Kevin McLaughlins name was suggested on the list as being responsible. I said I did not want anybody blamed in the wrong so I emailed McLaughlin to see what he said. I got no answer. I should also say that when an organization expels a member and denies that person the right to appeal against his or her expulsion then they have no grounds whatsoever to complain about where that person defends him or her self and explains their side of the story. The SP unfortunately took the direction from the IS of the CWI and denied me my rights and leading members of the Irish SP took an active part in my expulsion such as secret trips to the pro US Labor Party faction in the US. Manoeuvres and denial of rights comes with a price Comrades. This is what you are now experiencing. The only constructive way to deal with this is to open up a discussion in the SP about the role of the organization in the past in relation to my expulsion and the wider issue of the internal regime.
A Comrade wrote the following in this discussion under the heading "Time to go beyond new 4th Internationals?
by Socialist Thu, Apr 17 2003, 7:29am
"It seems to me (I don't know whether he would see it in these terms) what John (Throne) is proposing is a radical break from the traditions of the Comintern, the 4th International etc. In other words, what was ok in the 1920s might not be okay in the 2000s. This is a different time; we have had the experience of stalinism; people in the workers movement are much more concerned about both democracy and the need for a diversity of opinion than they were in the past. It simply won't work to try and build so-called revolutionary parties in this environent (modelled on Lenin's attempts and those of all the Trotskyist groupings since the 30s) - all you will get will be tiny monolothic sects, whatever your intentions. But I can imagine that part of the holy grail for the CWI as for many others is that 'we are rebuilding the 4th International.' EVERY attempt to do leads to some diminished formation like the SP rather than a genuine mass force. There can only be a mass force, I think, if it is much more open and inclusive along the lines that John Throne argues."
I would like to agree with the general thrust of these remarks as far as they are expressed here. To repeat a point I made the other day. The anti global capitalist movement, the anti war movement, especially Febuary 15th and the ten million plus who marched internationally, these in my opinion represent the beginnings of the new mass international. How many marched in Dublin and other Irish cities. Where are they now. What has the Sp to say to them today. Join the SP? Within this new international movement there are many diverse ideas and approaches. The task of the revolutionaries is to be part of this and assist in this taking organizational form and clarifying its ideas and policies. The building of the anti capitalist action committees I describe above would be part of the local expression of this new international. The various revolutionary groups should of course build and develop there own forces as well as contributing to this overall new mass international. I personally think we should advocate that this new international be an anti capitalist international given all that has happened in the past period with stalinism etc. Within this the revolutionary socialist groups like other groups could exist and fight for their position.
In relation to the internal life of the revolutionary groups. I think there are a few aspects of this which i have come to see as very wrong. These mistakes in the main are shared by other groups on the revolutionary socialist left as well as the CWI.
One is the idea that the ideal group is united on everything. This was and is the internal culture of the CWI. As a result whenever differences arise then this internal culture inevitably leads to splits and expulsions. When the difference developed in the CWI in 1990 over capitalism returning to the stalinist world the Ted G group split. I was against them splitting and appealed to them not to split but at the time i had no clear understandinmg of the more general issue of the internal life being far too centralized. If the internal culture had been less centralized and rigid it should have been able to deal with this without a split. For example this was not a life and death question it should have been possible to agree that we continue to work together and debate this and let events clarify who was correct. This would have avoided some very destructive developments. This is an example of the mistakes of the CWI enormously exacerbating the affects of the objective situation on its development over the past decade and more.
Then there is the approach of the leadership to the Minority faction in the US of which i was part. The objective situation posed the issues and the differences flowed from this but the internal culture meant that the leadership saw that we had to be driven out and silenced. So the internal culture palyed a major role in damaging the CWI and reducing its resources.
Then there is the issue of how the leadership looks at itself. The tendency is for the leadership as thinking that their job is to think everything out and teach the membership. Ted G and co unfortunately, as well as the majority of the leadership that was left of the CWI, had this approach. This also helped develop the split. You cannot teach properly if their are a number of "teachers' with different views. This added to the tendecny to splits and expulsions.
I have concluded that there are some details of organization that need to be changed in an effort to combat these false tendencies. During conferences the CC and the EC should be dissolved. During CC's the EC should be dissolved. All political and organizational differences that do not involve security should be printed in the pages of the organizations public publications and the working class non membership periphery of the party invited to assist in clarifying the issues. These are just details but they indicate the direction i think has to be taken. They might not be appropriate at other times when mass movements were involved and major issue posed immediately but at this stage of the revolutionary left they are necessary to guard against a leadership that thinks it knows all and its job is to teach and to help a healthy internal culture to develop. .
Then there is the issue of the role of the individual in the leadership of the party, the role of the individual in history etc. People from a Trotskyist background tend to quote Trotsky as to how the seizure of power in Russia in 1917 would not have taken place without Lenin. The leadership of these organizations with few exceptions conclude from this that every organization needs a Lenin. And the tendency is to look around to fing one and this naturally leads to a number of people thinking is is themselves who fits the bill. To me the conclusion to be drawn from the fact that Lenin's role was so central is that there were some very serious weaknesses in the development of the Bolsheviks that led to this degree of importance of one individual. To me the conclusion is that a real collective leadership has to be built and that revolutionary socialist organizations have to give some serious thought into how this can be achieved.
John Throne.
Where do you stand on the Scotland question?
And as 'Magneto' came on this thread bringing up Militant's expulsion from LY, could you please clarrify your position on LY expulsions as some may think you supported 'New Direction'
I think that one extremely revealing element of the discussion and JT's arguments, is its overriding focus on organisational questions. The history of Marxism has taught us that it is political questions which are in general primary, and organisational ones which are secondary. The reliance by Schachtman et. al in the debate in the American SWP, on organisational questions, relegating the political questions to a second level, was a sure sign of their petty-bourgeois degeneration.
Similarly, I think a very interesting comparison can be made between the points made by the group led by Carlos Petroni in the US, which also split from the CWI, on organisational questions, and more pointedly a rejection to a certain extent of the need for a truly democratic centralist revolutionary party made of cadres capable of intervening in the day to day struggle of our class, and helping people draw the neceessary political conclusions, and ultimately of leading a socialist revolution.
At the time at which CP joined the organisation in the US, as far as I know, although correct me if I'm wrong, JT heavily criticised the decision to admit him and his group into membership, and JT and CP clashed on many political issues.
However, now when both of them have been defeated on political questions - the role of the Labor party etc. in JT's case, and the nature of the transitional program, and a lack of understanding of our position on imperialist wars in CP's case, both tendencies now concentrate very heavily on organisational questions. Both groupings are moving towards rejection of the need of a revolutionary party of the 'classical type', (see JT's points on the nature of the revolutionary party, and the 'Left Party's document on the revolutionary party).
Effectively, in my opinion, these tendencies have been defeated in political struggle within a revolutionary organisation, and their response is to cry 'dictatorship', 'unprincipled', 'interfering', instead of continuing to fight on the political questions. It is then because of their feelings of being abused by the organisation, that they then move in the direction of questioning the need for a revolutionary organisation of the class at all.
I just think it is very revealing, and appeals directly unfortunately to the feelings of many of the types on Indymedia, who appreciate it as another opportuinty to mudsling at the Socialist Party, and at the conception of any kind of a revolutionary party.
I very much enjoyed reading Isaac Blank's comments about a lack of political criticism on the part of John Throne (and by implication the rest of those who were expelled at that time, myself included). He writes:
"However, now when both of them have been defeated on political questions - the role of the Labor party etc. in JT's case, and the nature of the transitional program, and a lack of understanding of our position on imperialist wars in CP's case, both tendencies now concentrate very heavily on organisational questions."
In fact, it was just the opposite. Every single time we tried to raise the political points, the majority faction/IS would derail the discussion and return to some organizational point or another. One high point, for instance, was when Lynn Walsh made a major complaint at an international gathering that I had failed to offer him a cup of tea when he stayed with me!
We had major political differences: Over the perspectives for the Labor "Party", for instance. (We correctly predicted that it was unlikely to develop into anything of significance.) We also differed with the comrades' method of intervening - their failure to raise critical differences, their steering clear of the issue of socialism, their steering clear of the relationship between the rise of a mass workers' party here and a more militiant approach on the shop floor. We also raised differences in perspectives overall. It was our view that a new radical movement was unlikely to originate within theunions, that it would more likely originate in the community groups, the single issue campaigns, etc.
As I say, every time we would try to get a discussion going on these points, it would be derailed by the IS/majority faction.
As far as the Labor "Party" here in the US - this formation was never noticed by 98% of union members, nevermind the majority of workers who are not even in unions.
I have now read Isaak Blank's reponse three times, very carefully. But despite diligent attempts by me I cannot find even a syllable in it that actually addresses either John Throne's arguments or those of anyone else. We hear a lot about Shactman etc (is Throne supposed to be a modern Shactman), but I repeat nothing whatsoever that addresses the arguments. I am genuinely at a loss over this. Maybe abuse is enough for inside the SP, but if the organisation is to try and influence other leftists outside its own ranks then it must address - and be seen to address - the arguments directed against its position. Denouncing and demonising those against it, and resorting to crude amalgms of the kind that seek to equate JT with Max Shactman, does not persuade. I wasn't initially that predisposed towards some of the criticisms of the SP, but I must admit I am now. I remain hopeful but not optimistic that somewhere along the line someone from the SP might get down to what normally occurs in political discussion - ie take the argument on. Otherwise, we can only consider that they have capitulated.
First of all, thanks for responding John, it's nice to know you don't keep Easter Sunday holy!:)
Firstly, in reply to the 'Interested Left Observer', I did not intend this to be a political response to the ideas of JT, if you read my posting I make reference to differences over the Labor Party, but do not go into it at all. I was simply interested in what I see as a very similar evolution of two tendencies of very different origins, after leaving the CWI, and what this reveals about the tendencies.
I am also not implying that JT is in any way a modern day Schachtman, but I do think that the current formulations he is using about a revolutionary party are slightly worrying.
Nor, John, am I implying that your tendency did not have any political differences with the IS. I did not claim that organisational differences were primary originally, and I don't believe that that is the case. However, what I am remarking on is the fact that organisational questions are now very prominent in the documents on your website about the CWI.
Firstly in my opinion, in terms of your own organisation, this is the wrong way to debate differences with the CWI - complain about being treated unfairly etc, you are really only likely to attract other 'dissidents' on the basis of feeling 'excluded' or 'violated' by the organisation, and they will be overwhelmingly petty-bourgeois individualistic types. Political questions are key, these are the ones to be raised, in any serious political dispute, but in fact this has not been the case with your organisation (now I'm talking about post-you leaving the CWI).
This is what I consider significant. Also I would appreciate a clearer formulation of your position on the revolutionary party, becuase I think your support for the effective dissolution of the forces of Marxism within the SSP does indicate something negative. Also, do you accept that your current positions on the revolutionary party, while not gone quite as far down the road of its effective liquidation as an effective vehicle for organising the socialist transformation of society, do have some interesting similarities with CP's positions?
Finally, in relation to the political questions raised (and clearly it would be incredibly hypocritical of me to ignore them!) I have a number of points. Firstly, John Reimann's comment is as far as I know the first time that your differences with the majority in the US have been raised, so it is surely understandable that they have not been answered so far. These questions were answered repeatedly by the majority in the US. Admittedly, I am not as fully aware of the situation and arguments I ought to be, I will try to rectify this, and then maybe contribute again. Secondly, the points raised by JT in the document he distributed at our Conference have been answered repeatedly. The primary point raised in the document is the one essentially that Ireland is ripe, or near-ripe at least for a new mass workers' organisation. The sad thing is that the argument reveals how far out of touch JT, and his few supporters in Ireland, is with the situation here. A key basis for his assertion that we should now proceed to create a new mass workers' party is based on the idea that
"there are many hundreds of left activists still active in their respective organisations and causes in the city. On top of this there are thouands of left and militant workers and youth who would like to fight but who cannot see any effective way to do so."
We do not disagree at all in principle with JT, that the working class is in need of a workers' organisation, what we call a 'new mass workers' party', where we disagree is on the possibility for such a party. Very simply the forces do not exist at the moment for such a party, we reject the assertion made by JT in the quote above, such a party created now would simply be a battle ground between us, the SWP, maybe some ageing WP forces, and a few independent socialists, where the sum would be less than the addition of the different parts. The new layers of activists necessary to build the new party of the working class will be brought into being by the massive struggles of workers and youth which are now being prepared for by the economic situation and the attacks of the government, and which are to a certain extent, (although things will not develop at all in a linear direction) indicated to by the massive anti-war movement. But the conditions for such a party do not exist in Ireland today, that is a fact that I doubt JT would question if he was involved in the day-to-day struggles in Ireland.
I will re-read the open letter to see if any other major political questions are raised, and will re-post if I find any more (but don't hold your breath as I do think that is the prime issue raised).
Isaac
I was delighted to see your last posting. It is the first serious attempt to address the issues I have seen from anyone involved with the SP. I don't agree with you, but at least I now know where you stand.
John Throne and others can answer for themselves on the political points. But I would like to address just one question. You say 'Political questions are key, these are the ones to be raised, in any serious political dispute, but in fact this has not been the case with your organisation'. I don't disagree at all that political questions are critical. But I also think that this line of argument has been cynically used by the CWI leadership to quell dissent.
Lets agree on the primnacy of politics. But it is also possible for the internal regime to degenerate in a left organisation, and for this degeneration to cause problems in its workings and for its growth. Isn't it therefore also useful to address these issues? Sometimes, Isaac, it seems as if you are saying that it is wrong to discuss organisational questions at all. Maybe I have gotten your position wrong however. I repeat: issues such as the regime, the power of the leadership, how people like Hadden (mis)behave etc., - these are also important questions. You yourself would say building the subjective factor is important. How the leadership conducts itself and in particular how it handles dissent are therefore also issues that simply cannot be waved aside, on the grounds that politics is primary. Primary doesn't or shouldn't mean to the exclusion of everything else. Otherwise, why build organisatiosn at all? I recall that Lenin and others wrote exstensively on organisational questions, including about the internal regime they wanted in the RSDLP!
I think that the problems your organisation faces are of course due to the political situation, BUT also due to organisational mistakes, including the attitude of people like Hadden to dissenters, and it is healthy and useful to openly discuss this as well as the organisational questions.
Well, I suppose your posting here at all shows that there is nothing to fear from debate, except clarity.
Firstly, just a v. brief reply to the latest "Interested Left Observer" (and there does seem to be plenty of them going around at the moment!) - I am not for one moment suggesting that organisational questions should not be discussed, if we go back to the Schachtman analgoy, while he was criticised for being overly organisational, Cannon did write "Struggle for a Proletarian Party" in reply, which is one of the key organisational handbooks for socialists today. The point I was making though is that often the raising of organisational problems above the political ones, is an indication of a weakness of the political arguments. I simply do not accept that the CWI leadership or the Irish leadership have "quelled dissent" in the ranks, witness the factional struggle in the US, or the open debate with the Scottish majority comrades. Nor do I accept that Peter Hadden has played anything other than an extremely significant role in building the forces of Marxism in the North, and developing Marxist theory specifically in relation to the national question. The allegations further up the thread about how small our Northern section is are simply lies, most likely put about by members of the SWP.
I originally posted on this thread simply raising a point about the similar evolution of two very different tendencies after leaving the CWI. However, I was criticised for not responding to the political issues raised by JT, so I re-read JT's open letter last night, along with his document on the wildcat strikes, and want to make a few remarks on the political questions involved here.
The prime problem in the program laid out in JT's Open Letter is that it smacks all over of subjectivism. Examples of struggle are taken completely out of context and applied to a completely different objective situation, with the result that the program outlined is largely inapplicable to Ireland today (which is not to say that in ten years time it might not be more relevant).
The underlying thread throughout the whole document, as I thought previously is that:
"What the working class has needed more than anything else in this period are organizations that would organize the working class to take on and confront the bourgeois offensive...." and therefore that the "key task for the SP, was to answer the central need of the working class, that is to develop a program, strategy and tactics to confront this bourgeois offensive and to build organizations of the working class able to successfully take on this offensive."
The position basically is that a key need of the working class at the moment is for a new party or movement of the working class - nobody disagrees with that. However, the proposition put forward is that because that is a key need of the working class, it is the duty of the SP now to propose such a party, or at least a strategy towards the formation of that party in the near future. This is a false argument, ignoring the consciousness of the mass of working people and youth - if there is no mood for such a new party, regardless of what the propaganda and actions of the SP are, it can not come into being.
JT's argument is akin to saying that the objective need of the working class is for socialist revolution (an even more true statement than the one above), and therefore it is the role of the SP to propose revolution in the short-term, a proposal which I'm sure JT would agree is ridiculous. What we do though is, taking into account the consciousness of the working class, which is far from understanding the need for socialist revolution, we try to raise that consciousness and work consciously to prepare the terrain for that socialist revolution when the objective situation is ripe, building the forces of the revolutionary party and the working class movement. In the same manner, as we recognise the need for a new mass working class party, and recognising the consciousness of working class people, we work in that direction, which primarily at this stage means building the forces of the SP, along with building united fronts around issues like water charges, bin tax, and the war on Iraq.
Presumably, John will accept these points, that the objective situation must be taken into account, but he will disagree with my assessment of the objective situation. One of the clearest examples of the subjectivism which he is guilty of, is his citing of the "direct action confrontational tactics" employed by the left in the US in 1929-33. The final sentence of that paragraph reveals how ridiculous the suggestion is:
"A similar approach by the revolutionary left to that of the US left in 1929-33 is necessary today."
If JT accepts the importance of objective factors, how can he possibly claim today in Ireland, after the end of the Celtic Tiger boom, whereby the economic basis was laid for a reasonably peaceful "social partnership", we should be using the tactics used in the US, after the great depression of 1929, where the capitalist class was engaged in an even more brutal attack on the living standards of ordinary people than today? A correct tactic applied at one time in a certain set of circumstances, can be completely abstract, and even wrong in cases where it is applied dogmatically to another set of circumstances. The whole point of Marxism is that it is a method of analysis, rather than a prescription of demands or slogans.
I hate to repeat the point, but it is clear that JT has a massive over-estimation of the objective situation in Ireland, which is responsible for his false perspectives here. Does he now accept the point that there are not "many hundreds of left activists" in Dublin today, just waiting for a new mass workers' party? If so, does he then accept that this was the basis upon which his program was based, and that therefore his proposal is no longer valid? If he does not accept the point, what does he base his assessment on, where are these hundreds of left activists?
Another very interesting point is JT's position on the debate on Scotland. (All of the factional documents from both sides are now online on the CWI theoretical site, www.marxist.net.) JT supports the arguments of what now constitutes the ISM, but warns them that:
"if the ISM is not built as the SSP grows and develops the revolutionary ideas of the ISM will reduced in their influence and their will be the danger of demoralization and disintegration of the ISM."
Anyone who pays attention to the politics of the SSP and the ISM, will know that this warning comes ever so slightly too late. The ISM, and the SSP have fully capitulated to the pressures of nationalism and reformism, with Tommy Sheridan recently talking about the SSP being the true party of Scottish nationalism, or something like that. It is clear that the arguments of the minority faction and the IS have been proved correct in Scotland, and it is only through trying to hide the liquidationism of the ISM, that anyone can suggest anything different.
In relation to the US: firstly a few questions. JT talks repeatedly about the IS giving the leadership to this tendency and that tendency etc., what about the Conference of the US section, is it not the Conference which elected these leaderships? Is it also not true that you were voted off the leadership democratically? Finally, in relation to the political issues, I confess that I have not yet managed to fully research the struggle, however I have a few observations. The document is full of assertions about the majority essentially adapting to the pressures of reformism in the LP, allegations which I am sure the majority completely rejects. If I could use an imperfect analogy (imperfect because of the differences in the nature of the Labour Parties, but still somewhat valid) - when we were in the Labour Party, the rest of the 'Left''s continual cry was the same - that because of our efforts to adapt to the milieu we were working in, we had become reformists too. However, and I'm sure JT agrees, for us what was at stake was a difference in how we presented our ideas, making them accessible to the working class in general, and members of the Labour Party in particular, rather than any weakening of program, and I would argue that this is probably the case of the majority in the US as well.
The other thing that struck me from the document was the incredibly undialectical nature of it. Let me just quote a few sentences from the document on the wildcat carpenters' strike:
"Imagine what could have been. The CWI could have put up a principled struggle in the LP and recruited the best members to its ranks. The opposition work in AFSCME, the largest public sector union in the USA, could have continued to develop and given the terrible crisis in that union, especially in New York, AFSCME ACTIVIST could have by now put down serious roots and been the recognized opposition. Along with these successes the CWI would have been on the threshold of leading another opposition force in another union, this time the most important of the construction unions. This would have left the CWI as the most important left group in the country"
Pared down to essentials, what this essentially says is "If we'd done X, we'd now be Y big" - that is not Marxism, that is empiricism and subjectivism.
Finally, just a point in relation to the first point I made in this debate, about the focus on organisational questions indicating something. I think that it is extremely revealing that out of the four or five articles on your website about the CWI, two of them are by Roger Silverman, who as far as I'm aware is now a leading figure behind 'Movements for Socialism' (??), a group which as far as I know, rejects the need for a vanguardist revolutionary party. His documents are both predominantly organisational, and personal, and his evolution into an open liquidationist says a lot about his politics. The fact that your organisation would have two documents on your website by someone, who is not a member of your organisation, presumably doesn't agree with some of your politics, purely because he made a number of organisational criticisms about the CWI, is something that backs up my earlier point, that the focus on organisation questions reveals a defeat on the political points.
Would you care to provide evidence for your claim that : "The allegations further up the thread about how small our Northern section is are simply lies, most likely put about by members of the SWP." ??
Or are we to assume that a smear is your accustomed way of doing business?
It has been some time since I have been in debate directly with the CWI. However this discussion shows that not much has changed. The first phase is where you are called sectarian, pathetic, out of touch, a splitter etc etc. When this barrage fails to intimidate you the next phase is to appear to take up the ideas seriously while in fact being quite dishonest. If anybody thinks this is a bit harsh please read below and judge for yourself.
Isaac B writes “However, what I am remarking on is the fact that organisational questions are now very prominent in the documents on your website about the CWI.”He goes on; "Finally, just a point in relation to the first point I made in this debate, about the focus on organisational questions indicating something. I think that it is extremely revealing that out of the four or five articles on your website about the CWI, two of them are by Roger Silverman, who as far as I'm aware is now a leading figure behind 'Movements for Socialism' (??), a group which as far as I know, rejects the need for a vanguardist revolutionary party. His documents are both predominantly organisational, and personal, and his evolution into an open liquidationist says a lot about his politics. The fact that your organisation would have two documents on your website by someone, who is not a member of your organisation, presumably doesn't agree with some of your politics, purely because he made a number of organisational criticisms about the CWI, is something that backs up my earlier point, that the focus on organisation questions reveals a defeat on the political points."
It is very easy for all the readers of this to check out this statement. Go to the website. Laborsmilitantvoice.com Under the CWI heading of the website there are five articles. Only one of these five deals with the organizational issue. Three are by Roger Silverman. See if these are "predominantly organizational and personal". Yop will see this is utterly incorrect. The one article on organization is called “the internal regime” and written by myself. The rest are on perspectives and on how the CWI mistakes on these affected the CWI and how as we began to correct these in the US this affected our work in allowing us to lead the carpenters wildcat in California. Isaac B is not telling the truth.
Look at another example of the lack of truth. Isaac B writes “ now I'm talking about post-you leaving the CWI.” He also refers in two other places about myself and the LMV comrades leaving the CWI or splitting from the CWI. But none of these things ever happened. We were expelled from the CWI and fought ferociously against our expulsion. But Isaac b rewrites the entire situation. Of course this helps him ignore the fact that we were denied our right of appeal. He also has the audacity to advise me that indymedia is not the best way to debate with the CWI. I entirely agree. I wanted to speak at the CWI conferences against my expulsion etc and explain my position but was denied my right to do so. Did you vote to allow me to speak to the CWI membership Isaac?
This issue will not go away for the Irish SP or the CWI. It will have to be openly acknowledged and recognized as a serious injustice and error or it will come up again and again. The efforts to hide from these injustices that the CWI and the Irish SP carried out will corrupt the internal life of these organizations. Look at the contortions that you are getting into trying to defend the position.
But to go on to the issue of the primacy of political questions. The first thing that I would like to point out on this is that the split between the bolsheviks and the mensheviks took place over an organizational issue. What constitued a member was the issue if i remember correctly. An organizational issue. Isaac B is very worried about me breaking from bolshevism but it seems he is not too clear on bolshevism himself. Left Observor is absolutely correct the position of Isaac B on organizational issues is just another manoeuvre to keep debate away from the internal regime of the CWI.
The Isaac B’s of the CWI all try to infer that until I was defeated in the US section I had no problems with the CWI. The idea they wish to get across that it was all due to me being in the minority and not accepting it. They all neglect to mention that i resigned from the IS because of the way that body was working and manoeuvring before i ever became a minority in the US group. It is easier to paint me as a bitter defeated member if this fact is left out. I know some members in the Irish SP who were told by the leadership that all that happened in the US was that another “boss lost his job” . Isaac B continues with this kind of insinuation. The damage this does to the SP and its internal life is extremely severe.
By the way Isaac B talks about us being defeated on the issue of the LP. The debate broke out in the US group because we said the so called LP would not develop as the movement was in decline and the union bureaucracy had control of the LP with no intention of building it into a genuine party. Ironic is it not the IS and the majority were arguing the position that ISaac B tries to say that i am arguing here. We argued that we should orientate instead to the new movements that were stirring and that were not going to reflect themselves in the LP. Yes we were defeated on this but again Isaac b leaves out a few other details. In 1998, two years after we were defeated, the IS intervened in the US group to drag it out of the LP corpse. In the course of this they took the paper and the leadership away from New York and gave it to San Francisco. Our position was proven correct. I have had leading CWI members concede this to me since.
A few years later all the criticisms we had about the San francisco group, that it was oriented to the left liberal petit bourgeois in San Francisco, that its internal life was even worse than the CWI, all this came to haunt the CWI leadership and they got rid of this group and moved the leadership back to New York. Please Isaac B if you want to go into this more then be my guest. But I will defend myself and in doing so you and the CWI will not look good. And the more we go into it the more it will prove my point, which is that neither the Irish SP nor the CWI can become mass revolutionary workers parties with the kind of internal life that they have at present.
Isaac B writes that he thinks I and my Comrades are moving towards rejection of the idea of the revolutionary party of a “classical type”. And that he thinks we are rejecting “the need for a truly democratic centralist revolutionary party”. These sort of suggestions are meant to strike fear into the hearts of all self respecting revolutionary socialists. Sorry Isaac i have long ago got over being intimidated by the symbolic phrases of the movement.
Isaac B and the CWI say they base themselves on the bolsheviks and Lenin. My understanding is that Lenin laid the basis for the Bolsheviks by building Iskra from exile and drawing around it a whole series of groups in various parts of Russia and the surrounding region. I wish I could read Russian and have access to the publications of these various groups. I would venture to say that there were many of these that did not represent the local branch of the revolutionary party of a “classical type”. And as for a “truly democratic centralist revolutionary party” well my understanding is that the bolsheviks were a faction of the RSDLP along with the mensheviks up until 1912.
Now can you see anything remotely like the flexibility that the bolsheviks had in this period in the CWI. The bolsheviks were a faction of a party with a reformist majority for years. Please help me here Isaac what is the classical part i am looking for here. I earlier referred to the CP in the USA in the 1920’s before it became stalinised. It had three factions each controlling a different part of the party’s work for close to a decade. Trotsky was in touch with and discussing with this party over this period. Now was this the “classical type” that you are talking about Isaac.
What you are talkng about Isaac is the type of organization built by the CWI over the period of relative stability of the post war upswing in the advanced capitalist country of Britain. What you are talking about is an internal life that flowed from this and from a world analysis that roughly corresponded to the objective reality. But once the world situation began to change in a way that contradicted the CWI analysis then the unity and internal culture that had grown up under the different situation of the past was no longer possible.
All that was possible in the new situation was an organization with factions and internal sustained debate and struggle. Like the bolsheviks in its most vibrant healthy period. But the majority of the leadership of the CWI could not accept this and the result was that all differences of any significance led to expulsions or splits. Please Isaac do not lecture me about dialectics. The whole basis of dialectics should show you that there is no fixed internal life, There is no “classical party’ in the terms of which you are speaking.
LMV has been building a revolutionary group ever since the expulsions. This is being based on perspectives, program and orientation. The balance of its internal life at this time is overwhelmingly collective and democratic with centralism given far far less emphais. Sure we could have strong centralist organization. But on what basis. The world perspectives are very far from clear, this situation can only be dealt with if the organization is open to continually discuss and reassess its perspectives and work. The only way there can be centralized group like the CWI and Isaac demands in this period is by means of an internal life that is not healthy.
I know all the arguments Isaac. I was th first fulltimer in the CWI in Ireland. I recruited many of its leading and former leading members such as joe H and and Dermot c. Kevin McL I was also involved in recruiting. We had a very tightl;y organized and centralist organization. We had close to 500 members when I left.. I worked and built in many other countries for the CWI. It was very unified and centralized and going from strength to strength. the Poll tax, Liverpool, Spain, etc etc. But this counted for little when the organizations perspectives were so wrong and when the internal life was so centralized that it could not tolerate factions and sustained factional debate and disagreement.
On the point of the suggestions I make for the work of the SP in Ireland. Look again at how the distortion is made. Isaac B writes; “Does he (JT) now accept the point that there are not "many hundreds of left activists" in Dublin today, just waiting for a new mass workers' party? If so, does he then accept that this was the basis upon which his program was based, and that therefore his proposal is no longer valid? If he does not accept the point, what does he base his assessment on, where are these hundreds of left activists?”
It is not and has not been my position that there are “hundreds of left activists just waiting for a new mass workers party”. It is my position that that there are hundreds and more than hundreds of workers and youth who want to fight back against the capitalist offensive and that the position of the SP in setting up temporary united fronts around specific issues and then asking people it meets in these to join the SP does not and cannot realize the full potential of the situation.
Look at the water charges campaign. There were many activists involved in this. Look at what arose from this. Joe was elected. By the way if the mood is so difficult how come that Joe gets elected and that Clare almost gets elected. My understanding is that it is because they do serious work on the ground and that there are significant layers of workers who want a fight back.
I am arguing that the direct action policies of the water charges should be extended to other areas. Should be extended to the day to day struggles against the capitalist offensive. In this period when all the leaders have failed and when revolutionary socialism has been tarnished by the catastrophe of stalinism it is necessary to prove in a way that was not necessary before that real struggle is possible and revolutionary socialism is relevant to peoples lives. Token protests and marches cut no ice in the present climate.
Around these direct action struggles against the local and national and international manifestations of the capitalist offensive the effort should be made by the SP to reach out and build action committees. Part of this would be publicly reaching out to the other left and workers organizations, to the shop stewards and the tenants organizations etc. I am not arguing that this would immediately get a great response rather that sustained struggle along these lines would begin to convince many activists and former activists that something serious was taking shape, something with the possibility of gaining victories, something non sectarian, and then it would be possible to begin to mobilize the many activists and former activists into struggle.
I have gone over this twice before in this discussion. I have explained my position that out of this type of work the SP should be seeking to form a united political front which would possibly open the door to a new left workers party. And of course throughtout this entire process the SP would be building and recruiting.
It is clear that the SP leadership gives only one answer to the membership in relation to my suggestions. “Where are these hundreds of left activists?” I do not know the membership of the SP but i assume it is in the hundreds, I do not know the membership of the SWP but i presume it is in the hundreds, I do not know the membership of the new anarchist movement but my impression is that it also is in the hundreds. Then there are the groups that came out of the Workers Party, the unemployed groups, the group in Tipperary, and there are also many left individuals who have been in the various left organizations over the years. I believe this adds up easily to “hundreds of left activists.”
I am not suggesting setting up a Socialist Alliance. The Socialist Alliance in Britain is basically an electoral alliance. It cannot get a base because it will not take up the day to day struggles on the ground in a direct action fashion and therefore it cannot put down roots in the working class. So it stagnates.
But as anybody who wants to can see I am precisely arguing to take up the day to day struggles on the ground in a direct action fashion and form action committees and put down a base and then from this base we could see what was possible. Either a united political front or a new workers party. The possible development of such a new left workers party I see very much as in the future and only possible if we do the work on the ground as I suggest.
I can hear the cries that the SWP would never agree to this. Well what is the perspetive for the SWP and the SP. Is this just going to be played out that both will try and outdo the other by recruiting more members. This would be sectarianism and bad tactics and bad for the working class. The SP in my opinion should put the ideas i suggest to the anarchist movement, the SWP and of course the local shop stewards and tendants associations and other left and activist organizations. It should take this issue to the rank and file of the SWP and open up the debate it its ranks.
In the last presidential elections In France the revolutionary left stood three candidates in what was a crime against the French and international working class. As far as I can see each one blamed the other for not being willing to cooperate etc. But one of these organizations should have taken up the battle for a single candidate and taken this to the leadership and the ranks of the other parties and into the working class and in this way “forced” the other parties to cooperate in the sense that if they did not they would be exposed in the eyes of the working class and their own members.
A similar situation exists in Ireland the SP should take up the battle for the united direct action struggles on the issues afflicting the working class, should address the workng class with this and at the same time openly and directly approach the other left and activist organizations to unite in this work. To not do this is to approach the issue in a sectarian way and as a result to realize only a fraction of what is possible at this time. Please read my last post for more detail on this. And please also consider what the huge numbers acting against the war in Ireland represent.
And Isaac I am very glad to debate with you but it would be better for everybody concerned if we try and properly represent each others positions.
John Throne.
YOu recruited Kevin McL, Joe Higgins Dermot C etc. So what? DO you think that means we should automatically give you respect for the positions you hold now? The workers movement is littered with examples of people that have played important roles but have fell by the wayside.
Where exactly are these hundreds of activists wishing to take on capitalism? They simply do not exist at this point. That is the weakness of the IAWM in my view, it had hundreds that were willing to go on demos but a very small number that were willing to get active in the groups. This is were consciouness is at the moment, people will express opposition to capitalism but will not get active. To launch a new broad formation at this stage would be immature.
This last posting replying to john throne says:
'YOu recruited Kevin McL, Joe Higgins Dermot C etc. So what? DO you think that means we should automatically give you respect for the positions you hold now? The workers movement is littered with examples of people that have played important roles but have fell by the wayside'
There is something quite nauseous about this tone coming from the SP. I think the organisation should recognise that it very seriously puts off anybody interested in left wing politics. It suggests they don't care about debate, and are more concerned in building a tiny, monlthic sect than a real party. Which I suppose is what has been achieved.
The tone is one of utter contempt, based usually on not addressing the arguments. Here is a person who was full time for the CWi for many years and who made enormous sacrifices to build it. He is putting forward a reasoned argument. The response is - barely disguised hatred, and contempt. How can you seriously list his achievements, and then say - so what? I'd like to compare them to yours anyday.
In any trade union I belong to, it is regarded as vitally important to treat different opinions with some respect and address the opinions, rather than denounce the character of someone uttering them. When that person has years of service to the trade union, it is even more important. The shrill and I would say sometimes near hysterical tone adopted by some SP members on the list here inadvertanely reinforces the point that their internal life is disastrous. If they respond to someone like JT like this, imagine what they do to other people, imagine how they come down like a ton of bricks on anyone daft enough to think that s/he has an idea better than Peter Hadden. Imagine how you would fare, if you conducted yourself in a trade union like this.
Like most postings here, it also does not actually address the argument. Even Isaac doesn't do this, but sets up a straw man position that no one has advocated, and tries to camouflage the emptiness of the argument by chuntering on about Max Shactman.
I must say, the general level seems to have declined in the past years - drastically. I would have been ashamed to resort to such low levels of argument in the past....
"Did you vote to allow me to speak to the CWI membership..."
Yes there was a vote about allowing JT attend and speak at the Conference. The Conference voted overwhelmingly not to allow him in.
Firtly, John, thanks for replying to my message but it is more than a little ironic, that in a posting in which you accuse me of being dishonest and not answering the points raised that you ignore, not one, not two but 5 questions and points which I made to you. These are the points and questions I made and would like answered:
1. What does JT make of the similar evolution of LMV and the so-called 'Left Party' outside of the CWI? - see above for more detail.
2. "If JT accepts the importance of objective factors, how can he possibly claim today in Ireland, after the end of the Celtic Tiger boom, whereby the economic basis was laid for a reasonably peaceful "social partnership", we should be using the tactics used in the US, after the great depression of 1929, where the capitalist class was engaged in an even more brutal attack on the living standards of ordinary people than today? A correct tactic applied at one time in a certain set of circumstances, can be completely abstract, and even wrong in cases where it is applied dogmatically to another set of circumstances. The whole point of Marxism is that it is a method of analysis, rather than a prescription of demands or slogans."- Again see above for more detail.
3. The experience in Scotland post the split is a clear indication of the correctness of the ideas put forward by the Scottish minority faction, and the IS at the time? Again see above for more detail.
4. Yet again in your latest post you refer to the IS taking the leadership from this group, and giving it to that group etc., this shows the greatest disrespect to the membership of the US section. The question asked before was: "What about the Conference of the US section, is it not the Conference which elected these leaderships? Is it also not true that you were voted off the leadership democratically?"
5. If you don't admit that those documents of Roger Silverman are predominantly organisational, (people can read them and make up their own minds), the question nonetheless remains - does having the majority of your documents about the CWI on your website by someone who is not a member of your political tendency, not reveal an 'anti-CWI' mentality, rather than a positive political alternative program to the leadership? (Admittedly, this question is somewhat reformulated, but I think the point made is the same.)
Now, in answer to the points raised in your last contribution:
Firstly, in relation to the primacy of political questions, and the split between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. You claim that the split between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks took place on an organisational question. Firstly, remember that it was the Mensheviks who split, not the Bolsheviks. The difference on the definition of membership is an organisational question, in reality it represented a political one and relates to the meaning of a revolutionary party. For information's sake, the different formulations proposed were:
Lenin: "A member of the party is someone who agrees with its programme and supports the party materially as well as working personally in one of its organisations."
Martov: "a member of the party is someone who agrees with its programme and supports the party both materially and in working under the control and direction of one of its organisations."
This represents the confusing of a Party for a 'Circle', (dealt with below) by the Mensheviks, and thus rejecting the conception of a united democratically centralist revolutionary party. While this was an organisational question, it served as a starting point for a swing towards political mistakes. It is in this context that Lenin recognised the seriousness of it, saying "I by no means consider our differences [over Paragraph 1] so vital as to be a matter of life or death to the Party. We shall certainly not perish because of an unfortunate clause in the Rules." Here, Lenin is recognising the primacy of political questions.
Also, it is worth noting that while this question represented the starting point of the split, and the crystallisation of the different tendencies, the Mensheviks actually won on this question because of the votes of the Bundists, who were later to leave the Congress, and the issue that the Mensheviks actually split upon was the composition of the leadership. The response of the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks is instructive. While the Bolsheviks took a political approach to the split, it was the Mensheviks who concentrated on the organisational question, that of the 'Internal Regime', with Trotsky (then a Menshevik) accusing "Maximillian Lenin" of instituting a "Republic of Virtue and Terror".
I have never claimed that questions of organisation are irrelevant, I have simply tried to shift debate into the realm of politics, which is the prime question for Marxists. Despite all the talk of a dictatorial 'Internal Regime', very little in hard evidence which Irish comrades would have experience of, is presented with the exception of throwing in the 'imperious' slur against Peter Hadden! Perhaps if I had experienced organisational difficulties in the CWI which you talk about, I would be more willing to deal with them in concrete terms.
Secondly, in terms of the conception of the revolutionary party - firstly, I accept the use of the word 'classical' by me was a clumsy phrase and undialectical. The idea I was trying to express was one of a united democratic revolutionary party, the form of which absolutely can be changed throughout different objective conditions. To claim that the CWI has not been flexible in terms of organisation is to close your eyes to the whole history of our movement. You say the Bolsheviks were a faction of a party with a reformist majority for years, as if to prove that the CWI is nowhere near that flexible - you were a leading member of the Militant when it worked within the Labour Party - surely that is flexibility!
You also talk about the circles before the RSDLP in Russia. Lenin never idealised these circles and papers which constituted the revolutionary movement in Russia at the time - he repeatedly talked about moving out of a 'Circle spirit' and into a 'Party Spirit', a key question at the 1903 Conference of the RSDLP was Lenin's insistence on the fact that these 'Circles' should not have political autonomy, and should be subordinated to the Party as a whole - hence a party.
The CWI does not in any way reject or not allow factions. We are a healthy democratic centralist organisation, which means that debates are had to decide perspectives, strategy, tactics etc., and the party in 'unity' carries out the decisions reached by the majority. There are many examples which refute your implicit allegation of a monolithic International, one good one being the fact that within the CWI at the moment, there are different positions on the characterisation of China, with the Swedish comrades asserting that China is now a capitalist state, whereas the IS argues that it is a state in transition, undoubtedly moving towards capitalism. If the leadership of the CWI has such a problem with political "dissent", why have the Swedish comrades not been expelled? In fact, why was a public pamphlet produced by the Swedish comrades arguing for their proposition?
Thirdly, in relation to the role you played in building the Irish SP and the CWI, which our supposed ex-Northern comrade makes such a big deal about - do not have any doubt, I do have massive respect for your role in doing this, as I have for anyone who dedicates their life to socialism. However, you must admit that this argument that you recruited all these people etc. doesn't hold any weight in a political discussion. To return to dialectics, it would be thoroughly undialectical to argue that because someone played a very good role in the past, they will inevitably always do so. History has taught us that at a certain stage those revolutionary leaders who in the past played a key revolutionary role, can become a brake on the movement, just look at Plekhanov, Kautsky, even to a much lesser extent, Grant and Woods. We truly would have an awful 'Internal Regime', if the credentials of leading members were unquestioned forever.
Finally, in relation to your points on your suggestion for Ireland today - these points of yours have been made repeatedly, and they are not getting a response from the vast majority of comrades in Ireland, because, quite simply, they reveal you as completely out of touch with the mood here, a fact which interestingly you admit when discussing what name the "left workers' party" would have. This is, of course, no fault of your own, but it should lead you to question the reliability of those sources which give you all this positive news. Repeatedly, you fail to take the points that are made about the objective situation in Ireland today.
All of the things you mention - Water Charges, election of Joe, near election of Clare, anti-war movement, are absolutely very positive things. However, you have vastly overestimated what they represent.
Today, in truth there is not a very significant layer of activists involved in the bin tax, it is one of the major weaknesses in the campaign, that while the ideas of mass non-payment have proved attractive for many, for most, the ideas of building an active campaign on the ground have not found a resonance. Again, in terms of the elections, there is a real mood of anger and now betrayal at the policies of the government, and this is reflected by a rise in our vote, above all in a rise in SF's vote - this does not indicate necessarily that there are significant layers at this stage who are willing to go beyond voting for 'radical' candidates and actually build a fightback. The same applies to the massive anti-war movement - absolutely it was an indication of something very significant, as was the anti-government mood prevalent on the demonstrations. However, the lack of activists in the IAWM again backs up the point that a significant section of society is beginning to draw some conclusions from their experiences over the last period, but the vast majority is not yet willing to take decisive action to defend their own interests.
The proposal to build action committees etc. would be hit by reality in a particularly painful manner were it to be put to the test. The "many activists" that you refer to would not rally behind it, because, generally speaking they do not exist - there are not "hundreds of left activists" in Dublin (and it was in Dublin that you argued there were in your original Open Letter, I accept that there are hundreds across Ireland), including the membership of all the 'left' parties. This is a fact, and indicates that your program is a program for different objective conditions.
By the way, you ask a question about the membership of the anarchists. The main force is the Workers' Solidarity Movement, and I'm fairly sure their membership is somewhere below 20.
Isaac, The issue is relatively simple. When an organization acts in a way contrary to how it says it says it acts, contrary to what it tells its new members it stands for, then it has to cover up. Part of this cover up is to slander whoever raises the past mistakes and undemocratic actions. This is why i am attacked as sectarian, pathetic, past it etc etc. Along with this comes the lies and evasions. And this process corrupts the internal life of the organization.
Myself and other minority Comrades were expelled. I accept without qualification that the CWI has the right to do expell members. However the constitution of the CWI guarantees that its members have the right if expelled to appeal to the membership and the organization as a whole against their expulsion. This is a constitutional right. What is meant by this is that this right cannot be taken from a member or members by a majority vote. The party cannot deny any member or members their rights by a majority vote. When the Irish CC voted to refuse to allow me to appeal against my expulsion it was acting against the constitution of the CWI and the Irish section. What the organization can do is open up a discussion to change its constitution to take away this right for ALL members. A constitutional change means well notified proposals in advance and a special conference to discuss and decide on this.
We were expelled and denied our rights. This is what lies at the heart of the tone and content of the responses of yourself and the CWI to my ideas. The CWI is trying to cover up the fact that it acted against its own constitution and undemocratically, that its own constitution when it came down to it was not worth the paper it was written on. As it tries to cover up this fact it is forced to lie and distort and slander. It is forced to try and write people out of history to call them all sorts of names and accuse them of all sorts of things. In other words its own past undemocratic practices lead to further undemocratic practices and the entire inner moral core of the organization begins to be eaten away.
I have had so many different lies told about and to me on this issue that it is staggering. Just one example. A couple of years ago in Dublin I met with a leading Comrade of the Irish section. In one half hour he told me the following. It was a lie that I was expelled. The truth he insisted was I was never expelled. It was a lie that I never had the right to appeal against my expulsion. I had been given my right to appeal against my expulsion. This was and is a very intelligent Comrade. This is an example of the kind of mess the CWI is in and how its refusal to face up to its past mistakes eats at the organization.
This person who signs himself Isaac b, by the way we are not ignorant whose name you are taking. And another by the way, why do you not use your own name. Then we could discuss concretely your role in the undemocratic practises.
You ask me to respond to some questions. I will try and do so. I would also ask you to respond to the issue of constitutional rights and expulsions.
Isaac writes:
1. What does JT make of the similar evolution of LMV and the so-called 'Left Party' outside of the CWI? - see above for more detail.
JT writes: Well I can see no similiar evolution. We in LMV are totally involved in the direct action anti war movement and in the opposition in the unions and never meet or see this group. It was the CWI leadership whom Isaac has taken it upon himself to defend who thought it had a "similiar evolution" with these people. When we opposed their recruitment among other things we pointed out that in their paper they had advertisments for prostitution involving immigrant Asian women. The CWI's answer was to dismiss this by saying that "this was California." If you have any questions Isaac then raise with the CWI leadership why it took this position. Why it accepted this group with its ads for prostitution. Why it thought it had enough in common with this group to recruit it.
Isaac writes:
2. "If JT accepts the importance of objective factors, how can he possibly claim today in Ireland, after the end of the Celtic Tiger boom, whereby the economic basis was laid for a reasonably peaceful "social partnership", we should be using the tactics used in the US, after the great depression of 1929, where the capitalist class was engaged in an even more brutal attack on the living standards of ordinary people than today? A correct tactic applied at one time in a certain set of circumstances, can be completely abstract, and even wrong in cases where it is applied dogmatically to another set of circumstances. The whole point of Marxism is that it is a method of analysis, rather than a prescription of demands or slogans."- Again see above for more detail.
JT writes: Yes you certainly sound very learned Isaac. However the SP used the tactics of the 1929-33 period in the water charges. I also understand that a whole section of the working class especially the unorganized working class was by passed by the Celtic Tiger. And we also in my opinion have to recognize that the revolutionary socialist forces are more disconnected from the working class than in 100 years. And that an active "advanced layer" of the working class is more absent than in many decades. For these reasons amongst others the revolutionary anti capitalist forces have to show in action that it is taking on the capitalist offensive on the ground and that it can win victories. These are the main reaons I advocate such tactics.
Isaac writes:
3. The experience in Scotland post the split is a clear indication of the correctness of the ideas put forward by the Scottish minority faction, and the IS at the time? Again see above for more detail.
JT writes:I am not sure what aspect of this issue you are referring to. Is the CWI group not also active in the SSP, building the SSP. Even if all the CWI says about the lack of resources put into building the ISM, and I personally think that the ISM is not putting enough resources into building the ISM, , and correct also on the the concessions to nationalism which I would need to read more to be sure of, this is still no reason to act in the way it did. That is to use a personal relationship to win over a member in Scotland and then secretly construct a minority around this person and work to split the then Scottish section.
Isaac writes:
4. Yet again in your latest post you refer to the IS taking the leadership from this group, and giving it to that group etc., this shows the greatest disrespect to the membership of the US section. The question asked before was: "What about the Conference of the US section, is it not the Conference which elected these leaderships? Is it also not true that you were voted off the leadership democratically?"
JT writes:
Isaac you insist on drawing out every dirty detail about the CWI. However i will resist this time. I will restrain myself and answer this in a different way. Trotskyism became a minority in the mass third international. Yet went on to wage a major campaign on its ideas. But according to your logic the majority had voted and so why was Trotsky insulting the membership of the Third International. What was he whining about. Please do not insult peoples intelligence.
Isaac writes:
5. If you don't admit that those documents of Roger Silverman are predominantly organisational, (people can read them and make up their own minds), the question nonetheless remains - does having the majority of your documents about the CWI on your website by someone who is not a member of your political tendency, not reveal an 'anti-CWI' mentality, rather than a positive political alternative program to the leadership? (Admittedly, this question is somewhat reformulated, but I think the point made is the same.)
J T writes:
Let me get this straight. You know that Roger is not part of our political tendency. This is intersting information for me. But leave this aside. Having an article from Roger is a sign that we are anti CWI? Some of this material of Rogers is from a debate in the CWI between Peter Taaffe and Roger when both were members. So was this anti CWI when they were debating in the CWI. And Roger, who is he. Roger was the International Secretary of the CWI from it was founded in 1974 until the 1990's. But of course what you are trying to do here is change the subject away from your totally false allegation that Rogers articles on the CWI are "personal and organizational". Now that I have asked people to go and read them you are surrying for cover. I do not think many people are being fooled here Isaac.
Just like you are scurrying for cover on the organizational question that split the mencheviks and the bolsheviks. Of course behind every organizational question there are political issues. But now you are trying to say that this was not really an organizational question. So the logic of this is that there are no organizational questions. Only political issues. Then you go on and quote Lenin and Martov and call Trotsky a menshevik all this in the hope that by the end of it your readers will have forgotten what you said in the first place.
By the way Isaac you write: about throwing in the 'imperious' slur against Peter Hadden!" It was Peter Taaffe who called Hadden "imperious" not me. Take it up with Taaffe,
Isaac writes; Secondly, in terms of the conception of the revolutionary party - firstly, I accept the use of the word 'classical' by me was a clumsy phrase and undialectical. The idea I was trying to express was one of a united democratic revolutionary party, the form of which absolutely can be changed throughout different objective conditions.
J T writes: But we are here again with the "united democratic revolutionary party". But the whole point I make is that the history of the bolshevism is that it was not a "united democratic revolutionary party" for most of its life and especially as Trotsky said for the most healthy and vibrant period of its life. It was a party of factions and factional struggle. This is what the CWI does not accept. Its efforts to make the CWI united on all issues is precisely what makes inevitable the splits and expulsions now that there is no longer one agreed world analysis and orientation.
This wrong approach to the life and nature of the party, this inability of the leadership to accept factions and sustained factional struggle makes it impossible for either the CWI or the Irish SP to become a mass revolutionary organization. The larger it gets the closer to serious differences and the closer to the manoeuvres and expulsions and splits. Unless the CWI changes its internal life then it will be incapable of becoming a mass revolutionary international. I do not consider myself an enemy of the CWI. I consider that I am fighting for a position that would in fact make it possible for the CWI to become a mass international, for the Irish SP to become a mass party.
Isaac writes: To claim that the CWI has not been flexible in terms of organisation is to close your eyes to the whole history of our movement. You say the Bolsheviks were a faction of a party with a reformist majority for years, as if to prove that the CWI is nowhere near that flexible - you were a leading member of the Militant when it worked within the Labour Party - surely that is flexibility!
J T writes: Please do not insult our intelligence. We all know the difference between practising entryism in a mass reformist party and the internal life of the revolutionary organization.
Isaac writes: You also talk about the circles before the RSDLP in Russia. Lenin never idealised these circles and papers which constituted the revolutionary movement in Russia at the time - he repeatedly talked about moving out of a 'Circle spirit' and into a 'Party Spirit', a key question at the 1903 Conference of the RSDLP was Lenin's insistence on the fact that these 'Circles' should not have political autonomy, and should be subordinated to the Party as a whole - hence a party.
J T writes: This proves very little except that the language that Lenin used, "subordinated" for example, is not applicable to serious work in the new movement today after the experience of stalinism etc. The point I am making is that neither the RSDLP nor the Bolsheviks had an internal life like the CWI. They were full of factions and sustained factional struggle. Like Engels said the party develops through struggle both internal struggle and struggle with the bourgeoisie. This is not the position of the CWI. The position of the CWI is that the party develops through the leaderhsip teaching the membership and through a unified party irrespective of the objective conditions and a party whose members listen to the teaching of the leadership.
Again on the Bolsheviks. In the period running up to October 1917 the Bolsheviks in Petrograd were putting out three different public papers with differences in them. If this happened in the CWI there would be a collective heart attack of the leadership. To be serious the CWI leadership would be looking to split the various currents and drive them out or "subordinate" them.
Isaac writes: The CWI does not in any way reject or not allow factions. We are a healthy democratic centralist organisation, which means that debates are had to decide perspectives, strategy, tactics etc., and the party in 'unity' carries out the decisions reached by the majority. There are many examples which refute your implicit allegation of a monolithic International, one good one being the fact that within the CWI at the moment, there are different positions on the characterisation of China, with the Swedish comrades asserting that China is now a capitalist state, whereas the IS argues that it is a state in transition, undoubtedly moving towards capitalism. If the leadership of the CWI has such a problem with political "dissent", why have the Swedish comrades not been expelled? In fact, why was a public pamphlet produced by the Swedish comrades arguing for their proposition?
J T writes; As I have said many times of course there are differences in the CWI. The one you refer to above seems a very minor one, a question of the tempo of the move to capitalist restoration in China, the phase we are at in this process at this time. Both sides agree on the process as far as I can tell from what you say. But what the CWI cannot tolerate is the existance of factions and sustained factional struggle. I have heard Isaac's agrument for 30 years and believed it for many of those. He claims the CWI has no problem with factional struggle. If this is so then where are the factions that have not been expelled or not split. The internal life of the CWI is one that sees a faction as a threat and the present leadership reacts to this to drive it out.The leaders of the Ted G faction coming from the same position on organization saw their faction as the first step to a split.
One of the reasons I was in favor of formally setting up a faction from the beginning of our dispute in the US was in an effort to try and change the internal culture to accept that factions were inevitable and necessary and that it was possible to be a member of the CWI with its best interests at heart and be in a faction. This did not work. I failed dramatically.
Isaac writes:
Thirdly, in relation to the role you played in building the Irish SP and the CWI, which our supposed ex-Northern comrade makes such a big deal about - do not have any doubt, I do have massive respect for your role in doing this, as I have for anyone who dedicates their life to socialism. However, you must admit that this argument that you recruited all these people etc. doesn't hold any weight in a political discussion.
J T writes: I agree entirely with this. The point I made when I said I recruited many of the top SP members was that you were wasting your time with many of your arguments about how healthy things are in the CWi as I had been so central to this organization for so long. But I realise that you are not writing to convince me you are writing to keep the party line afloat especially amongst the young members that you now have. Could i just qualify one thing about what you say above. Does the fact that the leading members of the Irsih SP have a record of struggle and sacrifice not "hold any weight in a political discussion". I would think that it does. Dialectics I will not comment on again. As you said yourself your formualtion on the "classical" party was undialectical and in spite of all the contortions in this letter remains so.
Isaac writes:
Finally, in relation to your points on your suggestion for Ireland today - these points of yours have been made repeatedly, and they are not getting a response from the vast majority of comrades in Ireland, because, quite simply, they reveal you as completely out of touch with the mood here, a fact which interestingly you admit when discussing what name the "left workers' party" would have. This is, of course, no fault of your own, but it should lead you to question the reliability of those sources which give you all this positive news. Repeatedly, you fail to take the points that are made about the objective situation in Ireland today.
All of the things you mention - Water Charges, election of Joe, near election of Clare, anti-war movement, are absolutely very positive things. However, you have vastly overestimated what they represent.
JT writes: Thank you Isaac for accepting that my position is not just build a mass left party. After many postings I am glad that we are dealing with the issue that I raise as the main work today that of seeking to draw together the activists in action committees locally around direct action struggle on the local manifestations of the offensive of capitalism. I will not say much more about this now. i have gone over it again and again. The position of Isaac and the CWI is that it is all the ojective situation. This is what explains the lack of any significant activist layer. This is what explains the slow development of the SP. But the question I have been raising is what role does the policy of the SP play in all this. I believe that the policy of the SP to build united fronts including local action committees on specific issues and recruit directly to the SP is not one that realizes the full potential of the situation.
I will not go into this much more I have already done so. Just in relation to hundreds of left activists in Dublin. How many members has the SP, the SWP, the anarchists, the other groups in Dublin. I am sure there are hundreds. But the SP does not count these. It sees left activists as its own members plus new workers and youth coming into action with no association with other anti capitalist groups. What is the policy of the SP to deal with the fact that there are hundreds of left activists in different groups and in none. In my opinion it is sectarianism not to address this issue with united front policies so that the largest number of activists can fight together against the offensive of capitalism. I also think that a major political battle by the SP to put this issue on the agenda would begin to attract the attention of many former activist, many members of existing groups, many shop stewards and tenats activists, many of the new anti war forces, tens of thousands of whom it seems to me have taken action for the first time. The SP says to all these forces to join the SP. This does not seem to me to be answering the needs of the situation, to be realizing the potential of the situation.
John Throne
John can you please answer properly the question below that Issac B asked you?
"Yet again in your latest post you refer to the IS taking the leadership from this group, and giving it to that group etc., this shows the greatest disrespect to the membership of the US section. The question asked before was: "What about the Conference of the US section, is it not the Conference which elected these leaderships? Is it also not true that you were voted off the leadership democratically?"
Khalid
I wonder why you and other SP members keep harping on that those CWI members around john Throne were in a minority at a conference of the organisation? I don't see what this has to do with his expulsion and the denial of his right to appeal. And what is this fetish about percentages? we all know that majorities can be obtained by many means, and that this only sometimes involves winning an argument. Stalin regularly had massive majorities! I don't recall Trotsky saying: ok, we lost the vote, Stalin must be right, now we will shut up. Do you?
Moreover, this is a different issue entirely to whether these people should have been expelled, and then denied their rights of appeal. Are you seriously suggesting that is ok to expel minorities? To fire them? To slander them as cranks and enemies? Come on. You wouldn't accept such an approach from right wing trade union bureacrats, but seem to imagine that it is okay within the CWI. Why the double standards? It is precisely this intolerance of dissent, disagreement and debate, sustained by an unhealthy dose of hypocrisy, that has done so much damage to the revolutionary left.
I am afraid that the CWi, SP and co are emerging from this discussion looking very shifty indeed. Have you something terrible to hide?
Isaac B, in defending the CWI, writes:
"Fially, in relation to the political questions raised (and clearly it would be incredibly hypocritical of me to ignore them!) I have a number of points. Firstly, John Reimann's comment is as far as I know the first time that your differences with the majority in the US have been raised, so it is surely understandable that they have not been answered so far. These questions were answered repeatedly by the majority in the US. Admittedly, I am not as fully aware of the situation and arguments I ought to be, I will try to rectify this, and then maybe contribute again."
This is quite an astounding statement. Just to give one example of how this whole issue was dealt with: When it was first debated at an IEC, a motion was put forward (by Peter Taaffeor by Lynne Walsh, I don't remember which) that the IEC goes on record in supporting the majority of the US group on the organizational issues. I then objected, saying that ALL the issues should be considered. It was only then that the motion was changed to include the political issues.
I raise this little incident because it is such a clear indication of how terrified the IS was of any serious consideration of the political issues. I see that Isaac still does not comment on the issues related to the Labor "Party".
As I wrote previously, we tried over and over to raise the political issues and were over and over buried in a mountain of organizational attacks.
The main point: One can say that the Labor "Party" issue is over and done with. And so it is, since our perspectives for this body were borne out. However, beneath that debate was an issue of absolute poltical principle: How one relates to the leadership of the unions.
In Chicago, the remnants of the old Labor Militant have fallen in bed with the "progressive" wing of the union hierarchy, just as they did during the Labor "Party" days. I don't know what they are doing on the E. Coast, but my suspicion is that it is much the same. In any case, they have declined due to their disastrous political orientation.
Here in California, the CWI has nothing any more, so one can't say much. Except for this: During the time of the debate, the Petroni group out here had one member who was a union activist and local officer in his union. At one point he signed a document put out by the bureaucracy here in support of the "team concept" (labor and management are all on the same team). We raised this several times. Finally, Lynn Walsh said in response that this was only a "petty detail." It shows how seriously Lynn and the IS took what was happening in the unions here.
In any case, the debate over the Labor "Party" clearly is of fundamental importance today for us here in the US. And for others? Well, the IS's sacrifice of all political principle for factional advantages, and the acceptance of this on the part of the leadership of almost all the sections - this has had a disastrous affect on the entire CWI.
I will look forward to Isaac's comments on the Labor "Party" issue. However, I will not be holding my breath until those comments arrive.
John Reimann
Oakland CA
PS. On another issue. I received a note with the following alleged quote from a current CWI document:
"The liberation of Kirkuk and Mosul by the peshmerga forces of the
Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and the Kurdish Democratic Party
(KDP) is a great victory for the Kurdish people. Despite the apparent
agreement between the US and PUK/KDP leaders to withdraw the peshmergas,
however, the Kurdish takeover of these key cities, at the centre of
Iraq's second-biggest oil field, has the potential to trigger armed
intervention by the Turkish regime, igniting a war within a war."
Is this quote accurate? If so, I find it astounding that an organization that claims to be socialist would make such a statement. You have here some forces who are acting on behalf of and dependent on US imperialism who have taken over an area. This is "liberation"?
I dont think Khalid was saying that Throne should give up simply because he is a minority. What he seems to be getting at is the fact that the majority of the membership of the US section disagreed with Throne and democratically elected a new leadership. hat Throne should have done was stay in the CWI and argue for his position and try to win back a majority for his line of argument. This is Trotsky did. It is not what Throen did however, Throne left the party when elected off the leadership. He may protray this as an 'explusion' but he left of his own free will.
You seem to imply that the CWI were guilty of Stalinist type tactics to get a majority at that conference, this is not the case. You should take back those suggestions.
Apologies for my late arrival in this discussion. I only recently became aware of it.
I was very interested to read the comments of Isaac B on the article I wrote, "Reflections on the History of the CWI". This is the first time I have heard the criticism that my article was either "organisational" or "personal" in nature. Even Peter Taaffe's reply - which I am sorry to say did itself include a number of irrelevant personal gibes against me - did not attempt to accuse me of this. My article was an attempt to explain theoretically both the political successes and failures of the CWI over the course of its history up until 1994, on the basis of a study of its perspectives. You may agree with it or disagree, but I would challenge anyone to justify the comment that it was either "organisational" or still less "personal". I suspect that Isaac has not actually read it. I would urge anyone interested in this subject to read it, either on the Labor's Militant Voice or the Movements for Socialism websites, and to take up its arguments.
Secondly, I am gratified to note that the new website "Movements for Socialism" has been acknowledged in Isaac's message. I appeal to all comrades to log on and read it (www.movementsforsocialism.com). Once again, how on earth can the argument be justified that it is a "liquidationist" tendency? Please read, among other items there, my article "Towards a Workers' International". I would welcome an honest debate among us all about its ideas. You will see that it is exactly the opposite of "liquidationist". It defines the nature of the tasks facing Marxists today. I do not apologise for arguing that they are not the same as they were when there were mass workers' parties in existence throughout the world, at the time when I was a leading figure on the International Secretariat of the CWI (1973-93). Does anyone think they are still the same today?
The article argues for Marxists to campaign today, not as in those days to create an alternative leadership to the reformists and Stalinists (since their former base in mass workers' parties has gone), but for the unification of existing organisations of struggle throughout the world into an anti-capitalist international, and, within the forum thereby established, to fight for Marxist ideas. Only out of such a struggle can a revolutionary international (a "vanguard", if you like) be forged. Were Marx and Engels liquidationists too? If so, I am proud to be in such good company. I believe the events, for instance, of 15th February, when 30 million were on the march worldwide, show the mass basis for a new international today.
Finally, I want to take this opportunity to clear up the other misunderstanding in Isaac's contribution. He has taken refuge in the accusation that the US comrades are showing a lack of principle by publishing material by myself, since I am apparently not a member of theirs. Let me make it clear: I am happy to declare my full solidarity with the ideas and activities of the comrades around the website "Labor's Militant Voice".
Roger Silverman
I think the fact that the Labour Party 'campaign' group and The SSP ISM are linked from your page is an indication of something. I think people should visit the site and make up their own mind
I note the following comment from factman, which echoes a theme on this site and one I have heard elsewhere:
'Throne left the party when elected off the leadership. He may protray this as an 'explusion' but he left of his own free will.'
Now, there is nothing else to call this but an outright lie. If Throne simply left, why is he and others campaigning to be heard at CWI events to appeal his expulsion? If he left he would have been turning his back completely on the organisation, and to try and appeal against an expulsion that never took place is a self evident absurdity. This holds no credibility.
But what it does raise is this. Elementary honesty over even basic facts is now something that is absent in the CWI. I ask the comrades: how can you even begin to hope that you can build real support in the workers movement by lies and distortion, by denying the most obvious facts already known to everybody? It simply does not worked, never has worked and never will work.
Equally grevious are the exaggerations about your influence in Northern Ireland. These fool nobody. Do they fool yourselves? They might fool far flung individuals associated with the CWI (for a period), but this is very temporary gain.
What you should do is honestly admit what we all know - people like Throne were expelled. Then have the decency to defend what you did and debate it. But to carry out expulsions and then not even defend them, but to deny they ever occurred - George Orwell would be proud of you as a case study in double think. This is stalinism of the purest kind, and it is a disgrace to the tradition of Trotskyism. You really should hang your heads in shame.
Those with the least ounce of intellectual honesty and curiousity will now see the real problem we had in the debate which ended up in our expulsion. (Incidentally, it was not only John T. who was expelled - there were five of us in all, plus all other California comrades not in the Petroni group. These latter weren't formally expelled - just dropped by the CWI and its US group.)
Isaac raised the issue of where is the politics. I and others replied. He has yet to comment. Meanwhile, another CWI apologist invents a totally new organizational attack which must be answered. They thus succeed once again in diverting the discussion away from the political differences.
As far as "Fact"man's allegations - we were formally expelled. We argued for our political points at all levels of the CWI until our expulsion. We argued for these points both before and after we were in the official leadership. The idea that John or any of us dropped out is a totally new allegation. Not even the master of deception, Lynn Walsh, made that claim at the time.
So, I'll not be holding my breath until "Fact"man or Isaac or anybody else representing the CWI leadership deals with the political points we have made on this thread. We made these points over and over during the debate, and they refused to reply then. Why should we expect it now, after our perspectives proved to be correct and their proved so disastrously mistaken?
I would like to try and encourage some more discussion on the issue that has been raised by Roger S and myself about the tens of milloions who have been active and marching first against global capitalism and second against the US led invasion of Iraq and the US capitalist plans to rule the world. I believe that one of the most important issues that organizations and activists like the SP, the LMV, the new anarchist movement, the SWP etc etc have to face is what do we say about and to this movement. How do we approach this movement.
What are the perspectives for the international movement that we have seen around and after Seattle, Genoa, etc., and around the invasion of Iraq. The first thing that strikes me is that these are not two isolated events that took place and they are over. It seems to me that they are the beginnings of something new. Capitalism is increasingly dominant worlwide and seen to be responsible for the world catastrophe of poverty, oppression, war, environmental destruction, lack of control over our lives, sexism, racism etc. US capitalism is now putting itself out front abnd trying to dominate all else and is especially seen as the reason for the crisis. In response and opposition to this these new movements have developed.
The mass reformist organizations of stalinism and social democracy have either disappeared of gone totally over to the bourgois and are helping administer the capitalist offensive. The trade unions with very few exceptions are on the same path at this time. I think at a certain time the existing unions can begin to reflect the pressure from below and as a result can begin to organize more serious opposition. However at the present and for the immediate future this is not the case to any serious extent.
As the international crisis of society under capitalism is increasingly seen to be developing the old previously existing reformist international structures are to all extents and purposes non existant. The vacuum that results is now being filled by the kind of very broad based movements such as the anti global capitalist movement and the anti war movements. The political ideas of these movements were and are very diverse and undeveloped. But nevertheless these movements have been the international opposition forces that have been confronting the affects of capitalism over the past few years. (I do not have time to deal with it in this posting but this vacuum is also being filled by reactionary forces as well. Racism, religious fundamentalism, etc.)
I believe that these type of movements, anti capitalist globalization, anti war, taking on the affects of capitalism world wide are here to stay. As I say these news movements are indicators of the kind of anti capitalist developments of the future. As the economic crisis develops I think it is likely that sections of the organized working class will become more prominent in these and that they will become more working class in composition. However the main thing for me in the present period is that we have to recognize that we are in the presence of the early stages of a new international movement.
This movement will change its targets frequently. It does not have and will probably not have for some time any clear cohesive leading core or alternative. It has and will have all sorts of ideas in it. But I repeat again I think that it the shape of things to come and the start of a new movement. It represents the early beginnings of a new international movement.
The big question for myself and for LMV and our co-thinkers coming out of this perspective is what do we do and what do we say about and to this movement. As this is part of a discussion which arose out of issues concerning the CWI, what does the CWI say to this movement, but this question refers equally to all groups and activists, what is your position in relation to this new movement. The CWI and most revolutionary international groups call on the activists in this new movement to join their organization. I have no problem with this in and of itself, but if this is as far as it goes then it is totally inadequate and also holds the movement back. For every one that joins a revolutionary group the overwhelming majority will not be prepared to do so at this time or in the immediate and medium term future but they will be looking for more effective ways to struggle and for further clarification of ideas.
LMV has the position that we should campaign for an anti capitalist international. That is we should fight within this movement and fight in our general day to day work for the transformation of this new movement into an international with structures and with an anti capitalist policy. That it would also adopt an orientation to the working class and a position based on the idea that it will be the working class that can show the alternative to capitalism. That it also commits itself to serious direct action fight to win policies and clearly opposes the token protests with which we are all familiar.
We believe that while there are many differences between then and now we can look to the first international for some help in understanding how this can develop and the role we can and should play within it. Revolutionary socialism has been seriously damaged by the success of capitalism in associating it with stalinism. It is very far from the situation of 50 years ago when forces moving into struggle tended to associate themselves with socialism and there were mass workers organizations which played lip service to socialism and said they were socialist. Therefore we think that the struggle to convince the new movement and new activists of the need to build an anti capitalism international is the policy which most closely corresponds to the consciousness, needs and potential of the movement.
Such a policy will only have any real success if it is rooted in the day to day concrete struggles. If it is having the effect in these struggles of throwing back the capitalist offensive and making the capitalists pay. In other words if it shows that it can change peoples lives for the better. We have to fight for this movement to take up the affects of the capitalist offensive where it hits the day to day lives of the working class and oppose these with direct action tactics that will make those who carry out these realize that there are consequences and allow the working class people who are targeted to participate in struggles that make their lives better. We have to link together the war in Iraq with the war against working people.
As well as fighting for the idea that the mass international struggles should work towards a new mass anti capitalist international those of us who have a theoretically based policy for ending capitalism and the kind of alternative we want should continue to build our own organizations within this new mass international. The different ideas can be put in front of the new movement in struggle and the working class will be able to consider the various alternatives while continuing to work together in struggle against capitalism and its offensive.
To address those revolutionary socialist forces who may be reading this, I am not advocating a policy of liquidationism. Rather I am trying to take into account the new world situation, the need to build an effective mass oppositon to the capitalist offensive and a recognition that none of the various revolutionary socialist groups, or anarchist groups, will be looked towards by the mass of the workers as they move into struggle in their tens of millions, hundreds of millions. This used to be the approach of the CWI. It used to recognized that the working class as a class and the youth would not move in the early stages of their struggles to the revolution and while building the revolutionary party it was necessary to recognize that the mass of the working class would seek first the lines of least resistance. These to me seem to be taking shape in the form of the Seattles, the Genoas and the movement around these and the movement against the invasion of Iraq and against US hegemony.
I believe that what I am advocating in Ireland is in line with this position. That is the building of and unifying of activists in action committees in the neighbourhoods, workplaces, schools colleges to take on and fight the affects of the capitalist offensive on peoples daily lives. And to do so using direct action fight to win tactics, an oreintation to the working class and an explicitly anti capitalist policy. And along with this launch an aggressive campaign for the various anti capitalist forces to come together in struggle and seek to move towards some sort of unified committees of actions and some sort of unified political front or party. In other words some sort of Irish component of the anti capitalist international. I believe that this approach is what is called for in Ireland as well as internationally. It is what is in line with the needs of the working class and corresponds to the potential that exists and will allow that potential to be realized.
The above analysis is based on the different times we now live in. I also believe that it has been these different times that has laid bare the work and the internal lives of the various revolutionary socialist organizations. While campaigning for the anti capitalist international and while working to build our own international group within this and defending the right of all other anti capitalist groups to do the same, we have to also look at the methods and internal life of our own organizations. We cannot go on as if nothing has happened. As if we have made no mistakes, as if nothing has changed. There has been quite a lot on this list about this issue. i will say no more at this time.
Sorry but I have to refer again to some untruths that the SP are putting about. A previous correspondent wrote: "I dont think Khalid was saying that Throne should give up simply because he is a minority. What he seems to be getting at is the fact that the majority of the membership of the US section disagreed with Throne and democratically elected a new leadership. hat Throne should have done was stay in the CWI and argue for his position and try to win back a majority for his line of argument. This is Trotsky did. It is not what Throen did however, Throne left the party when elected off the leadership. He may protray this as an 'explusion' but he left of his own free will.
You seem to imply that the CWI were guilty of Stalinist type tactics to get a majority at that conference, this is not the case. You should take back those suggestions."
I do not want to go on forever about this but I was explelled. SP members ask the SP to show you the minutes and the CWI to show the minutes of the decisions in this period.I would have liked nothing better than to fight for my ideas in the CWI as a faction. But I was expelled. It only discredits the SP and all revolutionary socialists for the SP to keep repeating this lie. Of course the majority of the SP do not, they admit they expelled me and try and either justify it by slandering me or try and avoid talking about it. The result is that as I have said the internal life of the SP becomes corrupted.
John Throne
My apologies for being so late to reply, I have been under a lot of pressure recently. Unfortunately, I drafted this reply late last night and so have not replyed to the points raised by Roger Silverman and others, and don't have time to read them properly at the moment, my apologies for this, I will print them, read them and hopefully reply tomorrow, so bear with me on the questions etc. which have now already been answered etc.
Firstly, just in reply to the name issue, I have sent you a private email with my real name, and the reason why I have not posted it publicly, it is not for any conspiratorial or organisational reason, but a genuine one. I would also think that JT would admit that he cannot "discuss concretely [my] role in the undemocratic practises."
Secondly John, despite the disagreements you may have with me about the arguments I have made, you have to admit that I have not attacked you as "sectarian, pathetic, past it etc. etc.", but have attempted to deal with your arguments honestly.
You ask me to respond to the questions of constitutional rights and expulsions. I will do this to the best of my knowledge, although I must admit that my current knowledge of exactly what happened in the US is not as extensive as perhaps it should be, simply because I've forgotten, so feel free to remind me! You argue that you were denied your right to appeal because the CC of the Irish section of the CWI voted not to allow you to appeal to our Conference. The constitution, as far as I'm aware, does not guarantee you the right to appeal to whatever section you feel most confident about, but rather the right to appeal to your national section. Again, I do not accept that I have called you "all sorts of names and accuse[d] [you] of all sorts of things."
Thank you for dealing with all of my questions. I just wish to return to them briefly to clarify both the question and answer.
The point I was making in the first question is the evolution of your ideas on the 'Revolutionary Party', which I do think are quite revealing. CP's group, now called the 'Left Party', have produced a document on the Revolutionary Party which is similar in its rejection of 'strict democratic centralism' (not that I would accept we operate that kind of democratic centralism), for example:
"Democratic centralism is applied as if all the organizations were constantly on the verge of the struggle for political power...." (Revolutionary Organization, www.leftparty.org)
Their conceptions of the Revolutionary Party are now quite similar to your own from my point of view, something which, given the chasm that separated the two groups within the CWI, and even before joining the CWI, is interesting. In a simplistic way, it can be representative of a tendency getting their 'fingers burnt' (being defeated on political questions) by the democratic rule of the majority, and so concentrating on organisational questions, on the 'Internal Regime', in essence a sign of the political bankruptcy of both tendencies.
In relation to my second question, yes we did use effective direct action tactics in the Water Charges battle, but this was specific tactics for a specific campaign, and even for a specific moment in that campaign. Today, we still do use direct action tactics in some struggles, and are preparing to do so again when the time is right in the Bin Tax campaign. We didn't, and still don't, advocate these tactics as you do as forming an essential part today of generalising a fightback across society, and so laying the base for new mass organisations etc. They are only applicable today because of the objective situation, when the conflict within a certain area or struggle in society, has reached a certain level, and wider layers can understand the necessity for such tactics, as well as being prepared to participate in them.
I accept your point in general that we are more disconnected from the working class in 100 years, but surely this is an argument in favour of the CWI's position - seeing as we are so disconnected from the working class, the mood and consciousness of the working class is largely an objective factor for us, which we are, in general, not capable of influencing. This means that where the objective conditions do not exist for them (as we maintain they don't) proposals by us for united fronts of activists around direct action programmes will simply fall on deaf ears. It is our responsibility to work alongside ordinary people in those struggles which do develop, and attempt to raise their consciousness, pointing to the need for certain direct action tactics possibly etc. This is what we do, day to day, this explains our success in elections, and in the Water Charges. However, where the objective conditions do not exist, simply proposing these committees etc. will be useless.
In relation to Scotland, obviously the CWI is now active in building the SSP and the forces of Marxism within the SSP, as is correct, given the existence of the SSP. The point I am making though is that the degeneration politically of the comrades of the Scottish majority, and of the politics of the SSP surely supports the arguments of the Scottish minority and the IS. However, what you then raise is a problem with the way the CWI "acted", another organisational problem, so therefore are you saying that you supported the majority not because of its political arguments, but because of the behaviour of the minority and the IS? I think not, but instead of defending your position politically, you again turn the discussion into one of the "Internal Regime" etc., which is the point I made originally about the primacy of political questions.
You seem to have misunderstood the nature of my fourth question. I was arguing that you showed disrespect to the membership of the US section because you referred to the IS taking the leadership from this group to that etc., ignoring the independent role of Conference whose responsibility it is to elect these leaderships, effectively saying that the Conference was simply a pawn of the IS. It is this that is disrespectful, rather than arguing for your position as a minority - in fact arguing for your position as a minority shows a respect to the membership because it shows a belief that you can convince them of your arguments.
On the fifth question, sorry I presumed earlier from a comment I made which was uncorrected that Roger Silverman was not a member of your tendency. Is he? My argument was that having an article from Roger was a sign that you were anti-CWI if the reason you had the article was simply because he was another ex-member of the CWI, rather than because you had any principled agreement with him. Clearly, if he is a member of your political tendency, that argument does not hold any water, and I apologise for my assumption, if that is the case.
Now to deal with the organisational question. You say: "the logic of [my position] is that there are no organizational questions".
That is not my position whatsoever, it is my contention however, that the primary question for Marxists, in general, is political, and that organisational questions, again in general, are secondary. Also, I believe that a large number of organisational differences, are in the final analysis a reflection of political differences. Do you disagree with this?
I, and other Irish comrades would be more likely to accept your points of pure organisational questions, if concrete examples were given, which we could relate to. So far, they have not been, only the ridiculous points made by people pretending to be you about the 'Troika' etc.
In relation to the points on the revolutionary party. By "united", I was not at all expressing the belief that the party should necessarily be united on all questions, I meant unity in action. I do not think that factional struggle should be idealised either, nor did one of the greatest faction fighters of them all, Cannon, who remarks in "Struggle for a Proletarian Party", if I remember correctly, that while the factional struggle had played a certain positive role in clarifying the position of the SWP etc., it had dragged on far too long and it was positive that it was over, because the SWP could take a real turn to the workers etc. Factional struggle can also be a very positive thing, it can clarify perspectives etc. for both the majority and the minority, and in a healthy revolutionary party shouldn't lead to splits, correct. However, I again reject your assertion that the CWI is somehow against factions, and will not allow them to develop, and again I ask for concrete examples which Irish comrades can relate to.
Ok, I was slightly over the top to argue that because you recruited all these people etc. does not hold any weight. Clearly, because of the role someone has played in a revolutionary struggle, they will be more likely to get a proper hearing from comrades, because they clearly have experience in the movement etc. But, nonetheless, regardless of the role of any comrade, no proposals should be accepted unthinkingly, all should be questioned and criticised.
Again, I'll repeat the fact that including all the members of the left groups in Dublin, there are not hundreds of left activists in Dublin, well I'd say not over 400 anyway, to put a number on it. This does seem to the be the essential point that your central argument turns around, you should accept the factual points made by comrades who are active on the ground in the movement in Dublin.
Isaac Blanc writes: "You ask me to respond to the questions of constitutional rights and expulsions. I will do this to the best of my knowledge, although I must admit that my current knowledge of exactly what happened in the US is not as extensive as perhaps it should be, simply because I've forgotten, so feel free to remind me! You argue that you were denied your right to appeal because the CC of the Irish section of the CWI voted not to allow you to appeal to our Conference. The constitution, as far as I'm aware, does not guarantee you the right to appeal to whatever section you feel most confident about, but rather the right to appeal to your national section. Again, I do not accept that I have called you "all sorts of names and accuse[d] [you] of all sorts of things."
More untruths and evasions. First I did not appeal only to the Irish section as I have alrerady said. Secondly the constitutional position does not confine anybody who is expelled to appeal only to their own section. Thirdly even if it did I was refused the right to appeal to the North American group also. Isaac Blanc clearly wants to convince us he is trying to deal with this issue honestly and maybe he is. But even if this is the case look at where he ends up. Making up more untruths to try and justify the CWI's undemocratic practises. As I said before unjust and undemocratic actions such as those taken against the US minority of which I was part demand to be dealt with honestly. If this is not done, if there is not an open and frank discussion about the injuctices carried out and why and moves made to correct the situation then this will come back to haunt the organization. It will result in more lies and more lies and corrupt the internal life of the organization.
Isaac B I hope I do not get more evasions on this issue. I was not allowed even to appeal to the North American section, as I was not allowed to appeal to the German, the British, the Irish and the world congress. I did not have the resources to go to any other if i had been accepted so this is why I did not ask other sections. I spent a weekend outside the British conference trying to get my right, outside the British CC, outside the Irish CC all trying to get my right to appeal. And I attended the World congress from which I was ejected after it had decided not to allow me to appeal.Please spare us from more evasions and untruths and pleas that you cannot remember or that you were not around at the time.
I do not want to go over again how many actists there are in Dublin etc. i have said what i think. The only question I would pose again here to Isaac B and the CWI is this. You are saying to the new movement that is rising in Ireland join the campaigns that the SP decides should be taken up and join the SP. This is all. You are saying to the new movement of millions internationally to join the campaigns the CWI thinks are worthwhile and join the CWI. This is all . As I have explained in my last email this is totally inadequate to the needs of the movement. To the extent it is heard this message holds back the movement. It is sectarian.
John Throne.
And there is me thinking that the rampant sectarianism of Hadden was just an isolated case of a disturbed individual. Reading the above history of the CWI and its cult like structure I know now why some of their members still believe in the information put out to their ever decreasing international. The points raised on the above posting about the SP in N.Ireland and on Hadden are correct yet because of the above mentioned nature of the CWI some of their members will be still convinced otherwise {the world is flat because I say its flat syndrome} I and others found this posting very informative.
Isaac B has done exactly what was to be expected. First he challenged John T (and others of the former Minority) to produce some explanation of the political differences. As soon as that was done, Isaac goes right over to debating organizational issues. He has completely ignored the political issues.
Maybe the issue of the now dead Labor "Party" here in the US seems not so relevant to today, especially to those in Ireland. (Of course, that is not why Isaac ignores the issue.) More relevant is the implication of Isaac that we are moving towards the position of liquidating the revolutionary party into the wider movement. What this claim ignores is simple historical facts.
The Communist Parties after 1917 developed in a unique way. Here in the US, for instance, a relative handful of individuals formed the CPUSA and this party fairly quickly became a genuine force in working class politics. Not only that, but the CP was built around a clearly defined program. This was not unique internationally.
I think that following this, it was automatically assumed that this would be the process again. I think that the Trotskyist movement has also made this assumption. I know that this was certainly so inside the CWI - that we would grow "by ones and twos" and then later by tens and 20s, etc. At some point, we would achieve critical mass and become a mass force.
This almost started to happen in Britain. However, the process was cut across by unexpected world developments. It is true that the unexpected situation made the objective conditions more difficult, but there was also another problem: This situation threw the leadership of the CWI into confusion. They were unable to cope with the new world situation. Rather than stepping back, reexamining not only their perspectives but the entire MANNER in which perspectives were drawn up (by one or two top leaders), this uncertainty actually reinforced some of their old, and worst habits. They became even more remote from the rank and file of the CWI, even less willing to listen to their experiences on the ground and consider the conclusions that the rank and file was starting to draw. Anybody who disagreed with the leadership more than once, anybody who raised new ideas and issues, was considered "disloyal" or "a nut case" or some such. (I know this was the case when I started raising the issue of the environment.)
How this relates to the issue of the revolutionary leadership: The assumptions on how a revolutionary leadership would develop have gone unquestioned. If anybody had the temerity to raise even the slightest question, they are branded "liquidationist." As a result, the CWI continues operating on what I believe are false assumptions and as a result becomes increasingly irrelevant.
It is a simple historical fact that the First International did not develop in the same way as the Third. It was a much more mixed bag than was the Third. I think that any new international, anti-capitalist movement, coordinated at an international level, will develop in ways more similar to the First than the Third. We may like or dislike this, but I think it will be the case. I think it is a huge mistake to try to fit perspectives into our program; rather we have to do the opposite. This is what we here in the US are struggling to do with regard to helping to build an anti-capitalist movement. This does not mean that we hide our particular view on how capitalism can be overthrown, nor that we don't organize around those views. But we are struggling to do so also in conjunction with others who hold different views on the particulars.
As far as the issue of a mass workers' party - Having been to Ireland only a couple of times, and that some time ago, I have no idea on the mood there. But I don't think this is the issue really. I remember some years ago talking with a comrade in the CWI in London. This individual was a construction worker. He talked with a lot of frustration about raising the issue of a new mass workers' party in Britain. He was told by the British leadership that they should not raise the idea of building a mass workers party; rather, they should be building the Militant (as it was then called). What a totally sectarian position.
John Reimann
PS. As far as Isaac's organizational claims: The simple fact is that we five who were expelled were denied our right to appeal, including our right to appeal to the international body. The justification given was that what we were accused of doing was so grave that we had lost that right. In other words, we were guilty before even being heard. Even the bourgeois courts don't formally take that stance (in general).
Would Johns T & R or Roger comment on the New Direction piece re Labour Youth?
The SY and SP alweays sday it was through a witch hunt that they lost the leadership of LY.
Throne did not support 'New Direction' he was a member of Militant ... remember?
The SP are now attempting to rewrite history about how they were democratically defeated in Labour Youth.
Just wanted Johns views on it.
Well if he does now support New Direction it would be an indication that he has completely sold out. I do not think that is the case.
I take it that "New Direction" is some group inside the Labour Party. Is this correct? Being from the USA, I am not fully familiar with politics over there.
As far as John having "sold out" - I can assure you that nothing like this is the case. In fact, we were thrown out of the CWI for fighting against the principled compromises (to put it charitably) that the Labor Militant group here was making. This was the case particularly in relation to the "progressive" wing of the union hierarchy here.
Recently in Chicago, John Sweeny, head of the AFL-CIO came to speak at a labor rally. This was shortly after Sweeny had capitulated and reversed his position on the invasion of Iraq, which he came to support. There was a debate within "left" circles over whether or not to appear at that labor rally with anti-war signs. The "progressive" union leaders - those with whom the former Labor Militants had fallen in bed - were totally opposed to this. John and others with whom he works really led the campaign to appear with anti-war signs. (At the event, the cops barred them from participating. This could only have happened with the connivance of the union leadership.)
So, you needn't fear; John's politics remain as strong and principled as ever. I wish the same could be said for the former Labor Militant crowd (as well as the CWI in general) here.
John Reimann
PS. Since there has been no denial, I assume that the quote that was attributed to the CWI about the Kurds' "victory" at the hands of the US invaders is an accurate quote. How shameful! What an abandonment of political principle on the part of the CWI.
V sorry for not having replied to these points sooner, under a lot of pressure at the moment.
The Kurds quote was taken from the latest Socialism Today, the whole article should be online www.socialismtoday.org (??? something like that, should be link from SPEW website anyway), read it in context then comment, and I'll reply when I get a chance.
Reading the editorial in Socialist "Today" was interesting - like being in a time warp. I must say that Taaffe/Walsh and whoever else writes these kinds of articles is very good at it. The problem is that they haven't changed the formula for decades. It provides a good analysis of the contradictions that the various bourgeois administrations find themselves in.
And then? And then what?
There are a few scant mentions of the Iraqi working class, and nothing of the workers' organizations. I just read a report that the Iraqi Workers Communist Party has reopened an office in Baghdad and they are a bee hive of activity. I am not saying that they will lead the overthrow of Iraqi capitalism, but surely this Party is relevant and deserves some analysis. And how about the perspectives for rebuilding of the unions? It is as if the Iraqi working class hardly exists. (Of course, Isaac or whoever, can point to the one or two sentences where lip service is paid to this class.)
I think it is this failure that led to the gross error in their description of the retaking of the Kurdish towns by the Kurdish nationalist forces on behalf of US imperialism.
One other point: The Taaffe/Walsh/Whoever else clique distrust and dislike any sort of thinking "outside the box". For instance, they resisted for a protracted time any discussion of the environmental crisis that is now upon us. This was never a subject that Marxism had seriously considered, so we must not do so now -- and especially if someone other than themselves first raises the idea.
The same sort of stale thinking is the case in regard to that article. One affect of the war will be to heighten the environmental disaster there. Evidently there were many thousands (probably millions) of rounds of depleted uranium bullet shells used, in addition to the depleted uranium (du) rocket shells. It seems that the DU shells from the Persian Gulf War are what caused Iraqi birth defects to skyrocket some four to six times over since that war. What will happen this time,and how will it affect the entire region, if not beyond? Yet this issue is never considered.
Another issue is this: There are now reports that the world is on the verge of reaching "peak oil" production. That this production will peak in the next ten years and thereafter decline. If these reports are correct, this is a disaster. Not because oil should not be replaced as the fuel that modern society is totally dependent on, but because there have been no adequate replacements sufficiently developed, and such development doesn't just take place overnight.
Those who push the "Peak Oil" view claim that this is one of the major factors behind the invasion of Iraq.
Admittedly, this is quite a "far out" view. Is it valid? From what I've read, it seems possible. If so, it is certainly most important. What do Taaffe & co. have to say about this? I doubt they've even heard of this analysis, no less formed an opinion. Why? Because they just don't look for the different angles. This is why their approach is so stale.
John Reimann
And I'm still looking forward to Isaac's comments on the former political differences here in the US - the differences that he had claimed he was so interested in.
Maybe this discussion has just about now run its course. However, John R's last posting raises some interesting points. I think the key to the problems he raises is that within the CWI model all real thinking is done by one or two leaders. Look at the list of CWI publications on their website. 90% are by Peter Taaffe, with the odd input from someone else. On the website of the Ted Grant organisation, since it parted from the CWI in 1992 and since Ted Grant entered into virtual retirement, anything of substance is written by Alan Woods - and his intellectual ambition knows no bounds.
This is utterly preposterous. No one leader can do so much, well. In the real world, no one person knows as much about anything as people like Taaffe, Hadden and Woods think they know about everything. Yet the model remains that of a solitary genius surrounded by an army of compliant helpers. Thus in Northern Ireland, remarkably after 30 years, no one has developed into a serious leadership role alongside Peter Hadden. If leadership is the ability to develop other people, and in a sense make yourself redundant, he and Taaffe etc have spectacularly failed.
The only reason it matters is that idealistic people still stumble across the CWI, and can have their enthusiasm badly damaged in the process. The minute they think 'outside the box' their days in the CWI will be numbered.
There has been much talk lately of regime change. It seems to me that this also applies within the CWI, and the Trotskyist left in general!
i think if you have another look at the website as well as material produced by the other sections of the CWI you will soon discover that many people write books, pamphlets and articles etc. But then people like you will see what they want to.
PS
If the left needs regime change what are you going to do about it? Are you active in the movement? Are you going to get active and provide that alternative or are you content with sniping from the sidelines?
Dear KF
My point, made clearly I would have thought, is that all the KEY documents in your organisation are written by a handful of people. In Northern Ireland, for example, only Hadden produces the central perspectives documents. Peter Taaffe does all the main stuff on Britain. In the Ted Grant split off, only Alan Woods writes about the Big Issues, leaving his helpers to write about relatively minor issues. Do you seriously dispute this? It shows something rather grim about the leadership model pursued across the left.
As to whether I am active, that is irrelevant to the argument. As usual with SP members, you ry to shift the ground fronm the argument being made to the (often imagined) psychology of the person making the case. Aren't you bored with this tactic by now???? Throne is a crank (forget him, therefore); so- and so is this, comrade Y is senile. Come on, grow up, and engage with the issues.
Leaving aside how active/ inactive I am, it is the case being made that matters. Moreover, I would also say that one of the problems of your organisation is that only its own activists get a look in. You would do better to look at some ideas that originate outside your own ranks and tradition, from many sources. Not only can one individual (eg Hadden) not do all your thinking for you, but good ideas (eg on the environment, gay rights) certainly do not reside totally within the orbit of Trotskyism.
It's almost without meaning, without any relevance to anything of importance, but I still can't help commenting on this.
In a previous thread, a CWI defender (I believe it was Isaac B, but I'm not sure) claimed that we, the expelled US minority, did not want to deal with the political issues around which we were expelled. Those political issues were pointed out, and he was repeatedly asked to comment. He simply ignored these requests as if they didn't exist. The same thing in this thread. The issue of our expulsion came up, for instance. It was pointed out that we were expelled and denied our right to appeal this expulsion - thus judged guilty in advance. Again, no comment from the CWI defenders.
I say "almost" irrelevant, for one reason: Almost all of us got involved in left politics out of a disgust for the present order. I think that part of this disgust stems not solely from the oppression, starvation, etc. I think (at least for myself) that part of the disgust is a disgust with the lies, the hypocrisy that is inherent in capitalism. Yet it is so common to see those on the left engage in this same hypocrisy and dishonesty. I often wonder of those on the left who engage in such evasiveness and dishonesty: If the early, usually more idealistic, version of themselves - who they were when they first got involved in left politics - if that version of themselves could be shown a picture of what they later evolved into, what would they think of what they became? I can't help feel that they would be shocked and disgusted, if they didn't simply deny it outright.