Double Job Joe

by Magneto Thu May 08, 2003 10:28

The SP member who is posting as someone in labour in 1980s has now sent the same article to four different threads.

Are you suggesting that I dont have the right to respond to him? Why havent you objected to his cross posting?

by FK Thu May 08, 2003 00:05

Magneto couls you please stop clogging up the newswire with cross posts. I have repluied to the comments above on the other newswire.

by Magneto Wed May 07, 2003 10:36

Here we go again:

You Are Not Fooling People With Your Lies.
by Magneto Mon, May 5 2003, 3:21pm

As per usual SP practice the story about how Militant lost control in Labour Youth has changed 3 times.

1. The Labour leadership dissolved Labour Youth. (This is what Oisin said, either he made it upor someone told him. Which was it?)

2. New Direction were right wing. (This is patently untrue. The year after the constitution was democratically changed, supporters of Spring did not transfer to ND, thus Militant kept 1 of the 2 LY seat on the Labour AC.)

3. LP HQ interfered in credentials, again untrue. If so how come Militant didnt claim so at the time and seek an injunction?

Oisin/Finghin,

Perhaps you would care to comment on why Militant was opposed to a fairer representative structure for LY?

More on New Direction From Another Thread.
by Magneto Mon, May 5 2003, 3:33pm

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.

OK _SP -where did you get this?
by Old new direction Mon, Apr 21 2003, 10:13pm
OK - SP said the following earlier
"Here is my comment: 'New Direction' as you call it was a witch-hunt against left-wingers in LY in the 1980s. Magneto has still not said where he stands of the expulsion of Militant supporters from LY, I bet you would have been one of those careerists that 'reclaimed' LY for your ilk."
Were you around at the time of not? I'm just interested in whether this is the result of a faulty memory or if you've been deliberately lied to. "New Direction", as I call it and everyone else did (they produced a manifesto under the name, referred to themselves as New Direction candidates and were called that (amongst other things!) by the Militant candidates. They were *not* a witch hunt. They were a coalition of young people, broadly supportive of Labour Left, who had been excluded from the leadership of Labour Youth by undemocratic structures (outlined above, particularly in the context of youth conference delegations not being proportionate to the membership of youth sections. They organsied to take control, and they were sucessful. That doesn't constitute a witch hunt, that constitutes a defeat for a group that never had the support of more than about 40% of the young members of the Labour Party. Now maybe you believe they *should* have had that support, and that's your right to believe that, but New Direction *also* had the right to compete with them and that they did. When the vote on expulsion of Militant/RSL/SP from the Labour party came up, most New Direction people voted against the leadership proposed vote to expel them, with some also voting aginst a holding/compromise prpoosed by Labour Left that the claims (denied at the time by them) that they were a seperate party (the constitutional basis of the expulsion) be examined before there be any vote on expulsion. As with most votes at that conference, the leadership won the day.
Of course, if Labour are so crap, surely RSL/MT/SP are better off outside of it? Eh ?

Magneto - please reply to my comments above?
by Someone who was in Labour youth in the 1908's Mon, May 5 2003, 8:20pm

If you are able to.

You Were In Labour In The 1908s?
by Magneto Tue, May 6 2003, 10:13am

Did you Know Connolly and Larkin?

Seriously though, I believe the Old Bastards points rather than yours about New Direction.

I cant comment on Vinny Byrne and the breast feeding, could be made up for all I know. How rightwing is Byrne? Anymore so than a lot of ex Militant heads?

Mark Little is a long time out of Labour, he is a journalist. Paddy Smyth of the Irish Times is a former leading member of Militant, if Labour is responsible for Littles politics then by the same logic the SP are responsible for Smyths pro EU politics.

I have made clear already that I disagree with a lot of the LP politics, thats allowed in Labour. If the SY disagreed with the SP then they would be dissolved.

Come on Magneto answer the question
by Prone to typing errors Tue, May 6 2003, 6:14pm

Stop being such a smart arse.

"Only one of the leaders of New Direction has ended up in what might be called the right/centre of Labour, Michael MacLoughlin, he is International Secretary."

So which of them has ended up on the left. Or have they all left the Labour Party with the exception of Michael MacLoughlin ?

SY is democratic
by FK Tue, May 6 2003, 6:29pm

That's bollocks about SY being dissolved if it disagreed with the SP. SY is a democratic organisation with its own seperate structures that has healthy debate and discussion. Magneto, what would you know about internal democracy in the SP and SY, you have never been a member.

Magneto another thing i'd like to ask you. Are the opinions that you have put forward this site the positions of the rest of UCD Labour? If so I think we should reconsider the relationship between our organisations

Replies
by Magneto Wed, May 7 2003, 9:31am

Prone

What has happened to the hundreds who have left Militant/SP over the years? Do you keep an old boys register?

FK

"That's bollocks about SY being dissolved if it disagreed with the SP. SY is a democratic organisation with its own seperate structures that has healthy debate and discussion."

When have the SY ever publicly disagreed with the SP?

"Magneto, what would you know about internal democracy in the SP and SY, you have never been a member."

FK, what would you know about Labour Youth? you have never been a member.

"Magneto another thing i'd like to ask you. Are the opinions that you have put forward this site the positions of the rest of UCD Labour? If so I think we should reconsider the relationship between our organisations."

What are you on about? Because I exposed your lies about the past relations between Labour & nMilitant you are going to go off in a huff?

What have I written that has upset you so much? You seem a little thin skinned. Remember all the vicious things you have written about LY.

I suggest you ask the UCD LY members. We dont operate under "Democratic" Centralism. We can think for ourselves.

by Someone who was in Labour Youth in the 1980s Tue May 06, 2003 11:18

I was a member of Labour Youth in the early 1980's and attended a number of Labour Youth Conferences during that time. I remember the Conference where New Direction won control of Labour Youth from the Militant.

Militant had been in control of Labour Youth for a number of years and had been an absolute pain in the side of the leadership of the Labour Party. I think one of the biggest things was the fact that they had 2 people on Labour's Administrative Council from LY.

New Direction was based around the Labour Left group within the Labour Party. Militant had its base mainly in the city constituencies in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Galway (Although I do remember Donegal supporting them as well). New Direction were organised in the Colleges.

Dick Spring and the leadership of the LP had been threatening to close down LY for some time but appeared to give Labour Left one last chance to get control of LY. People like Stagg, Joan Burton and others put in a big effort to win the conference, with the help of right-wing TD's, in particular people like Brendan Howlin.

At the Conference, LP headquarters staff took control of the administration of the Conference. Delegates from many of the Militant controlled delegations were ruled out while people who had been members of Labour Youth for only a few days were allowed in as delegates for New Direction. Delegates turned from Constituencies that had never had a Youth Section, like Kerry. New Direction won control of Labour Youth by a small margin with the help of Spring's people, and made no attempt to hid it. While the Militant could come in for some criticism for their role in Labour Youth they never adopted the attitude "if we don't control it we'll shut it down". Some members of New Direction behaved in a very high handed manner. I remember one particular nasty incident when Vinny Byrne (who became national chairman of LY) attacked a young woman with a new born baby because she was breastfeeding the baby. From the podium he demanded she be removed from the hall for daring to do such a disgusting thing, and wasn't it typical of the way the women in the Militant behaved.

I left the Labour Party not long after because of its participation in Coalition but I do recall Labour Youth becoming very much a vehicle for people like Dermot Lacey to climb the corporate ladder of the Labour party. Whatever you think about the Militant at least they attempted to make LY a radical group.

Magento said "Only one of the leaders of New Direction has ended up in what might be called the right/centre of Labour, Michael MacLoughlin, he is International Secretary."

News to me. I suppose people like Vinny Byrne and Mark Little could be classed as defenders of socialism. In fact, as far as I know, the only person who could be remotely classed as left wing is Ivana Bacek. Maybe Magento could enlighten me on what has happened to those leaders of New Direction and the role they have played in defending socialism in this country.

by Magneto Mon May 05, 2003 16:23

If it was just lies then the SP would hardly have been so enraged.

by m Mon May 05, 2003 02:49

funny to think all these comments are based on the lies in the origional article.

by thomas Sat May 03, 2003 15:29

from watching the political manouverings by these "revolutionary" groups during the anti-war campaign I am sure these steely eyed men will be the first to the barricades. The problem will be that the megaphone won't be of much use in a fight.

by Magneto Fri May 02, 2003 10:37

Best argument yet from the SP.

by Garcia Oliver - A Thu May 01, 2003 20:06

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

by pat c Thu May 01, 2003 14:56

You are a scream. It was the rrrrrrrrrrrrevolutionaries of the SP and SWP who were trailing the Anarchists. For you the time wasnt right for direct action.

You licked the ICTU leaders arses rather than lobby an ICTU conference. Joe Higgins called people "Virtual Warriors" as they were being arrested.

Why dont you be honest and join Labour.

by John Thu May 01, 2003 14:32

You won't have the chance. Come the revolution, the anarchists will still be tail ending revolutionary socialists - complaigning 'do you really have to seize power'. Then you'll get the Makno treatment, or if you continue with your usual bleatings, a bit of Kronstadt.

by pat c Thu May 01, 2003 10:45

How dare you suggest such a savage solution to the SP question!

they need TLC & re-education.

come the revolution, in the best of anarchist traditions, the SP & their followers will be allowed to set up their own society on Tory Island.

by figment Thu May 01, 2003 00:01

Just right folks no SP in the north, not a one, never even seen one (ask anyone in the north). So not much point in going on about it.
In the South sP have 2 members who are about to split shouldnt even talk about them or let the mad fuckers on this site. They just lower the tone with their lies and stupid politics. I say kill them all and then we will be free to continue to build the powerful movement that we represent.

by Socialist Troll Wed Apr 30, 2003 15:32

All you have done is rehash the John Throne story.

by pat c Wed Apr 30, 2003 15:19

you are showing yourself to be just as skilled at political debate as aany of the sp/sy. why bother to criticise anyones politics when you can just resort to abuse?

now are you suggesting that the sp didnt sabotage the ictu lobby or that trotsky didnt write those quotes?

grow up sonny boy.

by left observer Wed Apr 30, 2003 14:47

It seems that Pat is determined to stir up some shit and came on this thread just to attack the SP, which is pathetic. And before you attack me for being a 'tot trot' or whatever I'm not a member of the SP.

I think that from previous postings I've read from you pat all the points except no. 4. is true about you.

by pat c Wed Apr 30, 2003 11:26

I have responded with abuse when I myself have been abused by the SP. This may not be the best approach but at times it s diificult not to respond when someon thinks hes destroying your argument by alleging that my comments on the SP are based on:

1. A Personal Grudge.

2. I was dumped by a SP member.

3. I am a Catholic Nationalist.

4. I am a Fascist.

5. I am Mad.

6. I am hostile to British Workers Organistions.

All of the above and more have spewed forth from the mouths of your Tots 'n' Trots and members of the "adult" SP.

by pat c Wed Apr 30, 2003 11:20

I commented on how the SP ignored Trotskys teachings on Ireland. I also pointed out that the SP had given 3 different reasons for not lobbying the ICTU conference. I pointed out how those 3 reasons were lies or at best evasions.

That is Political criticism not abuse.

by Jim Monaghan Wed Apr 30, 2003 11:14

I belong to neither the SP or SWP or any other organisation on the Left. The reason is that I disagree with a combination of strategy and tactics of all the organisations around. Bu I can and prefer to see the positive aspects of groups like the SP and SWP and for that matter the WSM. I think none of them or myself for that matter have the holy grail of the way forward or if they have their weaknesses get in the way of persuading a critical mass of it.
Individaual leaders and members of all organisations can display the sectarian attitudes which are a big negative.
So the probelm is how do we all get beyond the pettiness and get something that works and can mobilise people in sufficient numbers and militancy to make a difference.
I think a positive engagement is the way forward. Encouraging and appreciating when they do positive things. Creating an athmosphere which can break down the animosities (expulsions etc and other types of nastieness)Can I point out that in many countries this type of stuff went so far as eliminating political opponents. We are a long way from that.
Sure John Throne was treated in a shabby manner. He joins a long list of those who were treated the same across the spectrum.The SWP history is littered with their ex members with a tale or two.
We have to get over it. If some of the people now were around in 1917 in Russia, Trotsky and co would have had their applications to join the Bolsheviks put on the long finger.
As Behan once said the first item on the agenda is the split.
We need to work out agreements on a range of issues, startegy and tactics and create good working relationships where manouvres and raids are consigned with the backbiting to the bin.
It can be done. At PANA meeting I saw the IRSP, The WP , Sinn Fein sit in the same room and discuss divisions of work on various campaigns.And I have no fondness for two of these groups. I am sure the older among us would know their histories and they were a lot worse (an understatement to say the least).
The twins (a friends term for the Trotskyist sisters the SP and SWP) have not disappeared. We have to work with them and those within them who are working for change.
Elections are coming where is the Left alternative.The bits groups and individuals exist for one but

by KF - SP Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:26

Pat you've thrown alot of personal abuse against SP members on this site. I also note that no members of the SP have critisised you in a good while.

by left observer Wed Apr 30, 2003 08:59

Cordelia

Whether you like it or not, socialists of various hues do read this site - including some SP members (such as yourself). Moreover, some of us tell other socialists about what we read.

Now just think for a moment. WHat do you think people will conclude from the comments of someone who tells lies, changes their story, denounces anyone who reads the relevant material as sad bastards, and then refuses to discuss the issue further? For that matter, what would you think, if you can be honest for a moment?

It is precisely this approach which earns the SP a bad name. You treat all dissent like this, not just on Indymedia. In this manner, you insulate yourselves from reality and become a tiny sect. Is this really sensible?

You say for example that you have a healthy internal life - no sad bastards there, then, all debate welcome and open. That can only mean to me that your leaders regularly lose some votes at party conferences - ie that your rank and file have a free, critical spirit and show it on occasion. It can only mean that factions occasionally come into existence, vigorously debate and then move on - without expulsions or desertions. Otherwise, your words are empty bombast.

I will assume that you personally are a genuine socialist intererested in changing society. If so, you really must have hoped for better than this when you joined the SP, and certainly should look more critically at what it has reduced you to.

I am afraid calling anyone with genuine concerns 'sad bastards' does the tradition you represent a disserve.... And loses you the argument in the process.

by socialist troll - rectum alignment Wed Apr 30, 2003 03:53

And I musn't care either if I bother to comment! Wow! Like, shit! wow!

by socialist observer - non-aligned Tue Apr 29, 2003 19:35

every post concerning the SP seems to go on forever. this article is only up one day and already has 41 comments!!! the throne one is still going strong.

i don't blame SP members for not using the site, if in fact they don't.

and i'm assuming, that like me, most sp members don't give a flying fuck what is being said on indymedia.

by Cordelia Tue Apr 29, 2003 19:27

The Socialist Party has a healthy lively open and democratic internal life. The nonsense which has been written on this website about the Socialist Party is viewed by Socialist Party members as a comic soap opera diversion. Its strange how the cyber warriors who inhabitat this site believe everything which is written as a criticism of the Socialist Party as being the truth. Sad bastards.

by left observer Tue Apr 29, 2003 16:47

Jim Monaghan attempts to deflect criticism of the SP in particular and left organisations in general. He writes:

'What we should be discussing is the need for a united left front to get rid of the friends of the speculators etc. on the councils instead of slagging the few we have.'

The problem is that leftist sectarianism prevents the type of unity he advocates - hence the need to discuss the internal life of leftist groups. Moreover, if an organisation has the terrible internal life of the SP, how can it either grow or form part of a wider, effective left? Renewal must also mean openly discussing where the left has gone wrong. Sometimes the discussion isn't pretty, but...

Most people who access this site are only too well aware of the role of the speculators and capitalism. Why not in some instances try to discuss how the left should admit its mistakes, reinvent its practice and move on?

It is another sad reflection on the internal life of the SP, so utterly lacking in confidence is its leadership in its own practice, if they really are encouraging their members to avoid even reading this site. Not for the first time, the word stalinism springs to mind.

by Pat c Tue Apr 29, 2003 16:45

Its the SP who specialise in personalised attacks.
Are you suggesting to critice their treatment of minorities is irrelevant? Is it somehow wrong to point out their duplicity in the anti war movement?

by Jim Monaghan Tue Apr 29, 2003 16:34

If slagging would change the world this debate would have done it. Please criticise the politics or stated positions or the practice of groups and leave the backbiting aside.
As it is the bourgeois parties will easily outnumber all the Left councillors in the next elections. What we should be discussing is the need for a united left front to get rid of the friends of the speculators etc. on the councils instead of slagging the few we have.

by TROTWATCH Tue Apr 29, 2003 16:07

THE TROIKA ARE WORRIED ABOUT THEIR YOUNGER MEMBERS GEETING ACCESS TO THE TRUTH ABOUT NEW DIRECTION AND JOHN THRONE.

MEMBERS ARE BEING "ENCOURAGED" TO KEEP AWAY FROM INDYMEDIA.

by pat c Tue Apr 29, 2003 15:12

Its like the SP lies about why they wouldnt support an anti war lobby of the ICTU conference.

Lie 1: They were concentrating on fighting the new Wage Deal.

* Unions had already decided their position on the Wage Deal.

Lie 2: They didnt know the lobyy was going ahead.

* The lobby was widely advertised by flyer and on Indymedia and Irish-Left.

Lie 3: They wanted to get a speaker at the conference.

*Actually at an IAWM conference the SP, SWP and GP voted against a lobby of the ICTU conference. The SP claim this was because they wanted to get a speaker at the conference. They then did nothing about getting a speaker.

by Durutti Tue Apr 29, 2003 14:47

Cordelia, your lies arent fooling anyone, not even yourself. Doesnt it even make you think twice that the story keeps changing?

by left observer Tue Apr 29, 2003 13:57

Re. Daithi's posting, this discussion and any others concerning the SP may begin in many ways, but I think that the organisation's poor internal culture is such that it will always surface as an issue in any discussion. In any event, the initial posting at least by implication was raising questions about how decisions are taken in the organisation.

On which note: re. Cordelia's posting, defending the CWI's treatment of Throne, I would say that this man has a reputation on the left as a man of integrity. I and most others will take his word over that of Hadden and the Troika anyday. It is incredible and dishonest to say that he was allowed to appeal his expulsion. My understanding is that the leadership of the CWI said his behaviour was so bad that this could not be allowed. The SP does not even get its story straight - one minute, Throne wasn't expelled, he just left; the next he was, but was such a villainous character he could not be allowed to appeal; the next, of course he was allowed to appeal.

If you are going to lie, you need to get the one lie straight and stick to it. All this leaping from one mistake to another only brings further disgrace on you. It is a shocking travesty of the traditions of Trotskyism.

by Josef Tue Apr 29, 2003 13:25

Gives me a warm feeling and confirms all my prejudices....

by Daithi Tue Apr 29, 2003 12:55

LIsten, you petty squabblers. This article is about Joe Higgins and his seat - if you feel the need to have this John Throne debate again there is a perfectly good article about it already on the wire - comments can go off in circles but are not an excuse to shut down debate on the subject of the article itself. Keep it relevant, keep it focused! Respond to this article here, and the other matter there.

by Cordelia Tue Apr 29, 2003 12:36

The truth is that John Throne and his cohorts were expelled from the US section of the CWI because they refused to accept the democratic decision of that sections conference to replace them in the leadership.
They then proceeded to break democratic centralism by publicly organising against the CWI in the US. This is why they were expelled. Throne keeps repeating the lie that he wasn't given the right to appeal his expulsion. Not true. Not only did the International Executive Committee devote days to this issue, Throne was given the right to appeal to a World Congress, he never took up that right. And in relation to Ireland, two debates, one in the North and one in the South, were organised around the so called points of difference that Throne had with the CWI and also the issue of his expulsion. Throne put forward his own case at these debates. Afterwards only two people in the Irish section of the CWI supported Throne. At last years' Socialist Party conference Throne turned up and requested the right to attend as an observer. Even though Throne as a non member has no rights whatsoever in relation to the Socialist Party,the NEC put the issue to the conference for a decision. A democratic vote was taken and only two people supported Throne's right to attend.

by Left observer Tue Apr 29, 2003 10:53

Points have been raised here, and not for the first time, about the role and status of the SP in Northern Ireland, and its internal culture. It appears that it has only a fraction of the influence that it claims - systematic exaggeration is the norm. This is an odd policy in many respects - if someone 3 feet high claims to be 6 foot tall, nobody is fooled. The SP suffers from restricted growth syndrome, but struts its funky tail feathers as though it were Hercules, and emerges bruised, discredited and frankly comical in the process.

It also appears that, despite a constitution formally granting minority rights, any serious dissent from the leadership is met with 'shock and awe' tactics designed to drive the dissenters out. Stalin comes to mind. Given what we have learned about John Throne's expulsion (fired, slandered, left without medical cover - which is a very serious issue in the US - and denied rights of appeal), things happen in this organisation that the left would rightly lambast a capitalist employer for doing. Equally alarming to me, as a left observer, is that if there is any sign of this creating unease among SP members they are hiding it very well. What vibrant party could tolerate such nonsense?

It is impossible to build a serious left force with lies, Stalinist manouevres and with a moral policy towards employees that would disgace Rupert Murdoch. It completely undermines the SP's pretensions to stand for social justice and workers' rights. Workers correctly expect some higher standards on the left. Otherwise, it is a case of buying hair restorer from a bald man. Unless the SP (or what is left of it) faces this it will only ever be an insignificant sect.

It is a miserable spectacle. Perhaps, however, it keeps the self styled foremost Marxist writer on the North, Peter Hadden, in pin money. But this is a poor justification for maintaining the rudiments of a political party. And it is a betrayal of the hopes of all its members, past and present.

by Durutti Tue Apr 29, 2003 10:02

Well what do you say to John Thrones points?

Your leadership lied to you about how New Direction defeated Militant in Labour Youth, now they are lying to you about John Throne.

Dont you wonder about what other lkes they might be telling?

by john throne - labors militant voice Mon Apr 28, 2003 20:57 loughfinn at aol dot com

It is embarassing. I am talking about the number of different excuses that the CWI gives for denying me my right to appeal. In this thread the reasons given are that I was not a member of the Irish section. I assume this person is referring to the SP conference last year. At that conference I was only asking to attend as an observor. It was the CC and conferences of 1996/97 that i asked to appeal at and was refused. Linked to this excuse is that i was a member of the US section and my only right to appeal was to that section. . But I was not given the right to appeal to that section either. Please SP members do not embarass yourselves anymore. For those of you who have not the courage to come out and say that the SP and the CWI acted undemocratically and unjustly then you would be better to just keep quiet. I do not think a single person who reads any of this believes what you say. And by the way as a member of the IEC and the CWI I had a right to appeal to the different sections and to the World Congress. This right was denied. The idea that you only have the right to appeal to the section you are a member of was made up by the Irish SP leadership when they were looking to give an answer to the membership. This is the first I have heard of this excuse, that is it is a new one made up in the last few days. And of course even if this was correct as i say I was not allowed to appeal to the US conference either.

John Throne.

by Andrew Mon Apr 28, 2003 17:01

In my youth I was subjected to endless hours of trotskyist squabblings from two of the more irrelevant (and therefore sectarian) groups, the Sparts and the IWG. Fortunatly as Pat C. has already pointed out my memory of everything I 'learnt' has faded with time. Hey I've even visited Trotskys death site, his house in Mexico city where rather spookly his room and desk are arranged as they were on that faithful day Pat claims was in 1940.

It's spooky because more Orthodox trots publish the picture of him lying slumped across the desk at least once a year so its like visiting a murder scene from an Agatha Christie film. His death mask is no longer in the house because one faction claiming the mantle of the 4th international nicked it from another. They must reckon it has special power a al Raiders of the lost Ark.

BTW two amusing questions to get orthodox trots tied up in theoretical knots, try and ask these in the presence of members of more then one group and you should get a really good 'how many angels on a pinhead' argument.

1. Is Cuba a deformed or degenerated Workers State?

2. What is the economic nature of the ex-USSR today and at what date did it transform from its previous state?

If you want to annoy the SWP try

Given that Lenin said in 1918 that the immediate aim was to build state capitalism in Russia why does Cliff claim this was only acheived by Stalin in the late 1920's and that it was a bad thing?

by Durutti Mon Apr 28, 2003 17:01

Why wasnt John Throne allowed to appeal to the CWI World Congress?

Whos is General Secretary now? Has the post of NO subsumed the GS role?

by Trim Reaper Mon Apr 28, 2003 16:58

called Stalin "The outstanding mediocrity of the party".

by Jonno - Socialist Youth Mon Apr 28, 2003 16:58

Sorry to disappoint but pretty much everything which has been said on this thread is incorrect.

Kevin McLaughlin is National Organiser of the Socialist Party and not General Secretary. Dermot Connolly has stepped down as General Secretary for personal reasons. He remains a member of the Socialist Party.

Joe Higgins, like most TD's hasn't yet resigned his council seat. There is no wrangling over who will replace him when he gets around to it. The seat will be assigned to another SP activist in the area.

John Throne wasn't allowed to appeal against his expulsion at a Socialist Party meeting because he wasn't a member of the Socialist Party and hadn't been one for years. He was expelled from Socialist Alternative, the SP's sister party in the USA.

The Socialist Party plans to stand in the Assembly elections, when and if they take place. The SP will also be supporting the candidates of various anti-cuts campaigns.

by Curious Mon Apr 28, 2003 16:56

If the SP answered some questions honsetly then it wouldnt go on and on.

by Badman Mon Apr 28, 2003 16:55

Little Lenin McLoughlin may well be a mediocrity, but the talentless hacks are the dangerous ones.

Both Saddam Hussein and Stalin slipped into power cause no one thought that they were a real threat, just little thugs. Not that were going to see Little Lenin in Leinster House anytime soon, but if I was an SP member I'd not be looking forward to having to prove loyalty to the "national organiser" - I'd say that this might involve some humiliation!

by Pettycoat Luce Mon Apr 28, 2003 16:54

If the lot of yis spent as much time attacking imperialism, neo-liberalism, privatisation etc. as you do attacking the Socialist Party then we might be getting somewhere...

by Flummoxed Mon Apr 28, 2003 16:53

I think the reason why the SP seems to have abandoned standing in elections is pretty obvious. They mainly have the one branch in Belfast with 6 members, 5 of them driven to distraction by the petty ranting, manoeuvring and sectarian splitting of Peter Hadden. It is hard to stand in elections if you have no members, and if no body beyond the left has ever heard of you.

May I ask again about Dermot Connolly? Did he lead some opposition in the SP, or just get fed up wasting his time on a doomed sectarian fragment?

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Mon Apr 28, 2003 16:50 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

My gratitude for the information is warring with my abject pity for what you must have had to go through to obtain it.

by Durutti Mon Apr 28, 2003 16:36

How the SP is going from strngth to strength in the North. Surely they wont pass on this opportunity to show up the doubters.

by pat c Mon Apr 28, 2003 16:33

Trotsky got the icepick in 1940 not 1941. Obviously this error proves that your entire comment was drivel! (Just lending a helping hand to de Trots)

by Janus Mon Apr 28, 2003 16:33

I was looking through the 'Northern Ireland' Election stats website (http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/) and noticed that no-one from the SP ran in the Westminster elections of 2001. Nor did the party stand in the 1999 Euro Election in the Six.

Is the SP going to be standing in the Northern Assembly elections? Is the SWP going to be standing for that matter?

by Andrew Mon Apr 28, 2003 16:30

I doubt the SWP would call themselves 'post trotskyist cliffists' but here is a go at what the SP poster meant.

You'll have noticed already that there are a far number of trotskyists organisations around (not all of them very active) who hate each others guts. If you've done an web trawl you'll see there seems to be a countless horde of such organisations internationally at least half a dozen of which claim to BE the 4th international with most of the rest claiming to build it.

Basically they went through a tower of Babel type experience at the end of World War Two. The prophet had been dispatched by Stalins henchmen in 1941 but not before leaving his prophecy for his followers in particular in the form of the tranistional program. The details are not important the main point to note is some of his key predicitons were wrong.

Importantly he claimed WWII could only end with either a world wide socialist revolution or with a return to barbarism and the destruction of the soviet union.

Obviously neither of these things happened but for the trotskyists this was a hard thing to acknowledge. This would have meant the prophet was wrong.

So they tried to prove the prophet right in a variety of ways. The really nutty ones claimed the USSR's takeover of eastern europe was obviously the revolution in progress and proceeded to do all sort of theoretical handstands to justify the creation of these new 'workers state' without the involvement of the workers. This is where the term 'deformed workers state' comes from. You'll not the USSR was degenerated rather then deformed.

Others decided the answer was to go back to the good book and say 'what the prophet actually meant was ...'.

Naturally this was an idea breeding ground for all sorts of schisms leading us to the situation today. There is a boringly amusing book on it al called 'The death agonies of the 4th International' produced by the LRCI which used to have a local franchise called the 'Irish Workers Group'.

Anyway to cut a long story short the SP belong to the first tendency of trotskyism the SWP to the second. Tony Cliff was the man who led the SWP (the IS) out of 'Trotskys right, your just too blind too see it' into 'Trotskys right, your just too blind to correctly understand him'. He died a couple of years ago, still the leader of the SWP until near the end.

In particular Cliff 'discovered' the idea that the USSR was 'state capitalist' (actually an idea that lots of groups had been kicking around since 1920 or so).

by Durutti Mon Apr 28, 2003 16:14

Didnt John Throne retain his membership of the Irish Section whilst he was working for the CWI?
In any case why wasnt he allowed to appeal to the CWI World Congress?

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Mon Apr 28, 2003 16:11 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

but what are 'post-Trotskyist Cliffists' exactly?

Thanx for the clarification KF

by Pat C Mon Apr 28, 2003 15:55

At least the SWP are consistent in their anti imperialism, the SP seem to ignore a lot of Trotskys teachings on Ireland.

eg:

"The revolutionary tradition of the national struggle is a precious good."

Leon Trotsky, 6 June 1936.
(From his letter to Nora Connolly O'Brien)

"The British Socialist who fails to support by all positive means the uprising in Ireland, Egypt and India against the London plutocracy - such a Socialist deserves to be branded with infamy if not with a bullet, but in no case merits either a mandate or the confidence of the proletariat."

Leon Trotsky 7 August 1920.

Anyway, whats the real story about the council seat? Who is in the running for it?
(Actually it wouldnt be nepotism to [through a democratic process]pass it on to Ruth, she is an activist in the area.)

by KF Mon Apr 28, 2003 15:48

Kevin McLouglin is the National Organiser.

Throne was not given the right to appeal in Ireland because he was a member of the US section of the CWI not the Irish section.

The SP do intend to pass on the seat before the next election but just have not done it yet, there is no internal wrangling about it. As has been pointed out not many parties have passed on council seats yet, the election is over a year away.

by Durutti Mon Apr 28, 2003 15:32

I think not, you havent explained why John Throne was denied the right of appeal. Abuse doesnt win arguments in the real world.

If Little Lenin MacLoughlin is not your General Secretary, then what post does he hold? National Secretary? Could this be another term for General Secretary?

Why hasnt Joe passed his Council seat on to another member?

by KF - SP Mon Apr 28, 2003 15:22

Justin, I take it it was the 'Socialist Worker' that told your the revolution will happen next Monday week or whatever, the SP do not hold that perspective. another thing, point of information, the SWP are not Trotskyists, I think they call themselves post-Trotskyist Cliffists. They disagree with some of the fundamental tenets of what Trotsky stood for.

Another point of information, Kevin McLoughlin is not the general secretary of the SP. And I think that the SP come very well out of the debate with Throne. It's not true about the 'infighting'.

by Durutti Mon Apr 28, 2003 14:59

Yeah, they fraek out about John Throne. So much for "Democratic" Centralism, he was expelled and refused a right to appeal, in breach of both the CWI and SP constitutions.

by Trim Reaper Mon Apr 28, 2003 14:37

Dermot Connolly was dethroned (oops!) at the last SP conference. The Troika of Kevin Little Lenin MacLoughlin, Michael Militant Masses O'Brien and Stephen Stalin Boyd. now rule the SP with an Iron Heel.

by Badman Mon Apr 28, 2003 14:19

which has easily broken indymedia's record for most comments on an article. Although the SP don't come out of it looking too good. They really seem to be in trouble by the standard of debating that they seem to be able to muster.

by Flummoxed Mon Apr 28, 2003 14:11

I am flummoxed to hear that a dolt like Kevin McLaughlin is SP General Secretary. I thought that used to be Dermot Connolly's role. Someone tells me he has left the SP, resined in disgrace. Does anyone know the facts?

by Trim Reaper 2 - 1 Mon Apr 28, 2003 13:55

Turns out the whole article is a lie. Now thats a shock!

by Curious Mon Apr 28, 2003 13:51

Is it true about the infighting?

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Mon Apr 28, 2003 13:45 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

About the internal meanderings of everyone's favourite Trotskyite revolutionary organisation, it is a lie to state that most TDs have given up their Council seats. Most have not done so. I think all the Greens have but precious few in any of the parties, including Sinn Féin, though we hope to have that out of the way in the next few months. With the revolution about to occur (So my reading of Trotsykite newspapers informs me) maybe they doubt there'll be a Council seat in a couple of months.