Damien Dempsey advertised but never confirmed for Socialist Youth Festival

by socialist Tue Jul 04, 2006 20:46

Thank god i found this thread, I've been looking to leave the joyless and non-revolutionary socialist party for a while now. What are the alternative groups I could join where i would be listened to and allowed be part of a decision making process?

by Confused - sp-swp-cp-sf-allthesame Fri Sep 05, 2003 00:52

If there is such annoyance that SP is a cult but you are not a member and dont believe in its ideals why do you post about it. Does it affect swp or whatever that much. If you believe in the ideals or similar ideals why not start a new party, a fresh new party is what we need I think to solve all this bullshit.

Nobody has the balls or iniative to do this these days, Im only 17 so I aint doing it by the way!

by sumdumguy Fri Sep 05, 2003 00:39

so? who cares, is this what the left debates about these days. Whether damein demphsey went to a festival? Jesus christ, your all fucking wasters

by Dennis Tourish Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:41

I suspect that this discussion has been superseded by the one started by SP member, and on which debate continues about this idea that the CWI is a cult - or at the very least, highly dysfunctional. My points will be brief, and further discussion if it occurs might be better on the other thread:

1. The word 'cult' is not an empty term of abuse. It has a precise content - that the CWI has an authoritarian, overcentralised regime; has a sectarian intolerance of dissent; an exaggerageted view of its own historical role, and uniqueness; norms which prohibit open discussion and the exchange of views; and many other things I have detailed elsewhere. The shorthand description for this is cult. In like manner, Trotskyism is a body of doctrine that is very complex, and rather than list each aspect of this each time one discuses Trotskyism it is normal to simply refer to 'Trotskyism.' What I find interesting is that the shorthand term I favour, and I favour it because it is both evocative and widely used in the literature on groups and cults, is rejected as an insult - but the precise criteria that actually make it up is not really being challenged (in my view, anyway). The main point, whatever label you care to use, is that the internal regime of the CWI is undemocratic, intolerant of dissent, authoritarian, sectariaan, intellectually arrogant to the point of driving away potential allies(the future of the planet depends on building your organisation, and so we must all accept your program???). These are the substantial points.


2. In terms of addressing the issues, or querying my mental state, CWI defenders do speculate on my motivations (mostly, from a position of ignorance) - rather than address the points being made. For example, HS above writes: 'I basically find it difficult to believe you're doing any more than trying to build some sort of name for yourself (how don't ask) and I find it hard to believe you have any interest in the wider movement unlike most of the other critics.' You see the problem. My motivations must be impure, and if this can be established then there is really no need to address my arguments. For the record, I do not belong to any political party, but I am active in my trade union. I do not need to spend time on these issues to build any kind of a name for myself - and even HS is unsure how this would be accomplished. My academic publications are in different fields entirely - interpersonal and organisational communication, if anyone is interested. Noone in academia gives a flying bejasus whether I write about cults or not, and it in no way forms part of my academic progress. My motivation is simply that I learned a few things when I was a CWI member that I think it worth sharing with others, in the interests of us all learning from experience rather than repeating past mistakes.

I want also to add that I am grateful HS has engaged with the discussion. It hasn't made me change my mind, but it has certainly forced me to think! Hopefully, others will have found some of the exchanges informative.

by hs - sp Fri Aug 08, 2003 17:42

where did i question dennis's mental state. You seem to be putting words in my mouth to fit in with your own ideas.

by hs - sp Fri Aug 08, 2003 17:39

But dennis this does not remove from the fact that by using language such as "cult" immediately you are going on the offensive. You could have said "undemocractic overcentralised regieme" or whatever, but by the word cult you are "sexing up" to say the least your arguments.

Interested, I was simply pointing out by attacking us like this and in the language being used as stated above its hard to believe theirs a legitimate political point unlike John Throne etc. And from most of your arguments on indymedia dennis has often been personal.

The point on where people are coming from is very important. For example you have written without a name for all I know you could be a member of a different political party, a right wing party who is opposed to us or a left wing party who sees us as a rival. For example the last person to call us a cult was a Finnia Fail candidate for Dublin West, Where joe higgins seat is. Now should the fact she is in a right wing political party or not be taken into account? For all I know you could be a member of Finnia Fail too. Cultism is only the latest not so long ago in true red scare fashion we were accused of being too english. And after this attack there'll be something else.

This is a minor red scare and I think if we one a few seats or built a bigger base this will be nothing compare to what the bourgeois press will say. I make no apology for defending myself.

As for your own point all I will say is have the balls (like Dennis Tourish and others) to say who you are and if you have any political affiliations if any. I have no problem speaking with anyone but not those who hide behind names such as "interested".

by Interested Tue Aug 05, 2003 11:41

Just to follow from the last two postings, I notice that SP members seem intent on querying the motivations/ mental state/ etc of people like Tourish, rather than answering the arguments. Frankly, I couldn't care less what drives Tourish or anybody else to make their critique of the CWI. It is the quality of their arguments that matters, and it is that I would like the SP contributors here to address. Instead, they keep trying to psychoanalyse the motivations of their critics, and then imagine that this constitutes a rebuttal. They should perhaps consider that it tends to come across as supplementary evidence that they are a cult.....

by Dennis Tourish Tue Aug 05, 2003 10:45

Hi there

Glad to hear from you, and to hear your views.

The problem, however, is that you are tilting at windmills. For example, I have never called you a 'brainwashed member of a cult'. If you read what I have written, you will find that the word brainwash NEVER occurs, because I think it is a meaningles term and I do not think that any such thing exists. No one I know who has seriously researched cults would use that word either, for the same reason.

Rather, my argument is simply that some well known aspects of group dynamics are manipulated in order to: stifle dissent; produce the illusion of unanimity; make it harder for people to think through things for themselves; entrench the power of the leadership (which becomes much more intense than what is found in 'normal' organisations); extract extraordinary levels of commitment and sacrifice (which as I argued in my original article, has the effect of instensfying belief in the original goal or organisation in the absence of empirical evidence that it remains sensible). Tecbniques of influence and persuasion are employed(such as massively exaggerating the authority and credibility of the leadership - eg PH is the foremost Marxist writer on the North!) , so that these things sway people rather more than their paltry arguments. To go on would be to repeat myself. Some groups harm some people some of the time, And some groups harm people pretty much all of the time - agreed? This matters. Political belief is not just a matter of individual conviction. We are social beings, and derive many of our belief systems from the groups we belong to, and are affected by its group practices. I think that the group dynamics I have listed above, in their entirety, are pretty similar to organisations like the Scientologists to whom the label cult has been applied, and I think they characterise the CWI. People must judge for themselves.

However, as I say, this is rather different from the straw man position you put up and then demolish. Of course you are not brainwashed - ie you have not surrendered every vestige of your capacity to think, to have it wholly replaced by whatever Hadden etc decrees. You only see this in Hollywood movies. BUT - I do believe that you put yourself in a social environment where what influences and persuades you is very much artificially driven, and wherein it is harder to function as an independently minded, critical person. If I was wrong, I would expect to find plentiful factions in the CWI and intense open debate on fundamentals (as well as peripheral questions). Instead, I see legions of the expelled and the denounced, with the odd token nod towards debate.

Frankly, it is a far from convincing spectacle. And the cavalier attitude that SP members demonstrate towards the basics of democracy do little to help its image.

by hs - sp Tue Aug 05, 2003 03:36

Been busy, but better late than never.

something that the cwi got wrong, lets see the ussr collapsed and the euro exists!!!! A political line i disagree with, the position on the falklands war. Some problems with scotland.
But when alls said and done there isn't any other group in Ireland I can see having any real effect on the country (towards socialism). If a better party is created I'm there. And thats basically it.

On direct action i'm not opposed to it. In italy it was used very successfully, although it had the support of masses of workers. For example Genova port was closed for 24 hours and half the railways were blocked. In shannon, I wasn't there so I don't want to critisise, but it didn't seem like the support was there for it.
And thats not just coming from sp, thats coming from the debates published on indymedia afterwards and the fact that even some of the wsm didn't seem to be involved. Who would normally push for this. But i'm looking from afar before i offend anyone.

Again I'm not critisising but in the end it seemed to be small groups of individuals rather than even a couple of thousand. Which was easily taken care of by the police. If the sp didn't exist i don't think that would have changed.

To think that shannon airport workers may be worried about the jobs is i think a fact that has to be acknowledged even if it isn't nice, it's a fact. In the end the lives of iraqis are obviously more important but I think in some debates this seemed to be ignored. And anyone who mentioned was attacked.

I think direct action is something which should be used more often though. I believe the attempted squat was a perfect idea, in that a empty building and pointing out the high cost of rent etc. Didn't work out this time but practice makes perfect! its a beginning in Italy there is a couple of social centres in every city now. Although alot less than in the past some can have a very positive effect on their cities. They are made up of lots of different left movements though I've yet to see one without a hammer and sickle flying.

But one little point about italy where direct action such as railway blocking is commonplace it now has the same effect as marches as they in themselves block streets etc. A big march in Dublin has a bigger effect than a big march in italy, and a big march in dublin has a greater effect than alot of direct actions in italy. Basically its normal here. I don't think direct action should be seen as any holy grail its a tactic thats all. Inb italy where we do have lots of atonomus centres for many they have become an alternative lifestyle as much as anything else. And some most famously ginsbourg has argued that they represented more of a retreat from the defeats of the sixties and early seventies than anything else.

The action on the port on the other hand and the general strike after the war began had greater effect. This is not to say all or nothing, i don't believe we have to wait until everyone is prepared to down tools before we can do anything but direct action when used should be done well, but I'm not opposed to it. Often on indymedia it seems to have been an anarchist verses socialist debate which is strange for me as here the rifondazione communista youth organise alot of the actions as do the dissobiedients which aren't really an anarchist group. Anyway I don't think its a case of one or the other, direct action is in the eye of the beholder most people out there would probably consider marching or blocking a street direct action.

The direct action attacks on the planes I have said before on indymedia I supported it whatever about the party line, don't know what it was.
This because the were actual military planes and part of the war it did damage and got publicity.
Also it was organised very well, if your're gonna do secretive and destructive direct action its best to keep it secret.
But I think for the whole shannon tactics et the group which had the most effect was definitely the origanal planespotters who publisised the fact it was going on to great effect.

As for people defending their party on indymedia it's a quite natural thing to do. I think if you spoke to some comrades in person you might get a more open answer. But anonoymous attacks on indymedia. Which they often are will bring out agressive defence. I've done it myself, I don't think thats unusual.

Dennis it's hard to discuss with a person whos opening remarks is that i'm a brainwashed member of a cult. Thats not so difficult to understand. you can say the cwi is too radical, or not radical enogh, too closed, to open, undemocratic, chaotic it's politics are wrong or whatever but that the socialist party is a cult? Thats just silly and I say that with all due respect
i can't take that seriously. i'm a member of the party i know the internal workings of it and as anom has pointed out it's basically nonsense. Lots of people disagree with us including ex members such as john throne. But he will argue in a comradely manner because obviously he is serious and wants to convince the party and individual members of his arguments. I couldn't say the same about you I don't think anyone could. And I have my doubhts if he appreciates your championing of his rights. As I mentioned before he founded the party, don't get much more influencial than that. And as i said before how can we be a mindless cult to our leaders when we expelled one (john throne) and didn't follow ted grant who was the founder and main theorotician before. Its hard to be mindlessly following a leader when we don't keep following them! This you have never explained.

And Pat C. has serious disagreements with us (and gives as much as he gets)and often comes up with conspiricy theories about SY :) but I take him seriously as an activist and someone with political differences. But again i find it difficult to say about yourself. I don't mean to be offensive or evasive but your arguments, well theres not much else I can say except you've described half the political parties in the world. Probably more. And in the end the socialist party isn't a cult it's a political party. I basically find it difficult to believe you're doing any more than trying to build some sort of name for yourself (how don't ask) and I find it hard to believe you have any interest in the wider movement unlike most of the other critics.

by statistician Sat Aug 02, 2003 13:12

In regard to the above discussion, I checked up the socialist youth website, to see what they say about the actual camp itself. I was astonished, though I shouldn't have been, to find that no more than 100 people attended it. Normally, this outfit exaggerates its numbers by a great margin, but let's say they are right on this occasion. 30 years of activity; a huge expenditure of energy; considerable influence, at least in the past. And it boils down to 100 people attending one of their premier annual events. Whatever allowances you make for political conditions (and the SP makes many, to account for its own insignificance) this is a terrible outcome. Whether you call it a cult, a teapot or a sect - the terminology doesn't matter too much to me. But an insular, insignificant and probably destructive force it appears to be. I sincerely hope that any young socialists who strayed into its summer camp decided that one encounter with the organisation was one too many.

by observer Sat Aug 02, 2003 01:03

Another brilliant, well reasoned, witty, thorough, detailed and evidence based argument from the SP. I have no doubts left about its internal regime, and how it treats different viewpoints. Moreover, Throne is obviously a man who should have been shot - had he not been already expelled. Peter Taaffe is a genius and Peter Hadden is an apprentice genius. I am wholly persuaded. I want to donate all my money and my time to the SP.

Where can I join? And when can I start my classes in how to do spelling mistakes?

by member of the SP Sat Aug 02, 2003 00:33

Seeing as Denis Tourish appears to be enjoying himself so much, if I have a spare couple of hours over the weekend I might just sit down and write a reply.

by Dennis Tourish Fri Aug 01, 2003 20:12 D.Tourish at abdn dot ac dot uk

Sometimes, I almost feel sorry for those who feel compelled to defend the CWI's internal regime. They remind me of those designers claiming that the Titanic was unsinkable, up to and including the point where she sank. In this case, it is hard not to reach the conclusion Trotsky once reached about some writings of Stalin's: every sentence is a mistake, and sometimes two.

John Throne can and no doubt will answer for himself. But just consider. He disagreed with the CWI leadership, and for this was expelled. And the defenders of the CWI, virtuous opponents of the Labour Party expelling them in the 1980s, see nothing remarkable in this. Yet they still argue - astonishingly - that they treasure open debate and dissent. Evidently, people are free to say whatever they want - just so long as it is in line with CWI policy. To paraphrase Henry Ford's old maxim about cars: you can have any opinion you want, so long as it is endorsed in advance by Peter Taaffe. The CWI has a totally platonic relationship with democracy - it is an excellent thing, provided no one ever tries to consummate it.

Then, casually, they refer to this man becoming an 'enemy' of the CWI, presumably because he dared to have differences with it. Again, the reality is exposed, during an attempt to hide it -unless you completely, uncritically, slavishly follow the party line you are an enemy, to be demonised, expelled and branded as an enemy. And yet - oh no - none of this is bizarre, none of this is cultic, none of this is different from what you find in the Mothers Union or a trade union branch, none of this is like the Moonies, none of this is is inconsistent with building a movement for a new society capable of appealing to the working class.

Sterility and irrelevance have been embraced by the leadership of this organisation, a long time ago. They long ago adopted behaviours that favour tight control over a small group of followers rather than influence within what would inevitably be a broader movemement encompassing many shades of opinion. I suppose they think it better to reign in hell than serve in heavan. Dishonesty and hypocrisy ensures that in this respect at least they will succeed splendidly.

by Take Away Fri Aug 01, 2003 19:00

John Throne was past it but he just could not accept reality. In the end he just did not command respect. At the American Sections Conference 90% voted against Throne and voted for his expulsion. The question of an appeal didnt arise because the Conference as the Supreme Body had decided on the expulsions.

Hard pressed Revolutionary Organisations are not in a position to give money to those who have chosen to become their enemies.

by Agent of Chaos Fri Aug 01, 2003 18:51

Are you denying that John Throne was treated in this way?

You have never dealt with even the historical items raised by Tourish. What about the Militant internal regime, are you saying that was untrue? The CWI documents he qouted from about Nuclear War?

You are laughing at yourself.

by Totsky - Tocialist Tarty Fri Aug 01, 2003 18:48

Tat T and Tenis Tourish are triving me tinsane with all tis tonsense tabout tults. Te TWI tortured me so tuch tat I tan't tink or talk property tanymore!

by Pizza Boy - Waco Survivor Fri Aug 01, 2003 18:41

Its bizarre how so many people speak with such authority about things they know absolutely nothing about. And I am laughing cause you're a fucking joke!

by pat c Fri Aug 01, 2003 18:39

Whenever the SP leadership face a problem on Indymedia they let the Tots n Trots loose to abuse people. If you respond, you are then attacked by Brian Cahill or hs and accused of arguing with 15 year olds.

A clever ploy on the part of the SP.

A pity they wont openly answer the central issues raised by Dennis Tourish.

by agent of Chaos Fri Aug 01, 2003 18:35

Thats it lads, keep it up. You are showing how pathetic you are.

Do you not think that you should be mulling over John Thrones treatment: sacked after 25 years as a fulltimer. Not allowed to make an appeal to the US section Congress. Not allowed his right of appeal to the CWI World Congress.

No secerance pay, no pension, no health cover. The CWI even refused to pay his hospital bills. Is this how you think comrades should be treated?

Laugh that one off.

by Pizza Boy - Waco Survivor Fri Aug 01, 2003 18:28

I was wondering Denis is there any truth that you are David Courish reincarnated, is the only difference that you swapped the C for a T?

by Pathetic Dupe Fri Aug 01, 2003 18:26

Denis please help me, I have been held captive by the CWI for 22 years and they do evil things to me. I am made give over all of my wages and they give me an allowance for food and the kids. When I miss a paper sale they hold me down and stick drawing pins under my finger nails.
Every year they make me go to Belgium and force feed me on speed so that I can sit at lectures (brainwashing sessions) for 24 hours a day.
And because I have not met my fundraising targets they make me give sexual favours to the Troika.
So Denis please come and rescue me!!!!

by Curious Fri Aug 01, 2003 17:39

Not like old Henry to be struck dumb. Or has he been ordered to maintain silence.

The Tourish Document was deleted from the SY Discussion Board. Stephen Boyd ordered that it be removed and so it was.

by Chekov Fri Aug 01, 2003 00:45

So, you say that:

"i have never been forced to do anything, forced to accept any line or any other nonsense."

So, can you let us know of one area where you disagree with your organisation's party line? If you can't, it's not really much of a statement. No member of a cult would ever claim that they had been forced to swallow any line. If they felt that, they'd leave. The trick is to apply coercion in subtle ways so that there is an overwhelming social pressure (normally experienced as guilt) to conform to the cult line. So, the fact that you _feel_ that you have not been forced to accept any line, and I fully believe you when you say you do, is no evidence that the CWI is not too cultic for its own good.

Not that I'm not arguing that the SP is a cult. I'm just saying that your argument sounds very poor unless you can actually back it up with some evidence of places where you do disagree with the party line. Any member of a cult will always tell you that they are entirely free in their membership of the cult, and their wholehearted support for its program is voluntary.

For what it's worth, I think that the SWP has more problems with internal regimes than the SP. However, I certainly don't think that the SP is without problems. I was genuinely shocked at the way that all of the indymedia SP'ers, every last one of them, argued that strike action was the only valid direct action at Shannon during the war, a line that seemed to me to so absurd that it was impossible to imagine that a large number of socialists could have arrived at this position independently.

by Dennis Tourish Thu Jul 31, 2003 22:41 D.Tourish at abdn dot ac dot uk

I very much welcome the contribution from 'anon.' It is the first attempt I know of from someone in the CWI to respond to my criticisms of it, which I perfectly accept are mine alone, and very different from the views of John Throne and others. It is always useful to address the issues, rather than engage in abuse. My response is:


1. Cults indeed exercise an intense control over the lives of their members - dominating their time; insisting that they alone have a unique and appropriate insight into reality; resisting real alliances with others (since it would dilute their control over the lives of their members); exacting a high degree of sacrifice from the members; giving the leadership a privileged position, in terms of decision making, sexual favours and (frequently, but not always) a privileged lifestyle financially. With the exception of the last, I say this characterises the CWI. Anon disputes this. Readers can judge for themselves, based on their own knowledge of the CWI and their interactions with its members. I am confident of the position I have argued, on these issues. In short, I think I (and others) have precisely exposed such practices in the CWI.


2. Not all cults are 'closeted away from society', in the sense of geographical isolation implied by Anon. HOWEVER: they all do exalt the position of their group, claiming it has a privileged insight into society and that their members bear an inordinate responsibility for saving the world. Read the material of the CWI (if you can stay awake). They are convinced that their group holds the key to world history and the salvation of the planet in their hands. If anyone else argued this, they quite possibly would be certified - it not even a Napolean complex, it is a God complex. Leading members of the CWI in particular have a hugely inflated idea of their own importance - no one who has met them could ever accuse Taaffe, Hadden etc of modesty. Again, this makes it impossible to build lasting alliances with others, since this would contaminate the purity of the group and its ideology. Life is constant struggle for ideological purity, and a heresy hunt against dissenters, real or imagined. Is this the CWI or not? I think it is, Anon (and why the anonymity?)disagrees: others must judge for themselves.

3. I have never alleged, and in fact very few cults are in this position, that typical members are so geographically isolated (where? on a mountain top?) that they must be physically rescued from the group to which they belong! However, I do claim, and very strongly, that many members of the CWI have a completely outlandish view of the real historical significance of their organisation, and that this makes it hard for them to a) apprise its real role in society, and b) leave it for pastures new, in good shape. Long standing members usually leave in crisis, or in disgrace (if they have the temerity to volubly dissent from the Central Committee). The pressure on dissenters is enormous, and to argue otherwise is to bob and weave (without much success) around the facts. There are too many expelled, traumatised and demonised (including whole sections and parts of sections) to get away with this one.

3. As to the voluntary nature of members' contributions to the CWI. I have never suggested otherwise! My whole point is that people are manipulated into signing up for heroic sacrifices, on the basis of partial information and outright deception. For example, and it is only an example, the CWI is incredibly reluctant to honestly face up to its beaviour towards people like John Throne, or its political mistakes over a whole period. Taaffe, Hadden etc present themselves as political oracles, pretty much immune to the mistakes and fallacies of lesser human beings. I personally recall Peter Hadden arguing on more than one occasion with me that a leadership should appear more certain of its views in public than it actually is. Such malign and preposterous practices, I believe, take unfair advantage of people's commitment, and in particular their desire for a better society. Group processes are manipulated to achieve this effect. Anon in no way deals with the substantive points about such processes I make in my writings on this subject. (Anyone interested can read either my book, or the long article on the CWI available elsewhere on this site).

4. I quite accept Anon's point that CWI leaders (to my knowledge, in any event) derive very little personal financial benefit from their role. But.... there are many kinds of perks, and not only money. Taaffe and co. enjoy many of them, including the power that their position gives over their members.

5. I also accept that of the former CWI leaders who have combated its bureaucratic and undemocratic internal regime I alone have advanced the view that it is a cult. I think this is because I am one of the few to approach it with some knowledge of the wider cult phenonomenon, and (given my academic position, highlighted by Anon) of group dynamics. But more, and more seriously, this is an irrelevant point. Not so long ago, 99% of people in the world believed it was flat, and many still believe in God. That didn't make it so. Howvever many people agree or disagree with me is neither here nor there - and plainly many people DO agree with me! The point is, or should be, the argument.

Finally, I in no way want to insult the many tremendous members of the CWI that I worked with over many years, and have known since. My point is simply that the internal regime of their organisation is dsyfunctional. I call it cultic. Others have their own terms. But whatever we call it, it is bad - and that does not insult the members. They are not responsible for the behaviour of their leaders, for their power mania, egotism and limited vision. Probably, however, it does insult the organisation's leadership - and this I am quite happy to do.

by Paul M - Socialist Youth Thu Jul 31, 2003 22:01

Damien Dempsey's agent was repeatedly contacted about the event, and he indicated that Damien Dempsey would probably speak. It was on that basis that Damien Dempsey was advertised as an invited speaker. We never managed to contact Damien directly, but had to continually go through his agent, who at a certain stage failed to get back to us, leading to the unfortunate situation whereby a speaker who was advertised did not speak. Mistakes happen, we're sorry! If anyone who was there wants to get a discount because of Damien Dempsey not being there, they can try talking to me! :)

by Anon Thu Jul 31, 2003 20:40

Denis Tourish's so-called "authoritive" writings on the CWI are rich with academic jargon but very poor when it comes to facts and reality.
Cults, or what are generally viewed as groups and organisations which have an "unhealthy" control over its members are organisations which seem to be based in the practice of brainwashing and extreme control over their members lives.
No one has yet to "expose" any evidence to suggest that these practices exist within the CWI. The CWI and its various sections are not closeted away from society but make a point of being very active and openly engaged in the movements and struggles of the working class.
No evidence has been produced to show that individuals who wish to leave the CWI have had to be rescued by their family and friends or had to go through torturous debriefing sessions in order to rehabilitate them for "normal" life.
Out of context and distorted examples of members being asked to paid "large" subscriptions to the party are highlighted as proof that the CWI is a cult. The CWI is proud of the sacrefices made by its members. Members VOLUNTARILY decide and without COERCION to spend time engaged in the political and campaigning work of their party and they also voluntarily decide to help financially support that work. No one within the CWI financially benefits from this money all of which is used for the running of the party and its political work. There is no leader, no swami, living in an expensive house and driving around in a fleet of Rolls Royces! In fact these claims are an insult to the many people who have been members of the CWI over the years. Including people you now claim to champion such as John Throne, whose house you once lived in (an example of one of the personal sacrefices John Throne was prepared to make, not an example of someone who had been brain washed by a cult), and yours friends and peers from the time when you were a member. These claims undermine their intelligence and insinuates that they were gullible fools who were easily parted from their money, and their time. These claims are also an insult to the tens of thousands of working class people who have voted for CWI members either in union elections or in parliamentary or local government elections - the working class of Liverpool, the millions who supported the anti-poll movement, the working class of Dublin West- because according to Tourish's theory these workers were dupes of a cult!
It is also noteworthy that no one outside of Denis Tourish has made such outlandish claims. There are numerous ex-members of the CWI, including some like John Throne who have many criticisms of the CWI. Yet none of these critics, some of whom have been very vocal on Indymedia have ever shared or hinted that there is any element of truth in what Tourish says.
Denis Tourish left the CWI many years ago without voicing any political disagreements. He later in his new life as an academic created his cult theory.
I once listened to a man in Hyde Park, on his soapbox, declare to all that the world was flat and that we were all being duped by the powers that be into thinking that it was round. Unfortunately Denis Tourish has gone being a person who played a role as a revolutionary socialist and has become like the man on the soapbox in Hyde Park - a crank. This isn't an insult Denis, its unfortunately for you a statement of fact, and its seems that the only people who are listening to you and taking you seriously are other cranks who inhabit the cyberworld of Indymedia.

by Dennis Tourish Thu Jul 31, 2003 19:32

Actually, HS, I am beyond being offended by the CWI - amusement would more describe my reaction. My point, however, is that when you call someone names and DO NOT ANSWER their arguments, then you are descending into abuse that gets in the way of interesting debate. Do you see what I mean? You can call me names if you want. It would just help intellectual clarity to address the issues, if you would be so kind. In that way there remains the remote possibility that we might all learn something.

In the meantime, and in the absence of any serious riposte, the dysfunctional group dynamics of the CWI in their entirety render it a very different organisation from most I know, and qualify it as a cult - in my opinion....I grant it is not as bad as the WRP was, or some other organisations - just as not all capitalist employers are as exploitative as Robert Maxwell. But a cult it sadly remains.....

by Magneto Thu Jul 31, 2003 18:12

I'm not sure what you are on about. There is nothing hypocritical about disagreeing with some of the policies of the Labour Party. In the Real Non-Cult World, it is normal for people to have differences of opinion.

Can you point to any Labour Party expression of support for the Orange Orders "right" to march down the Garvaghy Road?

I wouldnt be surprised if a few individual members of the LP held such a view. But thats what you get under democracy.

by Hebe Thu Jul 31, 2003 18:07

The CWI membership has fallen from 14,000 to 2,000. You expelled the entire , 1,000 member Pakistan section, you forced out the majority of the Scottish section, you lost your entire South African section, your US section is ion tatters, the England & Wales section is down to 400 members. Who do you think you are kidding?

Do you think John Throne was treated properly? Expelled, not allowed to address or put his case to the US section conference. Not allowed to make his appeal to the CWI World Congress.

Sacked after 25 years as a fulltimer, no redundancy, no pension, no health cover. In the US health cover can be a matter of life and death. John Throne was ill and had medical bills but he was abandoned by the CWI. Is that the way to treat an employee?

by hs - sp Thu Jul 31, 2003 18:01

oh dear... glass houses and all that.
theres lots i don't agree with in my party too. but magneto does the term hypocrite mean anything to you? Attacking us on the north for being anti republican... and you're in labour? Is labour opposed to orangies on g. road. I don't think so.
and before you mention militant, never was a member never been in labour and would never join.

by hs - sp Thu Jul 31, 2003 17:57

Well excuse me if your offended. But you are calling me a cult member. I have been in the Sp political party for a number of years, i have never been forced to do anything, forced to accept any line or any other nonsense. I have been free to live my life as I choose.
Political parties have leaderships and political lines and points of view otherwise they wouldn't be political parties. If it was a cult could I do this? Everybody is free to come and go as they please. You talk about splits, I don't know where your from Dennis but the cwi splits are nothing in comparison to what has happened in irish history. THe Sinn Fein split with the officials caused a number of fueds so did the officials split with the INLA. Thats fueds people being killed. Compared to this the splits within the cwi really haven't been that bad. After all we haven't actually decided we'd like to kill ted grant!
Now would you claim that Sinn Fein are a cult, because they would fit all your descriptions with dead people to boot. Or for that matter the loyalist groups. And thats only Ireland.
For your criteria I could add any party.

by Magneto - Labour Party Thu Jul 31, 2003 17:18

Indeed I am a member of the Labour Party. I have some ideas on the North which would not coincide with those of Pat Rabbitt. But I am allowed to openly express those opinions both within and without of the party. Not something that SP members would be familiar with.

Whatever are you going to do about Dermot? He will give ideas to the young comrades, they will also think that they can break the party line. I fear that he will soon be told that senility/his illness etc is getting the better of him. Yes, he will join the ranks of Tourish and Throne.

Incidentally, my Bunny leader would not agree with you on Jaffas marching down the Garvaghy Road, nor would he think it a good idea to have a British Army recruitment stall in QUB. Unlike the SP, he would agree with naming aQUB bursary after Pat Finucane.

by Dennis Tourish Thu Jul 31, 2003 16:51 D.Tourish at abdn dot ac dot uk

Dear HS

Where to start with your comments? I will leave aside the opinion you offer that I am a crank - which, of course, does not address my analysis by one iota. Nor would it hold much water, for that matter, if I called you a cult addled clot. You see where that gets us.... Nowhere. Abuse rather than reasoned argument seems to be the norm with the SP, and I would respectfully suggest that you and your colleagues grow out of it. You only isolate and discredit yourselves by such language - it is not the norm in terms of political debate.

More substantially, and it is an argument I am familiar with, you say that if my arguments were true then most organisations such as a group of people going to the gym would be a cult. Sadly, this semmingly imposing argument is no more convining than most missives from the CWI's leadership.

All groups have their good and bad points, including yours. What makes the CWI a cult, as opposed to a trade union branch or most political organisations, I believe, is the following:

1An authoritarian leadership, and the concentration of all real power in its hands, despite formal commitments to the opposite
2Hatred of and intolerance of dissent
3Demonising of dissenters - eg I am a crank, John Throne is pathetic, Ted Grant was senile
4Banning/ purging of factions/ absence of sustained debate and alternative viewpoints
5Unethical manipulation of people - eg the existence of numerous fronts, behind which the real objectives of your group are hidden
6Overworking of a tired and full time cadre, so that they have less time to think for themselves
7So much time devoted to 'party building' that alternative sources of information are largely ignored or ridiculed. In the CWI case, you mostly read Marx to Trotsky, and aside from Taaffe etc - very little else.
8 An absence of basic ethical principels in dealing with people. I cite the case of Throne and others, fired and demonised in a mannr that would draw howls of outrage from you were it to occur from a capitalist employer.

I could go on, but it would merely be to repeat the points in my original long article on the CWI, links to which are posted on this site. But I defy anyone to produce a group of gym loving fitness lovers who would share any or all of these.

In the round, I believe that the CWI leadership (increasingly over the years) have come to represent institutionalised hypocrisy, and are one among many obstacles to the building of real movements capable of changing society.

If anyone is interested in debating these points, rather than hurling terms of abuse, I would be delighted.If, on the other hand, there are more accusations of crankishness to come I simply offer it as supplementary evidence that the CWI is indeed incapable of reasoned argument - a very cult like characteristic.

by hs - sp Thu Jul 31, 2003 16:34

First of all we are accused of being a dangerous cult mindlessly following the great leader...

...but in the next submission we hear this "great leader" (dermot connolly)has in fact been expelled from the SP.

So how can the sp follow our "great leader" mindlessly and replace him at the same time. A little silly to say the least.


but of course the truth is simply
he was the general secretary and now someone else took over the job, quite normal in the life of a political party and kind of disproves the whole "great leader" thing.

For tourishes points to be true it would mean every party (yes you too anarchists, sorry) are some form of cult, not to mention people who go to the gym, watch football etc. I'm afraid he is a crank.

As for magneto I heard a rumour you're in the labour party. Is that true? your stuff on the north would be just a little hypocritical if so.

by Magneto Thu Jul 31, 2003 16:29

. "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"

The SP carry on in exactly the same fashion. At SP Conferences, the outgoing national Committee nominates the incoming one! The bizarre thing is that no one in the SP seems to think that this is in any way odd or undemocratic.

by Pat C Thu Jul 31, 2003 14:33

This is an expanded (1800 extra words) version of the Chapter on the CWI in :

On the Edge: Political Cults of the Left and Right
Sharpe/New York 2000
By Dennis Tourish and Tim Wohlforth

It was cut from the published version due to space reasons.

********************************************

Chapter Six
The Lonely Passion Of Ted Grant

Introduction
The year is 1933. Fascism has triumphed in Italy, and Hitler has just come to power in Germany. Tension is rising in Spain and Portugal, where fascist parties have their eyes set on further victories. Already, some voices can be heard predicting that a new world war is inevitable. Millions of German Jews still go about their daily business, unaware of the fate that awaits them. Half a world away, in South Africa, a small group of Trotskyists, including a youthful Ted Grant, has concluded that capitalism cannot hope to survive the combined calamities of depression, fascism, and imminent world war. They fervently believe that, from the flames of conflict, a new world order will be born. But success is only possible, they reason, if a mass revolutionary party based on the teachings of Lenin and Trotsky can be built. Grant and his associates are convinced that they are destined to become such a party. This daunting ambition is summed up in the name which they select for themselves - the Workers International League (WIL). All they need is a more receptive climate for their ceaseless work of agitation, propaganda and organisation. Where will they go, and what will they do1?
Now, fast forward to Britain in late 1991. The Workers International League, in its entirety, had emigrated there in the mid-1930s. Ted Grant is now in his late seventies, shabbily dressed, except when addressing public meetings, and constantly immersed in the latest edition of The Financial Times. It has been a life long addiction: there is probably no one on the planet who has studied its distinctive pink pages with as much devotion as this man, whose main goal in life is the overthrow of the system the newspaper is pledged to defend. Decades on, Grant’s faith in ‘the revolution’ is undimmed. For over sixty years he has sat in dingy offices in London, and plotted, and planned, and hoped and waited. People who encounter him after an interval of many years all come away with the same observation: ‘He is just the same as always!’ If the dialectic is the philosophy of contradiction and change, Ted Grant is to all outward appearances its living refutation. His world outlook is essentially the same today as it was in 1928. He has spent the last seventy years sealed inside the cloistered world of Trotskyist politics. But, as the new year dawns, he faces expulsion from the organisation he himself founded so many decades earlier. As his life winds to a close, it will be necessary to start all over again.
For the most part it has been a lonely life. Briefly, in the 1940s, Grant helped lead a unified Trotskyist organisation (the Revolutionary Communist Party) which, at its peak, claimed 500 members. In the 1950s, Grant’s coterie shrank to a few dozen people. Then, in the 1980s, the number of his supporters soared, amazingly, to around 8000. By this stage the WIL had transmuted into the Militant Tendency - or, in its international variant, the Committee for a Workers International (CWI). Its members joined the Labour Party, hoping to obtain an influence there which they knew they could never achieve under their own banner. In this guise, it had won a majority within the Labour Party’s official youth section, the Young Socialists - its major source of recruits in the heady days of the 1970s and 1980s. Inevitably, as the prospect of revolution receded and fractiousness reasserted itself, this reduced itself back to its original state of a few dozen members. Grant had always resembled a down at heel teacher in one of the poorer British colleges of further education, rather than a leader of the world revolution. Even his greatest admirers never pretended that he was over endowed with charisma. How had this most unlikely of gurus managed to build a relatively formidable force, even if only for a short period of time?
This is the story of one man’s obsession with the dream of revolution. In the case of Ted Grant there were never any other distractions. From the age of fifteen Trotskyism has been the only passion in a long life dedicated to the overthrow of capitalism. Like their mentor, Grant’s supporters lived in an intense private world where their only intellectual nourishment came from the collected works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky - and Ted Grant. The saga of the CWI’s rise and fall demonstrates the impasse that awaits high activity groups unable to distinguish between their dreams and reality.
Origins and history
Very little is known about the life of Ted Grant, the man, as opposed to Ted Grant the Trotskyist theoretician. Grant would undoubtedly take the suggestion that he had no life outside politics as a compliment. Even his real name is uncertain. Ted Grant is a pseudonym chosen during his fateful trip to Britain in the 1930s, and he has made it a life long practice to conceal his original name and date of birth. It is the one fetish to ever rival his obsession with politics. But, in case this suggests a complete lack of personal sparkle, fairness demands that Grant’s enjoyment of cheap sweets and vigorous games of table tennis also be recorded. His only affectation in terms of appearance was embarrassment at losing his hair, an affliction which befell him in late middle age. Ever since, he has vigorously brushed it forward, thereby drawing further attention to his shining pate, and providing journalists with the only recognisably human trait in otherwise tedious accounts of Grant’s career and organisation.
From external evidence, it appears that he was born around 1913 in South Africa. In the late 1920s he procured a copy of the American Militant newspaper, organ of what eventually became the Socialist Workers Party. It was rare for this publication to excite immediate support at this stage, either at home or abroad, but the impact on this unusual adolescent was one of revelation. Revolutionary politics became the abiding passion of his life. Unlike many gurus on the far left or elsewhere, there is no recorded instance of Grant ever having amorous attachments to members of either sex. The inordinate urge to displace all his feelings in this way suggests that the motive force behind his obsession with politics is neither entirely normal, nor healthy. For Ted Grant, all human interests outside the precepts of scientific socialism are a distraction. His achievement in constructing an organisation which, in the 1980s, briefly attracted the passionate support of thousands of British youth is therefore all the more remarkable. But this development lay far in the future. In the 1930s, isolated and casting around for points of support, Grant’s supporters first joined the Independent Labour Party, before entering the Labour Party’s youth section, then entitled the Labour League of Youth. Even at this stage their main concern was to build their own organisation, rather than become mere members of a larger radical party.
Disappointingly, Britain proved no more receptive to revolutionary ideas than had South Africa. In the minds of most radically minded workers and intellectuals the Communist Party still possessed the authority of having led the only successful socialist revolution in the world. Trotskyist critics were denounced as traitors to the proletariat, and inaccurately depicted as working in liaison with Hitler. However, the atmosphere which prevailed inside the Trotskyist groups also helped them to sustain a state of chronic isolation. From their inception, they were beset by an endless series of splits, mergers and fresh ruptures, on ever more esoteric points of doctrine2. Grant and his WIL became one of just several groups, claiming to be the most authentic interpreters of Trotsky’s doctrine, and engaged in furious polemics with their immediate rivals on the far left.
From such ashes Grant insistently projected the construction of a world party of socialist revolution. However, the minds of most people remained fixed on the task of defeating Hitler. In this time, the WIL had only one piece of good luck. Grant broke his skull in an accident in 1940 and was declared unfit for military service. This enabled him to spend the war writing lengthy documents, predicting the imminent demise of capitalism. Feeble as this activity was, it was just sufficient for the WIL to sustain some hope of recovery and influence in the future.
Official optimism in the face of refutation from the outside world is one of the most recurring traits of the cult groups surveyed in this book. Ted Grant is the virtuoso of optimism. Thus, he produced a document in 1942 entitled ‘Preparing for Power.’ In essence, he has been repeating the same themes ever since. Grant suggested that the war had fatally weakened capitalism and imperialism throughout the globe, but especially in Britain. Socialist revolution was a racing certainty, posing before the WIL the most marvellous of prospects3:
‘Our untrained and untested organisation, will, within a few years at most, be hurled into the turmoil of the revolution. The problem of the organisation, the problem of building the party, goes hand in hand with the revolutionary mobilisation of the masses. Every member must raise himself or herself to the understanding that the key to world history lies in our hands... The organisation must consciously pose itself and see itself as the decisive factor in the situation. There will be no lack of possibilities for transforming ourselves from a tiny sect into a mass organisation on the wave of the revolution.’

As the war drew to a close Grant’s fortunes temporarily improved, before once more being extinguished by chill winds from the outside world. In 1944 the fractious Trotskyist groups united for the first and last time into the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP). Unfortunately, from the RCP’s point of view, Grant’s predictions of revolutionary upheaval increasingly clashed with the actual march of events. While WIL members busied themselves preparing capitalism’s funeral rites, post-war reconstruction had commenced, and the pulse of economic activity quickened. Although Grant and his co-thinkers acknowledged that some growth lay ahead, their basic perspectives remained startlingly unaltered. Catastrophe lurked on the immediate horizon, and state power would be there for the taking. With all the gay abandon of a man dancing on the edge of a volcano, Grant wrote in 19464:
‘Events may speed up or slow down the processes but what is certain is the heightening of social tension and class hatreds. The period of triumphant reaction has drawn to a close, a new revolutionary epoch opens up in Britain. With many ebbs and flows, with a greater or lesser speed, the revolution is beginning. The Labour government is a Kerensky government... the revolution will probably assume a long-drawn out character but it provides the background against which the mass revolutionary party will be built.’

However, in defiance of Grant’s prognosis, the 1945 Labour administration proceeded to deliver on its promises of reform. It nationalised the coal and steel industries, and established socialised medicine in the form of the National Health Service. Further compounding the problems facing the entire revolutionary left, and confounding the claims of Marxists to have a special dialectical insight into its dynamics, the capitalist economy did not merely grow, but boomed as never before. Demoralised, faction ridden and dwindling in numbers the RCP disintegrated in 1950, with most of its members drifting into the Labour Party. Some relinquished revolutionary politics altogether, and went on to develop careers in mainstream politics. It was a bitter period. Nevertheless, Grant remained stubbornly convinced that revolution loomed, and that his primary task was to maintain an organisation propagating the need for soviets, workers defence guards and all the traditional paraphernalia of Bolshevik insurrection.
Ironically, in view of what was to come, the year 1960 saw Grant recruit his own nemesis, Peter Taaffe, in Liverpool. It was to prove a crucial turning point in the organisation’s fortunes. At this stage, seeking shelter from the biting winds outside, Grant’s supporters had rejoined the Labour Party - a long standing Trotskyist tactic of infiltration, which they termed ‘entrism.’ The idea was to undermine advocates of reform from within. Trotskyists would become the termites of social democracy, nibbling at its foundations until the whole edifice crashed to the ground. Feeling more confident they decided to launch a newspaper to rally their supporters. Militant was born in 19645. Henceforth, Grant’s organisation was known as the Militant Tendency. Publicly, it maintained the fiction that it was only a newspaper, around which readers’ meetings were casually organised. Privately, the WIL remained intact, even if it no longer acknowledged the name. It had its own annual conference, employed its own full time officials, and funnelled its money through a labyrinthine web of bank accounts which even most of its leaders later admitted they had never understood.
Grant himself was notoriously inefficient in organisational matters, and increasingly relied on his talented young protégé. Thus, it was Peter Taaffe who on its launch was appointed Militant’s editor, and the revamped organisation’s first full time organiser. In later years he became the CWI’s General Secretary. Increasingly, members in the know whispered that he rather than Ted Grant had become ‘the leading comrade.’ During the early years, when Taaffe publicly maintained an attitude of deference towards Grant, the founder himself held on to his job as a night-time telephone switchboard operator. His organisation could only afford to employ him, even on a paltry salary, in the late 1960s. Bizarrely, this was at a time of his life when most people would have been turning their minds towards retirement.
The 1960s was the decade of sexual liberation, The Beatles, swinging London and student rebellion. Latterly, the anti-Vietnam war protests intensified the spirit of revolt and provided a vital focus around which the general discontent with society could be rallied. A mood of change was in the air. It was a good time in which to launch a revolutionary newspaper. Anything seemed possible. The notion that there would be a resurgence in support for the ideas of the long dead Leon Trotsky was not inherently implausible. But, throughout the decade, Militant largely escaped the contagion of popularity, which had unexpectedly descended on many of its rivals. It was helped in this by the dullness of its pages. While London partied by night and protested by day, Militant bored for socialism. Inspired by the personal example of Ted Grant, widely regarded as the dullest writer in the history of the left, the writings of Militant leaders were a narcoleptic anthology of clichés. ‘Dazzling’ prospects were always said to exist in the immediate future; ‘colossal’ opportunities to build were identified in every situation; the years ahead were invariably referred to as ‘the coming period’; and the group’s prognoses were frequently signalled by the tautological expression ‘we predict in advance.’ The spectacle was one of thought attempting flight, only to find, in mid-motion, that all its moving parts had been superglued together6. The masses, for their part, obstinately refused to be electrified.
Linguistic difficulties were compounded by a myopic tendency to characterise every phenomenon as ‘a class issue,’ thereby alienating potential supporters. On these grounds, the nascent women’s movement was disparaged as a distraction from the real issues facing working class women. When Militant eventually published material on the feminist movement it focused exclusively on low pay, arguing for ‘campaigns’ on the issue by the trade union movement. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, then organising demonstrations of thousands, was similarly despised. Militant theorised that radicalisation and hence socialist revolution would not proceed from such issues, dominated ‘by middle class trendies’, but through a concentration on ‘bread and butter’ issues. Demands for gay liberation were ignored in public, but behind the scenes were treated with contempt. Some CWI leaders argued privately that homosexuality always increased during periods of social disintegration, such as occurred during the fall of the Roman Empire. Its emergence as an issue now was simply one more symptom of capitalism’s degeneration, and impending collapse.
By March 1973 Grant’s organisation had been active in Britain for forty odd years: it had accumulated a total of 400 members. However, by the mid-1970s, it gained control of the Labour Party’s official youth section, the Labour Party Young Socialists. This good fortune was in large measure a parting gift from Gerry Healy (whose activities we discussed in the previous chapter). Healy’s organisation had previously been dominant in the Young Socialists, but successfully contrived to get itself expelled. This removed Militant’s main revolutionary competitors inside the Labour Party, which was by then beginning a surge to the left. Once a majority of the LPYS had been acquired (which, given its small size, was a relatively easy matter), Militant also automatically secured a place on Labour’s governing National Executive Committee (NEC). Trotskyism, for so long stranded on its own remote desert island, had arrived at the very top of Britain’s foremost organisation of Social Democracy.
Success now bred success. To the consternation of the Labour Party leadership, and the delight of Britain’s tabloid press, Militant member Andy Bevan (‘Red Andy’), was appointed Labour’s national youth organiser in 1976, and held this position until 1988. The anti-Labour media had a field day, and the unfamiliar attention further reinforced the illusion within Militant that, after so many years in the wilderness, its day had come.
Certainly, its situation had improved immeasurably. By the late 1980s it claimed 8000 members, making it the largest Trotskyist organisation in the history of Britain7. It also employed 200 full time organisers (all of whom earned a pittance, and most of whom relied on state hand-outs), produced a 16-page weekly newspaper, maintained an impressive headquarters building in London, and was developing a regional network of offices throughout the country. In addition, three Militant members had managed to become Labour Members of Parliament, while others were capturing leading positions within the country’s main civil service trade union.
Politically, the organisation at this time conveyed the impression of laughing in the face of economic crisis and social breakdown. A typical example of its approach can be seen in a pamphlet produced in the early 1980s by CWI supporters in Ireland. Its central message is summed up in its title: ‘Socialism or catastrophe’. The pamphlet asserts:
‘The 1980s will be the most explosive decade in human history, both nationally and internationally. The crisis in the world economic and political systems is developing to new heights and threatens mass unemployment, a return to the conditions of the last century, and in the longer term of 15 to 20 years, the spectre of nuclear war and the destruction of the human species.’
For reasons it never adequately explained, it was assumed that economic calamity would produce mass movements anxious to secure the leadership of the CWI. Such fear arousing tactics provoked a redoubled effort from its already over-stretched membership, convinced that Armageddon was imminent and that they had no time to waste on the subtleties of introspective analysis.
By this time, Militant also had a controlling influence inside the Labour Group of Liverpool City Council. Given the then Tory Government’s policy of cutting back on central government funding for local authorities this brought Militant and the Tory Government of Margaret Thatcher into direct conflict. The result was massive demonstration and gridlock in a major metropolitan area of Britain. In addition, the Labour Party was wracked with painful debate on the most appropriate response to the rise of Thatcher and the fundamentalist brand of monetarism which she represented. Should the party swing to the left, and articulate a dramatic socialist alternative? Or should it follow the example of European Social Democratic parties, embrace the free market system, and propose whatever reforms the system was judged capable of supporting? In this debate, what to do with Militant became a key issue. Many on the left defended its right to maintain Labour Party membership. Those on the right saw this as infiltration, and demanded its removal as a signal to voters that Labour intended to embrace mainstream politics. The subsequent debate ensured that, for a period in the 1980s, this relatively small Trotskyist organisation rarely strayed from the front pages of the national press8.
But, unbeknown to the CWI’s leadership, the high watermark of their influence had already been reached. Within a startlingly short period of time the traditional tension between achieving influence in the real world, and exerting control over its own members, shipwrecked the entire organisation. Scattered groups of survivors, disorientated and frightened by the extent of the catastrophe, wondered how it had it all happened, and stared into a future in which it became increasingly clear that all their best days were now well behind them.
Power dynamics, and life within the CWI
Life within the CWI was a constant strain. Members faced ever greater demands for more activity, more financial sacrifices and, above all, greater conformity with the ideas of the leadership. An examination of what it was like to be a member sheds much light on why it managed to acquire some influence, but also on why it was always inevitable that the organisation would eventually disintegrate.
Andy Troke joined the CWI as a school student in 1972, and remained involved for five years. But even teenagers were viewed as potential ‘cadres’, and were required to make a commitment which went far beyond anything found in mainstream political parties. Andy had to hand over 10% of his pocket money every week. The sum of money involved was small - but this was scarcely the point. It represented a great deal for a new and enthusiastic member. The undoubted sacrifice reinforced his new found loyalty to revolutionary politics. Years later, Troke reflected on his experience as follows9:
‘It’s like somebody who has been through a religious period. You look to either Trotsky, Marx, Lenin, Engels or Ted Grant or Peter Taaffe and you have got the rationale for why people are reacting this way or that. And obviously, everyone else is illogical, because you have the right view. I believe there was a great deal of that type of thinking: we were the chosen few. We had the right ideology. People like Tribune, who were at that time Militant’s main opponents, didn’t know where they were going - nothing. We were the right ones.’
The question arises at this point: what did life within the CWI under such a regime feel like to the average member? How typical was the experience of Andy Troke? How was he and so many others 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 which we have gained from many former CWI members. Ronnie spent a number of years working full time for the CWI:
‘ 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 £500. The speaker would then start off asking for £500, 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 organisation, with its own annual conference, full time officials and central committee. Potential sympathisers 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 Militant, 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 travelled to London, where they were personally vetted by the organisation’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 compliance10. 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 sympathisers. Tobias and Lalich11 argue that cults have only two real purposes: recruiting other members, and raising money. These certainly emerge as central preoccupations of the CWI. Crick12 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 recalling13:
‘The most abiding memories of life in Militant 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.’
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 Opton14 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 accoutred 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 Fraser15 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 organisation 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 us:
‘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!’
The process by which recruits were seduced into the organisation represents a non-too subtle manipulation of their inherent desire for affiliation, a desire which is common to most people16. A driving force behind it is our urge to reduce uncertainty, by embracing ready made explanations for the conduct of others17. In particular, a number of crucial studies18 show that anxiety producing situations increase a person’s need to affiliate with others and can also change their pre-existing criteria for choosing companions. Within all of this, it has been argued that the concept of a group is ‘...a pervasive, ever-present psychological mechanism which creates social cohesion and collective action and makes possible certain higher-order, emergent forms of social life19.’ We attempt to reduce uncertainty through what might be termed a process of ‘social testing,’ in which we measure the validity of our attitudes by comparison to what significant others believe. How does this relate to the CWI?
Clearly, the huge levels of activity demanded of CWI activists ensured that their entire lives revolved around it. The group’s ideology also offered ready made explanations for everything, thereby providing a convenient explanatory framework for the rapid reduction of uncertainty. This constituted one of its main appeals, particularly among young people, for whom uncertainty about the meaning of life and the future is naturally greatest. In addition, the high activism and frequently hostile climate in which people attempted to advance the CWI programme increased anxiety and which therefore exaggerated the tendency towards affiliation, compliance and belief.
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 organisation. 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.
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 organisation would play a decisive role in history’s most crucial turning point. It was at this point, with pride at its peak, that disaster struck.
Collapse and disintegration
The steady growth which the CWI experienced in the late 1970s and 1980s meant that new members were recruited without the period of lengthy indoctrination which had previously been a precondition for CWI membership. Consequently, their loyalty, conformity and respect for CWI methods of working were much less pronounced.
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 Ted Grant and Peter Taaffe when their predictions failed to materialise, this proved impossible. For many, after a short period of time, applause gave way to a slow hand-clap. After the CWI split in 1992 the consequences of this situation were frankly summarised by Grant and the shell-shocked veterans who had gone with him as follows:
‘...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 labelled ‘conservative’. The situation led to the burning out of a whole layer of comrades and Full Timers. Since 1988, the organisation 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.’
In reality, the first intimations of mortality were felt by the CWI in the early 1980s. Labour leaders devoted more time to combating its influence. The Labour Party National Executive Committee voted in 1982 to proscribe the organisation. Members would be presented with a choice - renounce their allegiance to the CWI, or face expulsion from the Labour Party20. The process started in February 1983, when the NEC voted to expel the five named members of the paper’s Editorial Board: Ted Grant, Peter Taaffe, Lynn Walsh, Clare Doyle and Keith Dickinson. By and large, what the CWI described as a witch hunt had a limited effect. Internal CWI documents suggest that by 1991 no more than 250 people had been expelled, then a small proportion of its overall membership. But these figures hid the real extent of the crisis which now gripped the organisation. Much of CWI activity had been forced underground. Anyone who continued to identify with it became a target for expulsion, making it difficult to sell Militant. The temperature in the womb of the Labour Party had turned distinctly chilly.
Despite these measures, for a short period, the organisation’s influence and fame seemed to grow still further. Liverpool had traditionally been the CWI’s main stronghold. In May 1983 CWI members of the local Labour Party took effective control of the city council. The Deputy Leader of the Council, who soon became its public voice, was CWI member Derek Hatton. He was for a time one of the most pilloried men in Britain, before eventually scaling down his political activities and metamorphosing into a well paid public relations consultant. However, the noose was tightening. Many CWI Liverpool leaders were expelled from the Labour Party in 1986, after a prolonged wrangle between the council and Tory Government, which had been attempting to force through cuts in council spending.
Predictably, the official position of the CWI leadership remained one of boundless optimism. Ted Grant, still practising the science of clairvoyance, prophesied in 198621:
‘Militant will become the majority in the Labour Party and the unions and it will transform society during the course of the next decade.’
But storm clouds were also gathering internally. By 1986, Ted Grant realised that he was not being propelled into the limelight of major speaking engagements as much as he had been in previous years. Peter Taaffe’s rationale was that Grant’s best days were behind him, and that perhaps he should think of retirement. Testimony from other members suggests that the truth was more complex, and that Taaffe had increasingly tired of his position as second in command. An old-fashioned struggle for power was underway. Gurus generally dislike other gurus, and relations between Grant and Taaffe had been strained for some years. Obstinately, Grant refused to either retire or to die. Time was taking also taking its toll on the no longer youthful Peter Taaffe. If he delayed a move into the top leadership position much longer, perhaps it would be too late, and his coronation might never come.
Meanwhile, the pressure outside intensified. By 1990, 16 Liverpool councillors were suspended. The immediate issue was their refusal to set an unpopular local government tax (the poll tax) devised by the Tory Government, which meant they were breaking the law, in defiance of official Labour policy. The CWI’s influence, never quite so great as its media profile had suggested, was very much on the wane. It was now deprived of its representative on Labour’s NEC. The mood inside the party had swung against the left in general. The position of those Labour MPs who belonged to the CWI was also under increasing examination, and eventually they too were expelled.
Faced with crisis, the CWI split in two. Taaffe and a majority of the central committee, hand-picked and nurtured by him, concluded that they would enjoy better prospects if they set up their own party. This was a startling revision of its previous position, and one which had after all been its principal distinguishing trait on the revolutionary left. Grant, supported in the main by long standing member Alan Woods, reached precisely the opposite conclusion: now was not the time to change course, but to reaffirm the traditional tactic of entrism, while waiting patiently for better days.
The dispute between Grant and Taaffe was resolved in time honoured fashion. Grant and his supporters, by now representing a small minority, were expelled in early 1992. Labour had frequently justified its moves against the CWI by pointing out that it was a party within a party, effectively violating Labour Party discipline by its very existence. The CWI had always brazenly denied this. Now, in a surreal parody of his own earlier dealings with the Labour Party, Taaffe shamelessly accused the Ted Grant led opposition of - being a party within a party. Lynn Walsh emerged, to provide the more organisationally minded Peter Taaffe with some of the theoretical sustenance previously available from Ted Grant. Grant’s supporters set up a new Trotskyist international, still committed to the traditional policy of entrism. A number of people have testified to us that he immediately recreated the internal regime from which he had suffered under Taaffe, only this time aimed against his own dissidents. Meanwhile, within the CWI, water was now lapping around the ankles of those crew members who remained. Disregarding the danger signals, Taaffe launched his new independent party onto the high seas, its own banner unfurled. It promptly capsized. The few who survived have been engaged in frantic but futile efforts to right it ever since.
Thus, since the early 1990s, the CWI’s decline has been precipitous. Initially, in Britain, it called itself ‘Militant Labour.’ After an acrimonious dispute in 1997, it renamed itself ‘The Socialist Party.’ But new labels provided insufficient ballast to keep it afloat. By 1993 membership had fallen below 3000, with only a small proportion of that active in any meaningful sense. Our sources suggest that this has since dwindled to under 500, and still sinking.
Taaffe now exhibited an increasing fear of mutiny. Conspiracies were suspected in every act of dissent. In the tradition of that sporting philosophy which counsels its adherent to ‘get your own retaliation in first,’ he embarked on a policy of expelling anyone who questioned his authority. In early 1998 he threw overboard the 1000 members of the CWI’s Pakistani section, by then the largest part of its membership. The more spectacularly his predictions were falsified the more paranoid he became about permitting real debate, and the more stridently he insisted on the potential for imminent rapid growth. By the late 1990s Taaffe was claiming that it would be possible to build what he called ‘a small, mass party’ early in the new millennium, numbering some tens of thousands. In turn, the less honestly the organisation discussed its acute crisis the more rapidly it shed members. Sections of the organisation in Britain were now in open revolt, declaring their areas to be ‘Taaffe Free Zones.’ Fortified defences were erected, to hold Taaffe and Walsh at bay. North of the border, members defected from the CWI en masse, and embarked on their own attempt to build a new Socialist organisation in Scotland. The glowing future which its leaders had once anticipated was by now well behind it. All that was left behind were fragments, gloomily contemplating the wreckage of all their hopes, and the waste of so much effort.
Dissent without, and revolution within
Political cults of all hues are possessed by a deep conviction that they alone have access to a series of sacred and absolute truths. Normally, these are judged to be among the most important insights thus far discovered by any set of human beings. The cult’s documents are worshipped as tablets of stone; the words of its leaders are hailed as a new Sermon on the Mount; the leaders, meanwhile, conduct themselves like a conclave of cardinals, occasionally condescending to enlighten the ignorant masses. Persecution heightens the illusion of relevance. Unpopularity reinforces a sense of urgency, uniqueness and infallibility. Throughout its history, Militant fully embraced such delusional patterns of thinking. Thus, an internal document from 1977 claimed:
‘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.’
Within this world view, salvation depended on convincing many other people of the CWI’s infallibility, and therefore on the need for it to become the undisputed leader of the working class. Rivals threatened the group’s necessary sense of superiority. Accordingly, they were all treated with contempt. The closer other organisations were to Grant’s own ideological lineage the more likely they were to be ritually flayed at the CWI’s meetings. Ted Grant, in particular, hugely entertained himself at its conferences by ridiculing those he loftily dismissed as ‘the sects.’ The uninitiated could have been forgiven for assuming that he himself commanded vast legions of followers.
As we have already seen, hostility towards outgroups was combined with a paranoid attitude to dissenters within. Until 1991, when the organisation embarked on its ferocious and ultimately terminal internal row about what attitude to adopt towards the Labour Party, complete unanimity reigned. However, once Grant and his followers had been expelled they cast around for whatever ammunition they could find against Peter Taaffe and his new coterie of leaders. Our own interviews with ex-members suggests that the following quotation, from a document produced by Grant in 1992, accurately characterises the organisation’s internal atmosphere in the by now vanquished glory days of the 1970s and 1980s:
‘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 organisational 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).
All of these problems were exacerbated by Grant’s expulsion. Henceforth, the penalty for dissent was obvious to everyone. In what was by now a familiar pattern, Militant began a purge of its American organisation in 1996. Its main figure there was a long standing leader of the organisation, Sean O’Torain, who had emigrated to the US in the 1980s, and had by the mid 1990s been a full timer for 25 years. At this stage, after more than a decade of activity, the CWI had fewer than 100 members in the United States. Faced with the critical discussion necessitated by such an unprepossessing state of affairs the Taaffe leadership in London expelled those of its American followers who disagreed with their strategy for growth. O’Torain and his supporters subsequently published the following revealing analysis of the top leadership’s attitude to dissent within the organisation:

‘...it is the (leadership’s) view that anyone who makes a sustained criticism of any aspect of the work of the leading comrades must be silenced. And not only that but that all membership of the leadership must unite and crush those making such a criticism. And any member of the leadership who refuses to do so is deemed as undermining the other members of the leadership and is effectively isolated by the rest of the leadership. Secret meetings are held excluding such comrades. This results in a culture... that selects as members of the leadership only those who will unquestionably support all other members of the leadership no matter whether they are right or wrong. This elitist view sees the protecting of the position of the leadership as the same as protecting the interests of the organisation... Its obsessive refusal to ever criticise itself creates an atmosphere in the organisation where it is thought to be an essential quality of a member to always claim to have been correct.’
Such documents (and they now constitute a substantial literature), independent testimony from journalists and other observers, and our own interviews and conversations with ex-members supports the view that intense fear of real debate and discussion was one of CWI’s most dominating characteristics. 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 was increasingly played by Peter Taaffe, determined to inherit the mantle of Lenin and Trotsky in modern day Britain. The ‘Oppositionist’ document of Ted Grant 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.’
Taaffe’s role had indeed become crucial. Power was centralised still further, in a process characteristic of all cult organisations. We spoke to several former members who had worked in the organisation’s London headquarters, and knew Taaffe well. The similarities between their accounts is striking, and is far too consistent to be dismissed as invention. Taaffe had plainly come to believe that he was essential to the success of his organisation in Britain - a variant, one interviewee joked to us, of ‘founder’s syndrome.’ Another former leader told us that, in the middle of one discussion, Taaffe had leaned across the table and declared: ‘The success of the British revolution rests on my shoulders.’ This conviction began to guide the whole internal life of the organisation, particularly after the obstacle of Ted Grant had been removed.
Thus, Taaffe chaired all the important meetings, particularly of the organisation’s Executive Committee. He was usually the first speaker on every subject and allocated the last word to himself. In his ritual summing up at the end he would then mention all contributions, awarding marks for effort and, above all, for conformity: ‘X’s contribution was very good, but Y’s was not so good, while Z’s was fair.’ Other leaders took to monitoring such brownie points, to see who was ‘in’ and who was ‘out’. Nor did this stop at formal meetings. CWI full timers with an athletic disposition usually retired to a local park at lunch time for a football match. Taaffe invariably captained one of the teams, and again used his power of selection to signal who was in and out of favour. Parallels with the Byzantine power struggles in Stalin’s Russia are unmistakable.
For example, as we noted above, the tired remnants of the organisation embarked on yet another ferocious internal dispute in 1996, this time about whether to retain the title ‘Militant Labour’ or call itself ‘The Socialist Party.’ The then editor of the Militant newspaper, Nick Wrack, opposed the name change. Hitherto, he had been a loyal ally to Peter Taaffe, and was usually selected by him as his vice captain for the lunch time football matches. As soon as the ‘debate’ broke out this stopped. Wrack was a broken man. Others who had shared his views made cringing apologies to the central committee, renouncing their ‘errors.’ Wrack himself resigned later in the year, complaining bitterly that Taaffe no longer even spoke to him when they passed in the corridor at the organisation’s headquarters.
However, it would be wrong to see this purely as the result of Ted Grant’s departure. A passive membership had always uncritically adopted political positions handed down by the leadership. Structures, communication systems and organisational behaviours ensured a one way transmission of information and precluded the possibility of corrective pressure being exerted by the rank and file. Callaghan22, writing of the CWI as far back as the mid 1980s, 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 Militant does hold appear to be organised more like rallies than conferences with the audience playing a relatively passive role.’

In essence, the role of the members was to cheer their leaders, even when their performance left little to cheer about. The threat of expulsion hovered over those who did not raise their voices loudly or often enough. Only a fundamental review of its politics, and an acknowledgement of its mistakes, could have salvaged something from the mess in which the CWI found itself. But Peter Taaffe never made mistakes, nor ever apologised. As debacle followed debacle he folded his arms in defiance, and continued to berate his exhausted membership with the need for yet more sacrifices, to ‘build the revolutionary party.’
Conclusion
The saga of the CWI is instructive. Rational politics is about building alliances, achieving influence and making a difference in the real world. In the fantasy universe of Trotskyism, on the other hand, the primary objective is to preserve the purity of the founders’ ideals. Unless everyone agrees to play by the leader’s rules, right now, he will grab his ball and storm off the playing field. Internally, such groups establish punitive regimes, in which anyone who dares to question the leader’s genius is driven from the ranks as a heretic. She or he is forced to create their own organisation, or else to withdraw from politics altogether. In this lies the explanation for the proliferation of warring sects on the outer fringes of left wing political discourse, each more committed to the annihilation of its rivals than it is to genuine social change. The desire for purity conflicts at every turn with the desire for influence. Meanwhile, the catastrophist presumptions of Trotskyist theory drives its adherents into a permanent frenzy of activity, which handicaps their ability to generate creative political insights. Members are too tired or too busy or too scared to think. What if all this has been a mistake? What if so much sacrifice has been in vain? Better by far to suppress such awful feelings of doubt, and launch a new recruitment campaign, based on the familiar nostrums of the transitional programme. Thus, the voluminous writings of Trotsky form an intellectual comfort blanket, warming the group’s waning sense of certainty.
For the CWI, as for many others, the result has been oblivion. Its intense devotion to the letter of Trotsky’s writings prevents it developing a theory of its own, while the desire for uniformity repels those genuinely interested in changing society. Like every other Trotskyist current, its forces are reduced to an ever smaller core of fanatical true believers. In consequence, the leaders of the CWI, and Ted Grant’s split off, have immatured with age. They have become theoreticians without a theory, and organisers with nothing much left to organise.
The tragedy is immense. With each new set back Ted Grant has retreated further into the certainties of the world he knows best - the written works of those he regards as his ‘great teachers’, and which have remained uncontaminated by input from mainstream political parties or anyone else. Sad as such a fate may be for Grant, supported in his extreme old age by the loyal Alan Woods, it is even sadder to think that he needs to recruit others to shore up his delusional world view, and thereby ensure that they too squander their talents on arcane theological disputes, of no interest to anyone outside the seminaries of Trotskyism.
Now, in separate buildings, Taaffe and Grant sit in similar offices, producing furious polemics against each other, and their many other rivals on the left. A new millennium beckons, full of terror, uncertainty and challenge, but the way forward for them is back to the past. They know that their ideas alone are correct. Anything which suggests the opposite is but a dialectical blip on the radar screen, before the real curve of historical development reasserts itself.

And so, as darkness falls, they both sit, and plot, and plan, and hope. And wait.

References
1. The limited information available on Grant’s early years is well summarised in Chapter Two (‘The long trudge of Ted Grant’), in McSmith, A. (1996) Faces of Labour, Verso: London.
2. For those interested in more information about Trotskyism’s early years in Britain, a huge amount of detail can be found in Shipley, P. (1976) Revolutionaries in Modern Britain, Bodley Head: London.
3. Grant’s selected writings were published in Grant, T. (1989) The Unbroken Thread, Fortress Publications: London. ‘Preparing for Power’ is reproduced as pp.35-56.
4. McSmith, Ibid., p.97.
5. Crick, M. (1986) The March of Militant, Faber and Faber: London.
6. These issues are discussed further in Tourish, D. (1998) Ideological intransigence, democratic centralism and cultism: a case study from the political left, Cultic Studies Journal, 15, 33-67.
7. Taaffe, P. (1995) The Rise of Militant, Militant Publications: London. This is obviously a highly tendentious account of the organisation’s origins, but nevertheless provides worthwhile detail on its chronology and political evolution over the years.
8. The CWI’s impact in the Labour Party is well summarised in Shaw, E. (1988) Discipline and Discord in the Labour Party, Manchester University Press: Manchester.
9. McSmith, Ibid., p.104.
10. Turner, J. (1991) Social Influence, Open University: Milton Keynes.
11. Tobias, M., and Lalich, J. (1994) Captive Hearts, Captive Minds: Freedom and Recovery From Cults and Abusive Relationships, Hunter House: Alameda, CA.
12. Crick, Ibid., p.178.
13. Crick, Ibid., p.182.
14. Scheflin, A., and Opton, E. (1978) The Mind Manipulators, Paddington: New York.
15. Wexler, M., and Fraser, S. (1995) Expanding the groupthink explanation to the study of contemporary cults, Cultic Studies Journal, 12:1, 49-71.
16. Hargie, C., and Tourish, D. (1997) Relational communication, In Hargie, O. (Ed.) The Handbook of Communication Skills (2nd Edition), Routledge: London.
17. Berger, C. (1987) Communicating under uncertainty, In Roloff, M., and Miller, G., (Eds.) Interpersonal Processes: New Directions in Communication Research, Sage: London.
18. These studies are summarised in Burgoon, M., Hunsaker, F., and Dawson, E. (1994) Human Communication (3rd Edition), Sage: London.
19. Turner, J., and Oakes, P. (1997) The socially structured mind, In McGarty, C., and Haslam, S., (Eds.) The Message of Social Psychology, Blackwell: Oxford, p.364.
20. Chapter Twelve in Shaw, Ibid., gives a particularly detailed account of Labour’s efforts to rid itself of Militant’s influence.
21. McSmith, Ibid., p.113.
22. Callaghan, Ibid., p.180.

by Left observer Thu Jul 31, 2003 11:52

It seems very odd to me to just assume that someone will agree to attend an event, and authorise publicity on that basis before the said person has even been contacted. At the very least, it is stupid - in which case ok, we all make mistakes. At worst, it is an attempt to lure people to an event under false pretences. Which is it?

by Curious Thu Jul 31, 2003 11:24

Why dont you answer the stuff about cults and Dermot becoming a Dissident?

by A plank over the swamp - sp Thu Jul 31, 2003 00:06

we contacted his agent twice but were unable to get through to the man himself. by this time the posters were printed and distributed.

by Magneto Wed Jul 30, 2003 18:13

But our eyes can see and assimilate the articles by Tourish, Throne and others. The SP/CWI are indeed a dangerous and sinister cult.

The SP/CWI dont even allow factions; internal discussion bulletins are rare and usually reserved for when the leadership wants to sound off at the members, when miraculously time and resources are found to produce them, usually in great numbers.

I would say bureaucratic witchhunts, personal vendettas and Machiavellian manoeuvres are more the order of the day. The internal regimes of these groups make the Labour Party, the bourgeois courts and even the local psychiatric ward look enlightened.

And all of this is done in the name of Lenin, Trotsky and Bolshevism with the authoritative backing of the October Revolution. It’s all a charade and it needs exposing as such, along with Stalinism, if there is to be a rebirth of socialism.

by Agent of Chaos Wed Jul 30, 2003 11:27

From the position of General Secretary. He was not happy about this. In fact he is not too happy with the SP in general. He openly opposes their line at Anti-Bin Cgarges meetings. How long will the SP tolerate this? They cant really just expel someone who was their paramount leader less than a year ago.

Your gibes are hardly a reasoned response to the documents by Professor Tourish.

by Thomas - SIPTU Wed Jul 30, 2003 11:09

The whole paranoid cult argument is one of the greatest laughs I have had yet from this website. By that reckoning Real Madrid is a cult and its supporters are indoctrinated to look up to David Beckham!

By the way Dermott Connolly wasn't purged I was talking to him yesterday he still an active member of the SP so please dont make arguments up that you cant support.

by Curious Wed Jul 30, 2003 11:06

Why the silence? Have the SP no answers to these revelations of Cult like activity?

by Agent of Chaos Tue Jul 29, 2003 16:26

Denis Tourish wrote a great book along with Tim Wolforth:

On the Edge: Political Cults of the Left and Right
Sharpe/New York 2000
By Dennis Tourish and Tim Wohlforth

Some good stuff on the CWI, Militant and Ted Grants current gang.



Hardcover: 246 pages ; Dimensions (in inches): 0.87 x 9.29 x 6.28
Publisher: M.E.Sharpe; (September 2000)
ISBN: 0765606399
Average Customer Review: 4.5 out of 5 stars (its available from Amazon)

If you want to read sample pages of it, you can access them at the link listed bnelow.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0765606399/ref=lib_dp_sp_1/103-2279748-7899017?v=glance&s=books&vi=slide-show#reader-link

by pat c Tue Jul 29, 2003 16:08

Group influence and the psychology of cultism within Re-evaluation Counselling: a critique
By Dr. Dennis Tourish and Pauline Irving

Abstract

Re-evaluation counselling (often known as co-counselling, or simply RC) has recently been described as an 'innovative' form of therapy, despite the fact that it has existed for over forty years. It has also been suggested that it is, or is becoming, a psychotherapy 'cult.' This paper discusses the key theoretical ideas of Re-evaluation Counselling and assesses the extent to which some of these ideas could enable unscrupulous therapists to engineer artificial consent and impose their own belief systems on clients. RC's strong reliance on group based activities is also explored, and the extent to which this facilitates unthinking conformity is considered. Finally, guidelines are discussed which enable therapists and would-be clients to assess more clearly the potentially negative effects of involvement in groups such as RC.


http://www.rickross.com/reference/rc/rc1.html

by pat c Tue Jul 29, 2003 15:42

Heres an article by him on the CWI. On another thread an SPer (not hs) referred to Dennis Tourishs writings as rantings. Dennis Tourish then responded but his comments went unanswered. The SP would gain themselves some credit if they actually dealt with issues raised.

--------------

Ideological intransigence, democratic centralism and cultism: a case study from the political left
By Dr. Dennis Tourish

Abstract

There is a dearth of literature documenting the existence of cults in the political sphere. This paper suggests that some left wing organizations share a number of ideological underpinnings and organizational practices which inherently inclines them to the adoption of cultic practices. In particular, it is argued that doctrines of ‘catastrophism’ and democratic centralist modes of organization normally found among Trotskyist groupings are implicated in such phenomenon. A case history is offered of a comparatively influential Trotskyist grouping in Britain, which split in 1992, where it is suggested that an analysis of the organization in terms of cultic norms is particularly fruitful. This is not intended to imply that a radical critique of society is necessarily inappropriate. Rather, it is to argue that political movements frequently adopt organizational forms, coupled with ‘black and white’ political programmes, which facilitate the exercise of undue social influence. This stifles genuinely creative political thought. Issues which this analysis suggests are particularly pertinent for those involved in radical politics are considered.

** The rest is at:

http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general434.html

by Watcher Tue Jul 29, 2003 15:33

Thats not an answer

by . - SP Tue Jul 29, 2003 15:17

I have absoloutely no concept of 'emocracy'.

by Watcher Tue Jul 29, 2003 11:17

Yes, the SP/SY/CWI are a cult. They indoctrinate youg people who end up engaging in Leader worship which is little different from what goes on in the Moonies.

They have no concept of emocracy. Look at what happened to John Throne, John Reimann, Finn Geany, et al. Even Dermot Connolly has been purged from the post of General Secretary.

Read Denis Tourish to learn the truth about this dangerous cult.

by hs - sp Mon Jul 28, 2003 19:47

your the same troll on the left republicanism thread aren't you, you sound to familiar.

Obviously the evil "great leaders" of socialist youth hatched a cunning plot to lure the unsuspecting youth to the "re-education camps" by false promises of damien Dempsy. The only way to fight this terrible onslought of the dark cult is by posting anonomyus rantings on indymedia ireland. Cranks of the world unite - you have only your boredom to loose.

by Watcher Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:37

They are a danger to young people, like all cults.

by a Sun Jul 27, 2003 09:12

my god can this be true?
just how low can sy sink, is it possible that they did not organise the event to perfection????
shock, horror.

by simon Sat Jul 26, 2003 22:05

some people have too much time on their hands. really, is this news you sad sad person

by iosaf Sat Jul 26, 2003 20:59

go check this out:
i generally don't like strikefree stuff but this got my smiles. and they get deleted everywhere except mega tolerant Barcelona.