Innuendo, falsehoods and character assassination

by Chekov Thu Aug 07, 2003 23:45

At last an SP member has got his/her head out of the sand and responded to the cult claims. This one piece is far, far more worthwhile than the dozens of 'tourish is a crank' comments we've had before, interspered with long periods of silence. On indymedia silence in the face of this types of claim, especially when presented as a reasoned argument, comes across as very damning. It'll be interesting to see if Tourish / others can respond. I for one will wait to see the responses until I make up my mind. Not having ever been a member of the CWI, I really know very little about its internal life, but with the lack of arguments from the SP to the cult claims, I was becoming somewhat convinced. At least we can have both sides of the debate now.

But why couldn't you use your name? I really hope that it wasn't because that, by responding here, you were disobeying orders from the great leader ;-)

by John Meehan Fri Aug 08, 2003 11:33

Like Chekov, I think this is a very good well reasoned contribution.

It would be helpful to develop the discussion - it touches on a general problem, going far beyond people's estimate of the CWI's good and bad points.

Various small (and not so small) left groups have fallen prey to "cultism" - a reasoned honest discussion on the reasons this happens, and what strategies can be used to counteract the danger, could be very worthwhile.

by Janus Fri Aug 08, 2003 11:58

Like John and Chekov I think it's an excellent contribution to the debate and in general, am I alone in thinking that the quality of debate on Indymedia recently has been increasing somewhat?

Certainly the article highlights some errors in Tourish's writings which will aid those of us trying to understand the SP.

That said, I showed the Tourish document to a friend of mine, a former SP activist in Ireland in the 80s before he quit and he showed it to a friend of his, a former Militant activist from England, and while both saw factual inaccuracies and disagreed with one or two conclusions, by and large they felt it was a fairly accurate summation of what it was like to be in the SP.

by s Fri Aug 08, 2003 12:31

Janus makes a point that former activists from SP and militant have a negative view of the organisation. While I have no doubt that these views are honestly held some consideration must be given as to the nature of such sources. It is not unreasonable to ask, have the sources quoted, joined other organisations, left the movement altogether, stated their reason for leaving SP/Militant, developed other opposing political ideas.

by Dennis Tourish Fri Aug 08, 2003 12:58 d.tourish at abdn dot ac dot uk

I would also like to welcome the comments made by SP member – (or should I say, Ciaran). Cults seem to imagine that internal debate in which the leadership harangues the membership for hours is the only kind worth having, while fearing that to debate with those outside their ranks is to risk contagion. That an SP member at last addresses issues raised by a non-member perhaps offers a few crumbs of comfort.

A couple of introductory points might be in order, before addressing SP member’s central arguments:

1. Repeatedly, SP member denounces me for allegedly using anonymous sources in the Militant chapter. This critique would carry more force if the author himself used his real name, and so set a sterling example to others of avoiding anonymity. As best I can figure, these ‘anonymous sources’ are some interviews Tim Wohlforth and I conducted with past and present CWI members. In general, they had good reason for not wanting their names used – ranging from fear of their employers, to a well-founded desire to avoid public abuse from the CWI. I see nothing wrong in respecting their wishes.

2. The piece concerned is actually not ‘mine’. It was co-written with Tim Wohlforth, and published as part of ‘On the Edge: Political cults right and left’, Sharpe, 2000. Tim is a well-known former US Trotskyist leader, having been active in the US SWP and in the American affiliate of Gerry Healy’s notorious organisation. (We also include a chapter on the WRP in our book, an even worse organisation than the CWI, it has to be said).

3. Like others in the SP, you are initially at pains to say how busy the organisation is – too busy generally to address these kinds of issues, which to you are little more than a joke. But in addition to you there are all the others – quite a few of them. Your faith in the internal regime of the CWI and its democratic traditions is not one that is widely shared. An organisation that is serious about acquiring influence rather than vegetating in sectarian isolation might appreciate the need to occasionally justify its existence to others. You at least show some signs of recognising this.

With those issues cleared up, time to dive into the cesspool:

Ted Grant’s character

SP member doesn’t seem to dispute the essence of our characterisations of Ted Grant. No one ever accused him of sartorial elegance, nor to my knowledge has Ted claimed access to Saville Row tailoring. SP member disputes the ‘image of an obsessed man.’ I rather suspect that Ted himself would not, and as we say in the chapter might even regard the comment that he had no interests outside politics as a compliment. This trait is one widely shared by CWI leaders – e.g. Peter Hadden. I view it as a monomaniacal trait often found in cult leaders, and one that is not at all conducive to either a balanced life or a realistic view of the world.

It is an arcane point, but we did mention in our chapter that even things like Ted’s real name was unknown. Since then, he has chosen to reveal it. It is somehow characteristic of SP member’s lack of proportion that this observation is viewed as a heinous crime on our part, and becomes the pretext for an excursion into how necessary anonymity was for revolutionaries in the 1930s and for some Northern Ireland socialists in the 1970s (personally, I always managed without it). Time for a reality check. Ted lived most of his life in peaceful post-war Britain. The point, in any event, was simply that it indicated how little was known about him personally, and how politics constitutes 100% of his life’s content. This might be good or bad. But it is surely beyond debate, and is not a conclusion that Ted Grant would dispute.

Catastrophist perspectives

One of the most damaging traits of all kinds of cults (political, religious, psychotherapeutic or whatever) is the idea that the group concerned is humanity’s last great hope for salvation. Either its programme will be realised, or the world will be engulfed by barbarism. This encourages illusions, and they are illusions, of the absolute correctness of the group’s analysis; a tremendous sense of urgency in its day-to-day tasks, which militates against innovative thinking; intolerance of dissent; illusions of unanimity, since dissenters are demonised and driven out; and the covering up of many past mistakes. More examples are detailed in our chapter. How does SP member respond?

It is frankly incredible to deny that the CWI has a catastrophist approach to politics. Ted over-egged the pudding in the early 1940s, as did many, and rowed back a little from this in the late 1940s. But it was a temporary retreat. The dominant mood within the CWI is one of catastrophism. When I joined in 1974, the constant refrain was that we faced either socialism or barbarism within 10 to 15 years. For all I know, this is still the tune banged out on the party Pianolas. You can hardly get more catastrophic than that. Peter Taaffe wrote that the 1990s were to be the red-90s. If SP member is disavowing this analysis that is fine, and I would be delighted. But it appears to me that he is facing both ways at once.

Incidentally, SP member observes that I personally did not object to this analysis in the 1980s, including when they appeared in the pamphlet Socialism or Catastrophe. Sadly, this is true – I bought the line at the time, and was more conformist than I should have been. I made many other associated mistakes as well. But I have learned a few things since then. SP member should look out. He might be next.

The role of Peter Taaffe

I find it hard to locate a substantive point in this section of SP member’s piece. Our most essential point was that Taaffe enjoyed and enjoys unrivalled authority within the CWI, and we document various ways in which this was manifest – e.g. a word from him here or there was enough to break people within the organisation. He has been the equivalent of its general secretary since 1964 – a tenure that might soon outpace that of Castro, but which is not an advertisement for either his modesty or ability to develop other people into replacement leadership roles. I don’t see anything in SP member’s piece that disputes this.

However, he does hark on that we did not analysis political processes in Britain in the 1980s and give due weight to the achievements of the Liverpool City Council. Hmmmm. This was one chapter in a 100,000 word book, and by no means intended either as a comprehensive history of the CWI or of British society. Our emphasis was on the internal dynamics of various organisations, not for the most part the social context in which they sought influence. This would have been a different and much lengthier book, and in the real world not all things are possible.

But I find the argument revealing. On the one hand, the CWI asserts that what it calls the subjective factor and what everyone else would describe as leadership is ultimately critical in determining the future of humanity. A mass revolutionary party modelled on democratic centralism must be built. But when anyone draws attention to the problems caused by this they are shushed with the view that – only the political context really matters. I agree that it does matter. I have disagreements with almost every aspect of the CWI’ programme and perspectives. But my views on this don’t differ from those of most of its political opponents, and I therefore focus my critique on those areas where I hold a distinctive view. I repeat: if the subjective factor is important (and if it isn’t, why bother building a revolutionary organisation in the first place?) then it is legitimate to hold its internal workings up to public scrutiny. The CWI seems very sensitive to any such examination.

Collapse and disintegration

We wrote that a huge dispute erupted in the CWI in the early 90s, around all sorts of issues – programme, perspective and, yes, personalities. SP member encourages me to come clean and acknowledge that some of our information on this is derived from Peter Taaffe’s very boring book on the subject. Actually, we already have – it is freely listed in the chapter’s sources and notes. ‘Boots’ provides an excellent eye testing service on Royal Avenue, and I recommend that SP member pays it a visit.

More importantly, he is at pains to present an image of an organisation full of open debate. This is simply jaw dropping nonsense. SP member quotes Taaffe’s book, listing differences that he had with Grant on all manner of issues in the late 1980s and how these, or at least some of them, were discussed on the central committee. Sometimes, criticism stands disarmed. The fact is that none of these discussions, at the time, were allowed anywhere near the rank and file! Taaffe himself admits this – they were all confined to the top leadership bodies, in order not to disturb the illusion of unanimity. Members only heard about most of them after Grant left, or was expelled – take your pick.

More recently, secondary disputes do sometimes erupt – but even these tend to end in expulsion, or members leaving. SP member can defend the expulsion of his Pakistani comrades if he wishes (and perhaps likewise, diss his associates in Scotland, Merseyside and God knows where else). In their entirety, they justify the conclusion that the CWI strives more towards a monolithic internal culture rather than one characterised by ongoing debates, factions and the presence of different points of view. It is simply preposterous to have an organisation with an agreed position on most aspects of its programme and perspective, and then pretend that this is a normal state of affairs, no different to what you find in other parties or organisations. There is no culture of sustained internal dissent, factions, and debate in the form that most of us would expect to find in a healthy political organisation. And such a state of affairs is precisely what you find in sects and cults, incapable of acquiring or keeping real mass influence.

SP member also disputes the view that Ted Grant and his colleagues were expelled in 1992. I am familiar with this argument. I also know that Grant, Woods, Sewell and co claim that they were indeed forced out. Whether they were kicked out, or whether they felt that differences of opinion necessitated the construction of a separate organisation – does it really matter??? I am happy to leave the two sides debating whether one was pushed or jumped. The point either way is that the culture of the organisation favours conformity and monolithism over debate, dissent and difference. All, I again add, characteristic of cults.

Dissent without and revolution within

Facing facts is essential. There has been media talk recently about the tendency of some individuals to develop a Walter Mitty complex. I fear that groups might suffer the same affliction. Thus, SP member writes that ‘On a worldwide basis the influence of the CWI is greater than anytime in its history.’ Heaven help us.

In Britain, it has a few hundred members, down from over 8000. In Northern Ireland, maybe 30. It has no mass base anywhere in the world. The nearest it got to this was Britain in the 1980s and Pakistan in the 1990s. But it lost the former and booted out the latter. I do not expect to turn on my TV anytime soon and hear Peter Taaffe broadcasting the seizure of power to the nation. This type of false accounting is, again, typical of cults and their inflated sense of self-importance. It has nothing to do with actually changing society.

We argued the following in our book: ‘Real politics is about building alliances, achieving influence, and making a difference in the real world.’ SP member puffs himself up to his full majestic state, to the point of explosion, and declares that ‘I doubt if any bourgeois politician could have said it better.’ I would say that in this statement you have a comprehensive declaration of irrelevance from the CWI. Turn it round for one moment. Does SP member honestly argue that the way forward is ‘to not build alliances, to achieve no influence, and to avoid making a difference in the real world.’ Rather, his antipathy to our statement reflects a sectarian and exclusivist mindset expressed in ultimatist formulations that drive people away. Either the organisation can have a monolithic internal culture, OR it can have some outside influence. It cannot have both, but it always prefers the former. I would very much welcome a shift in position.

Finally….

Two points are in order:

1. SP member makes great play of the fact that I am now an academic, and thus in ‘an ivory tower.’ I gently note, and pass on, that this comes nowhere close to actually addressing my arguments. However, it is consistent with the CWI’s evident belief that if you try to psychoanalyse your opponent’s motivations, however erroneously, you somehow invalidate their views. Moreover, it is news to me that there is something wrong about earning a living working in a university – all of which, incidentally, have experienced Thatcherite and New Labour inspired attacks since the 1980s, and are far from protected workplaces. I look forward to a CWI missive to all their members who are thus employed, requiring them to immediately resign their jobs.

2. SP member responds to one chapter in our book. This chapter deals with the CWI. But our point is wider, and worth stressing. It is that the history of the far left has been one of irrelevance and sectarian fragmentation. In large part, though clearly other factors are also relevant, this has been because of an internal life fearful of debate, dissent and driven by cultic norms. We outline those cultic norms in the opening two chapters of our book – both of which seem to have sailed past SP member radar screen – and also in the lengthy article on Militant that I wrote some years ago, and which is also available for scrutiny on Indymedia and elsewhere. I would encourage people to read them. Those who not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Many CWI leaders, and long standing apologists such as SP member, appear to be lost causes. It is my hope that some of their actual or would be members are not. I would rather many of them learned from my experiences, rather than repeat the mistakes I made in the 1970s and 1980s. Here’s hoping.

by Ray Fri Aug 08, 2003 13:00

Not to push the comparison, but the Scientologists could say the same about former members. "Of course they'd say that - they're bitter because they've fallen from the true path" Its a feature of cults that members present a united front to the outside world, so the only accurate information comes from ex-members. (This is not in itself evidence that the SP is a cult, just pointing out that discounting the evidence of _all_ ex-members, simply because they're ex-members, is not a good way to defend yourself from the accusation)

by Algorithmic mike - You know who Fri Aug 08, 2003 14:47

Would Mr. Tourish not concede that the world we live in is pretty barbaric? Environmental disaster caused by ireverance to the environment, constant wars, famine, the degrading position most workers find themselves in every day. Socialism or Barbarism - so your arguement is that Engels, Luxemberg, Lenin, Trotsky and Marx were nothing better than cult leaders and we are completely wrong about the devestating effects of capitalism? I think you make mischief about the point on academics - no its not counter-revolutionary to work in a university, but throughout the history of the left there have been academic types like the 'Legal Marxists' and the ;'bureaucratic collectivists' who went on to be well paid crusaders against Marxism.
I also particularly like your use of the term, lost causes. It has a particularly religious fervor. 'Oh those who do not listen to me are lost causes but there is still hope for ye who will listen...'
I think Mr. Tourish would make an excellent cult leader.

by uno Voce Fri Aug 08, 2003 15:09

very interesting debate - but very unlike a debate in the SP. Why? Because Tourish has spent along time piecing together an "analysis" of the CWI. But what is the point of analysis? Surely it is the first step in pointing a way forward, of correcting a mistake etc. This is one the purposesof debate in the SP. But where is this in Tourish's piece. To get to the point - what does Tourish suggest low cult-followers like myself do. How can we throw off the yoke of Hadden and Taaffes dictarorial rule. At least John Throne poses answers in this regard - answers I believe are wrong, but unfortunately while Tourish is well read, well learned, he poses no answers here.

A couple of questions
Does Tourish believe that their is a class struggle in society?
If so, what sort of struggle is that? Does he believe that it is a struggle borne out of the system of capitalism, a struggle between the working class and the ruling class?
If Tourish believes such a struggle exists, Well, what side is he on (its not clear as he seems to believe the real misleaders in society are those on the revolutionary left, not the capitalist class) and what is the best way to end this class struggle?

by Jim Monaghan Fri Aug 08, 2003 15:12

The worst organisation I was ever in was the Irish affiliate of Gerry Healys SLL.I still have nightmares about their summer schools. For instance they had an idiotic campaign against long hair, only middle class students types had long hair. Oh I never had long hair.The only people affected by it were our proletarian comrades from Crumlin They were completely uninvolved in any campaign of relevance in Ireland.
I lost out on involment in the Socialist Labour alliance which showed promise in this time.
The problem for all Leninist organisations is that if they have a little growth, the leader(s) think they have proved themselves worthy successors to Lenin and Trotsky. Only one step from parcelling out the Commisar positions in the revolutionary governments and maybe sorting out finally the petrit bourgeois nuisances who mihght have caused problems in the past.
Allied to this is a religious messianic streak which proclaims like the Catholic church "There is only one way, one truth, one party, one leader(ship)". Yes this applies to you in the SWP, SP and the rest of the alphabet soup.(Mind you I think the SWP are worse in this regard).Remember the joke about Official Sinn Fein. First Sinn Fein, then Official Sinn Fein, then the Workers Party and finally THE PARTY.
The movement is littered with Caudillos whose egos are bigger than any organsation.
They have a stagist concept of party building.
First the leader, or maybe one or two.
Then the politburo ,
Then the middle leadership and lastly (and leastly) the rank and file.
The writings of the greats Trotsky et al take on the role of holy script. I see no problem with the odd quotation but slavish searching for "truth" in documents written in other times in other situations is nonsense.(some of them are so idiotic that I would guess that they think the Lotto numbers can be found in the Collected works)
You can see how the cops etc. can manipulate this athmosphere of paranoia and play on these weaknesses.
An explanation. The world is fairly awful. Look at Liberia where there is a descent into barbarism caused by Imperialism.The size of the project to make a Socialist world and end hunger and misery is so huge and so many generations have failed. It is so easy to either despair or go mad in the effort.In the H-Block/Armagh campaign I saw many people including myself practically have nervous breakdowns due to the series of deaths caused by British Imperialism and the scale of the task. I.e to build a movemant that could make a difference in the space of approx. 70 days.I am sure those dealing with asylum seekers who face being killed have /had similar heartbreaks.
It suits our opponents to have us at each others throats. It suits them to have us manouvring and doublecrossing and worse.It suits them to have us exaggerate disagreements and cause other divides.It suits them to see and cause idiotic disputes like that one so well portrayed in that scene in the "life of Brian" ( the one where the various Jewish liberation groups fought each other rather than the Romans).
on a footnote Tim Wolfhort writes detective novels now. Probably a lot better than the stuff he wrote when he was a Healyite.

by Ray Fri Aug 08, 2003 15:43

The most concise description of cults (and why the CWI are/were/may be cultlike) was on the earlier thread.
"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:

1 An authoritarian leadership, and the concentration of all real power in its hands, despite formal commitments to the opposite
2 Hatred 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."

Each of those points suggests a solution -
1 - Decentralise power
2 - Encourage members to put forward ideas
3 - Tolerate dissent
4 - Allow factions to exist
5 - Be open and honest in your dealings
6 - Reduce the workload on members, giving them plenty of time for an independent social life and for independent thought and debate
7 - Encourage diverse reading, not just Marx, Trotsky, the party theoretician and a couple of selected pamphlets
8 - an ethical manner

And if you're a 'low cult member' who can't get these things done because you don't have the power, just leave.

(I think all small left groups should look hard at those points and see how they may apply, not just the SP, and I'm not arguing that all of these things apply to the SP in Ireland)

by Janus Fri Aug 08, 2003 16:06

1. On Peace Process issues certainly, always a very dictatorial attitude, people were kept informed, but not consulted as such prior to some decisions. That said, major decisions such as to sign the GFA were made democratically, but there is certainly a cult of personality around Adams. At the same time, unlike the SP or SWP everyone knows who is the leader of the party and he is publically up for election every year.

2. Very much so, externally. People who leave and turn on the republican movement are themselves turned on quite vehemently. Internal dissent is tolerated to an extent you'd be surprised at, so long as it's kept internal. That said, the recent debate about the party in the Phoblacht shows they don't mind internal debate being displayed these days.

3. As above, typically only after they leave and then, only after they leave and turn on the Movement.

4. Nope. Alternatiive viewpoints were always encouraged, they may not have won the debate or the argument, but you were encouraged to have them and make the points.

5. Nope. Shinners have never been big on broad ANL type fronts.

6. Massive workload for full-timers, but not to the extent that they can't think for themselves. I've often found full-timers, in Dublin anyway, to be privately more critical of the leadership than non full-timers. Can be quite cynical.

7. Depends, wide reading of outside material is encouraged certainly, but you couldn't find a Shinner who doesn't think the Socialist Worker is something to wipe your ass with.

8. SF full-timers are over-worked, under-paid and often treated in ways that Unions would go ballistic over if they heard. At the same time, they're generally treated fair in terms of being given holiday time, wages paid on time etc. Certainly better than SP full-timers by all accounts. As for ethics in relation to dealings with the State, none at all ;)

I think most political parties are going to have a few Cult like dimensions to them in fairness, and I think Tourish makes this point.

by Ray Fri Aug 08, 2003 16:32

As an ex-member, and thus no longer subject to the WSM's mind control, I can reveal that the WSM's scores are

1 An authoritarian leadership, and the concentration of all real power in its hands, despite formal commitments to the opposite?

The WSM is very good at avoiding this concentration of power. There are strict limits on how long anyone can hold any position, including paper editor, and these limits are enforced (to the great joy of the outgoing member, usually). The fact that the WSM doesn't have any full-timers, or any desire to have them in the future, is another big plus. Professional organisers always have more power than those who have to fit their politics around their working life.

2 Hatred of and intolerance of dissent -

Dissent from who? There isn't and wasn't any leadership. Everybody put forward motions, whenever they liked, and everyone has access to the internal bulletin to say anything they wanted

3Demonising of dissenters -

Since everybody lost votes all of the time, that would be everyone.

4Banning/ purging of factions/ absence of sustained debate and alternative viewpoints -

The WSM constitution gives specific protection to factions, including the right towrite articles for the paper. If anyone wrote an article for the paper that wasn't accepted by the editorial committee they could include it in the IB so that other members could discuss it, and overrule the editors if they wanted.

5Unethical manipulation of people -

The WSM has never had an equivalent to the ANL, GR, MIJAG, or YRE.

6Overworking of a tired and full time cadre, so that they have less time to think for themselves -
Workload was always a subject for debate in the WSM, because people realised that this was an issue. Do too much activity and you forget why you're doing it, and fall into ruts. Spend too much time on political stuff and you lose your mind. There's always a tension there, between doing what you think is necessary and having tie to yourself. I think WSM members were open about that tension, and tried to keep a balance.

7So much time devoted to 'party building' that alternative sources of information are largely ignored or ridiculed.

Same as the previous point. WSM members were (and are) very conscious of the need to do other things, see other people, read other books, and generally have a life outside politics.

8 An absence of basic ethical principles in dealing with people.

I think the WSM is generally regarded (by people who aren't members of other groups at least) as being honest and ethical.

by Davy Carlin Fri Aug 08, 2003 17:02

I found the article historically informative, interesting, and presented in an articulate straight forward, yet respectful {of others to hold a differing opinion} manner.

I agree with the authors final sentiments lets learn from past experiences so not to repeat the mistakes. 'All' organisations have made 'mistakes', it is when you actually begin to acknowledge them, that one can then learn from them, and attempt then to effect change for a better world. There are those who still hold on to an organisational mindset of yesteryear, if we are to move forward we need to adapt our methods of organisation, tactics, stratagies etc to the present in a way that seeks to work with others to win influence within our class while putting that class allegiance at the fore of our understanding.

To have an 'individual' leader or a few 'leaders' who attempt to, or indeed direct theory and practice within an organisation in a dictatorial way, is to eventually create an atmosphere {to many} of normality as to how that is the percieved or real way an organisation {whom states they are democratic} are supossed to be. This moreso to newer members whom will/may see it as but the norm and will/may then rarely question, while moving, or attempting isolation to longer term members whom might have, or did continually question, or attempted change. Therefore revisionism leader lead, then breeds an atmosphere of percieved hostility towards 'that person' whom had did such and such, so whatever response or point raised by 'that person' is seen in that revisionist light to those kept in the dark of all the facts, those being in most part the rank and file of such organisations.

Eventually then the revisionism will be used to make myth become fact and education will be given to that fact to help it become new member recital and old member line. Then eventually on many occassions in such organisations debates on 'politics' on those many occassions will in fact become one of 'direction' by internal political personalities, with the benefit of the various tactics above. This has been the historical situations in many such organisations yet one can not only learn from mistakes from organisations as the author states but learn also from such tactics of such organisations to ensure one is ready for those well worn and historical tactics if indeed they happen to ever be directed your way.

by Colm - ISN Fri Aug 08, 2003 18:11

This is the first rational and useful debate about the left that I have read on indymedia for a long time. This is, in my view, is due to the manner in which the the 'protagonists' conducted the initial exchange: sharp but largely free of childish abuse, and making a really serious attempt to address the points raised by their 'opponent'. This is a far cry from the usual adolescent rantings of contributors to some debates on indymedia.

All the better that this debate is being conducted in such a manner, since it is an important debate: the internal culture and organisation of a political organisation has a huge impact on its relevance and success. For the record I believe that an open and democratic internal culture is vital for a radical left organisation and that the best way to achieve this is through developing non-hierarchical, participatory ways of organising. Easier said than done though!

As an added bonus, notice how a sustained, serious debate drives away the anonymous insult hurling nerds.

by hs - sp Fri Aug 08, 2003 18:21

Just a little point on history which is obvious but dennis nor anyone else seems to be mentioning. Just at the point of the cwi splitting and dropping membership (in Britain anyway) was the period the soviet union collapsed, now call me whatever, but I would have thought it fairly obvious that massive historical happenings such as this would have some effect on revolutionary/socialist/communist organisations. The collapse of the soviet union (and the cwis failure to see it coming) obviously would have had more effect on the org. than personal spats between Taffe and Grant. The "open turn" as it's called and standing under our own name is supposed to be moving away from the mistakes of the past. Which is another missed point which is glaringly obvious, since the early nineties the cwi in most countries has completely changed strategy which in Ireland can be seen more than anywhere.

One last point for dennis, it is hard to take your arguments seriously when you tell us the cwi has only 30 members in the north, And no other bases. I'm sure you might have heard we have a party in the south and have for the first time managed to get people elected. The cwi has also recently won some councillers in Sweden and the nigerian section has been growing very quickly. You do know this and I am sure you know that joe higgins won a seat in the dail. So why 30? And why nowhere else. Most people on this site are from the republic and know this? This is a serious question and i'd appreciate a reply as I have replied to your posts,

by Dennis Tourish Fri Aug 08, 2003 19:53

I also appreciate the general tone of this discussion. I am sure I sometimes stray from civility myself, but am doing my best, as others evidently are, to focus on the issues rather than mindless name calling.

It also occurs to me that SP member's original article is based on reading the version of our chapter which appeared on Indymedia, rather than our whole book - for some reason, I just assumed he had access to the whole book when writing his piece. I should point out that in the opening chapters of the full book we do discuss the wider political context in which we now live, and its impact on leftist (and rightwing) organisations.

On HS's points specifically:

1. I do not dispute for one moment that the collapse of the Soviet Union had an impact on the CWI's fortunes, and the left generally. I would, however, dispute any argument that this renders the internal regime irrelvant, or that the regime did not contribute to the form and depth of the crisis the organisation faced. CWI members are inclined to blame everything on objective conditions rather than their own failings. If this were true, it renders their very existence superfluous, since if a political leadership exerts no impact on the fortunes of their organisation there is no point to their being at all.


2. On the size of the CWI: I did not say it has no base anywhere, just that it doesn't have a MASS base anywhere. Even its successes in Ireland with Joe Higgibs do not take it to that point. It is very hard to be sure of its size in the North, since everybody knows that the CWI exaggerates its numbers enormously - and of course it is not unique in this. My best guesstimate is 30 people (maybe one for every year it has been active), but even if I am wrong with this figure it won't be by much. Of course, many things contribute to this. But I would argue that the issue I have raised here - the internal regime, and the role of individual leaders such as Peter Hadden - are also vital factors.

by s Fri Aug 08, 2003 20:27

Ray makes a point that just because someone has left an organisation that does not make their points of critism irrelevant. I would agree entirely but it is also true that their current political views are relevant.
For example, an ex member of SP who then joins the CPI would most likly have a particular CPI view of the SP.
I think it only fair in this discussion that quoted sources should be politicaly (not personnaly) identified, it would help to make points more clearly and add to the debate.

by Tim fan Sat Aug 09, 2003 17:59

The most amusing thing about this whole discussion isn't the sheer silliness of the "cult" allegation. It's Tim Wohlforth.


Wohlforth was the leader of the Workers League in America. The Workers League was a madhouse and was regarded as a pariah by pretty much every organisation on the North American far left. Accusations that members of other left groups were "state agents" and an obsession with Gerry Healy's incoherent dialectical philosophy were its cornerstones.

The Workers League wasn't a cult in the Waco sense but it was an organisation that was abusive to its members and to anyone who came into contact with it.

The thing is that Tim Wohlforth wasn't just any member of the Workers League. He wasn't even just one part of its leadership. Wohlforth was the central leader of the organisation. He built it. He shaped it. He dominated it.

The person most directly responsible for the many errors and barbarities of the Workers League was Tim Wohlforth himself. Now of course he makes part of his living from denouncing the organisation he turned into a madhouse as a "cult". Nice work if you can get it.

Perhaps he should have called his contributions to this book "How I built an abusive organisation, enjoyed being its guru and now turn a profit from denouncing it - and if I can use the experience to smear other left wing organisations, so much the better".

by Archivist Sat Aug 09, 2003 18:51

I have read about Tim W before, including his excellent memoirs (The Prophet's Children: Travels on the American Left). I suspect he would pretty much make the same points as the previous contributor on this list about what the workers league was, and in fact in his book explicitly denounces it as a political cult. It seems he has drawn quite a few critical conclusions from these experiences, and is keen to pass them on. Seems like normal politics, to me.

What none of this does - and what branding the arguments of those who say that some leftist organisations are political cults as 'sheer silliness' does either - is to actually address the arguments being made.

I am not impressed by the internal workings of the many far left groups I have encountered, from the CWI to the SWP. The more they rant about people being cranks and the silliness of the ideas of those who disagree with them, without being able to really engage with the issues, the more they look to me like people with something to hide.

by Tim Fan Sat Aug 09, 2003 21:26

I'm not a member of the CWI or currently a member of any other political organisation so whether or not my points about Timmy Wohlforth "engage" with his criticism of the CWI is somewhat beside the point. They can defend themselves - and in fact one of them already did at the beginning of this thread very effectively and at some length. I wouldn't have bothered in his or her shoes.

I describe Dennis and Tim's allegation that the CWI is a "cult" in passing as sheer silliness because while I don't agree with the Socialist Party about a whole rake of things. I also know them well enough to see that the "cult" allegation is quite ridiculous and really depends on the reader being completely ignorant about the left.

I only took part in the thread to point out the contempt which Timmy Wohlforth deserves. To the extent that the Workers League was an abusive organisation it was so because Timmy shaped it into one. That already earns him a solid portion of contempt along with the likes of Gerry Healy (WRP) and James Robertson (Sparts).

The main conclusion which Timmy should have drawn from that is that he should never be allowed in any position of responsibility in any organisation, from a political party to a chess club. Instead he drew the conclusion that there was a bit of money to be made denouncing the petty dictatorship he himself created and a bit more to be made by trying to generalise his own repulsive past to the rest of the left. That's a second plate of contempt for Timmy W.

by Archivist Sun Aug 10, 2003 00:22

Here is a review of Tim Wohlforth's memoirs I just picked up. It is by Harry Ratner, the veteran former British Trotskyist. I think it tells more about the book than the intemperate ravings above.

Review of Tim Wohlforth's The Prophet's Children
Tim Wohlforth, The Prophet's Children, Humanities Press, 1994. Paperback, 332pp, £14.95.

Reviewed by Harry Ratner

ISAAC DEUTSCHER titled the three volumes of his biography of Leon Trotsky The Prophet Armed, The Prophet Unarmed and The Prophet Outcast. Tim Wohlforth calls his autobiographical account of his activities and those of his comrades in the Trotskyist movement in the United States The Prophet's Children. It is an apt title. While the international Trotskyist movement was more than just the creation of one man, Trotsky was undoubtedly its main inspirer and theoretician, and those that carried on the movement after his assassination at the hands of Stalin's henchmen did so leaning heavily on his theoretical concepts and analyses. Those claiming to carry on the Trotskyist tradition split into many violently quarrelling sects each claiming to carry on his intentions better than the others and quoting his utterences while alive in justification of their particular policies – just like a family of quarrelling children fighting over the interpretation of their father's last will and testament and each claiming to be his true heirs. Tim Wohlforth was one of the prophet's children.

This may sound cynical and patronising. But it is not meant to be. I, too, was one of the prophet's children and travelled the same road as Tim Wohlforth and shared some of his experiences, particularly as regards his contact with Gerry Healy. His vivid account of how Healy sought to destroy him politically and how Healy abused and exploited many comrades' loyalty and dedication rings absolutely true to those of us who were in the movement.

But there was more to the movement than its negative aspects, the constant splits and factional fights, the dogmatism and intolerance. As Wohlforth's book makes clear, those who participated in the movement were motivated in most cases by the highest ideals, the desire to dedicate their lives to the struggle for a better society. Wohlforth, while a student, joined Shachtman's Independent Socialist League and its youth section the Young Socialist League in 1953 "at the height of McCarthyism and at the lowest ebb that the American socialist movement had ever experienced". This was the period of the great witch-hunt, when anyone with any hint of a radical past or critical attitude was labelled "a commie", hounded out of jobs and kept under constant surveillance by the FBI. Any one who joined a left wing organisation and committed themselves to political activity could say goodbye to the hopes of a career, and faced victimisation.

Wohlforth and many of his white middle class comrades identified with the struggles of the most oppressed sections of American society, the Negroes and the Hispanics in the ghettos of New York and other cities. One of the most interesting sections of his book is the account of the work of the Workers League and their concentration on community work among the youths in the ghettos:

"Some 350 youth attended the Founding Conference of the Young Socialists [the youth section of the Workers League] in the spring of 1973. Eight of the sixteen youths elected to the National Committee were black or Puerto Rican. Our largest youth conference was held in New York City in May 1974 ... it had an attendance of 550 youth. The YS, at its height, had a membership that fluctuated between 500 and 700."

Wohlforth claims: "With the possible exception of the Communist Party, I do not believe any socialist group ever built a youth movement of our size with such an overwhelmingly minority composition."

By this time, the seventies, Wohlforth had already twenty years of political activity behind him. Although his first adherence was to the Independent Socialist League, Wohlforth broke with Shachtman and the ISL when they moved to the right to merge with the Socialist Party. Wohlforth and a minority broke with Shachtman and eventually joined the orthodox Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party of J.P. Cannon and Farrell Dobbs. However, dismayed by their uncritical support of Castro in Cuba and their rapprochement with the "Pabloites" in the Fourth International and what he considered their accommodation to Stalinism, Wohlforth and a minority in the SWP soon found themselves in a factional alliance with Healy's group in Britain and Lambert's Parti Communiste Intemationaliste in France, who had split from the Pabloite International to form the International Committee for the Fourth International. Expelled from the SWP in 1964, Wohlforth and his comrades, all nine of them, called themselves the American Committee for the Fourth International but later changed their name to the Workers League and affiliated it to Healy's ICFI. From all accounts they threw themselves into a round of hectic activity and the original nine eventually grew to over 200 by 1970 with, as mentioned above, a youth organisation of 500-700, and by 1973 they claimed a circulation of 20,000 for their Bulletin. For such a small organisation this implies a tremendous commitment of 24-hour, seven-day activity.

This hyperactivity mirrored the situation in the British and French sections of the Healy-Lambert International as many comrades in Britain can testify. Combined with the conviction that the final revolutionary crisis of capitalism was imminent and that only our little groups could provide the necessary leadership to the working class it meant that we were working against time. Meanwhile, in the real world outside, the workers we were trying to reach had been depoliticised by the long post-war boom and ignored our existence.

Wohlforth writes: "As time went by our views clashed increasingly with comrades' experiences in the real world. How did we explain this to the members? Since the ever-deepening crisis was taken as given, we did not see the problems of our organization as objectively based. We could not simply recognize that we were having difficulties because the times were not quite as grim as we painted them.... We thought our problems were subjectively rooted. We believed that the crisis had gotten so deep that the middle classes (for Marxists, the 'petty bourgeoisie') were in retreat. Therefore our own cadres, which were of middle-class origins, were resisting reaching out to the young workers, whom the ever-deepening crisis was radicalizing.... We were thus seeing a 'class struggle' within the Workers League as the majority fought the middle-class element's resistance to reaching out to the ever more receptive workers. As we increased the pace of our activities, we stepped up the internal struggle within the organization. Each branch meeting was dominated by attacks against comrades who failed to sell sufficient tickets to an event or sell papers, or who failed in some other fashion. The comrades were forced to confess their own middle-class weaknesses, even their purported hostility to the working class and to the party. A physically exhausted membership found itself under continuous attack. Believing in the party and our ideals as we all did, each of us became preoccupied with our own internal demons. These kept most of us, at least for a while, from questioning the party's perspectives. It was, as I can now see clearly, a highly effective method of brainwashing and thought control. We held on to and inspired a hard working membership at the cost of becoming – a political cult!"

It is also clear from Wohlforth's account that the unwholesome domination that Healy exercised over the Socialist Labour League and then the Workers Revolutionary Party was extended – even over the expanse of the Atlantic Ocean – into the Workers League. Given the situation described above it is easy to see how this came about. Apparently Wohlforth stood in awe of Healy and allowed himself to be bullied into pushing Healy's policies and methods inside the Workers League against his own better judgement with the results mentioned above as well as antagonising the membership.

The most poignant part of Tim Wohlforth's book is the description of how, having badgered Wohlforth to create this tension inside the Workers League, Healy descended without warning on a Workers League summer camp, started a whispering campaign to turn the membership against Wohlforth and proceeded to drum Wohlforth out of the organization using an unsubstantiated allegation that his companion Nancy Fields had "CIA connections". Wohlforth was only one of the many people whose loyalty and dedication Healy abused.

After his expulsion from the Workers League, Wohlforth rejoined the SWP for a short time and then moved to Mexico where he associated himself with the PRT (Partido Revolutionario Trajabadora). He is silent on any ties with organizations after that. Some idea of his present thinking can be gleaned from the last pages of The Prophet's Children. He asks: "What in the Trotskyist political tradition should be abandoned and what is worth preserving?" He argues that one very fundamental aspect of Trotskyism – its Leninism and particularly the substitutionist side of Leninism; the notion that a vanguard party could represent the real interests of the masses even when these masses had no way to check the conduct of these self-appointed leaders – should be questioned. The aspects that should be preserved, according to Wohlforth are: "the notion that democracy and socialism are inseparable"; "the Marxist analysis of 'Marxist' society" (by which he means the analysis of Stalinism); "a socialist alternative to the centrally planned command economy". Wohlforth says: "Socialism can have a new relevancy to the extent that it is able to project a feasible alternative to bureaucratic Stalinism and capitalism. Trotsky's ideas (as well as those of Bukharin) on developing a planned economy containing market mechanisms can be useful." Wohlforth also maintains that workers come to feel their own strength in actual struggle for demands and thus come to understand the need to change the nature of the system. This he calls "the transitional method" and cites as two examples of the Trotskyists effectively applying this method the Minneapolis Teamsters Union struggles in the 1930s and the anti-Vietnam War movement in the 1960s.

It is impossible without making this review too long to comment on other aspects of the book, the activities of the SWP, the Black struggles against racism, the student struggles against the Vietnam war, the Trotskyist work in the unions, the question of fighting for a Labor Party, etc.

One may disagree with Wohlforth's analyses on many points. He himself is quite honest about his mistakes and weaknesses. But it is a useful contribution to the history of the Trotskyist movement in the States and internationally

by SP member that made original posting - SP - CWI Sun Aug 10, 2003 03:19

I appreciate the positive comments towards my article. I have no intention of engaging in an ongoing debate with Denis Tourish (the reasons why will be obvious later) but I will relate to certain points raised by him in order to provide information for others and comment on some of the other postings.

To Chekov:
The reason I did not use my name is that I have been subject to some quite disgraceful abuse on indymedia in the past, not for any other reason. I did not seek sanction from the leadership of the SP to write my article nor did I submit it to them for approval. That is not how the SP operates despite what might be suggested on indymedia and by Denis Tourish.

To John Meehan:
A vibrant, open and democratic life is vital for any revolutionary organisation. The SP is not perfect; no one involved in it would claim it is. There are often discussions about how to ensure that the lifeblood of democracy is maintained. Those who have been involved in the SP for a significant period of time, including me, are very conscious of ensuring this is the case.

To Janus:
I have no doubt some former members of the CWI would feel the way you described about your friends. Yes for some people their time involved in the CWI may have been negative. Also experiences and time can blur the memories. Where I live I know quite a number of ex-members of the CWI. Some left on positive terms, some on negative, and one was openly hostile. However all are friendly towards me on a personal basis and most are willing to make donations, purchase raffle tickets, buy our paper etc. None have engaged in public attacks on the SP. Those are my experiences, nothing more or less.

To Ray:
Unfortunately in every aspect of life when people leave something that they have shown a commitment to, due to a conflict, there tends to be bitterness. I spend some time actively involved in a sports club a number of years ago. I had a disagreement with others involved about certain aspects of the clubs’ work. I left, felt very bitter and, much to my disappointment looking back on it, bad-mouthed those people to others involved in the same sector. People are human beings and they have feelings.

To Jim Monaghan
"There is only one way, one truth, one party, one leader(ship)”. Anyone that claims this (the above) is a moron. I will quote from my original piece “Will the CWI lead the world revolution? Time will tell, personally I don’t care who leads it as long as it is a success. However, at this time I feel that the CWI analysis of political developments is the most accurate and the CWI at this point in time holds out the best prospect for building a revolutionary party.” These are the reasons why I am a member of the CWI.

To Colm –ISN
Absolute agreement.

To s:
Again I would be in agreement.

On to Denis Tourish’s lengthy contribution:

He begins “I would also like to welcome the comments made by SP member – (or should I say, Ciaran)”. Sorry Denis you are jumping to conclusions again – I am not Ciaran and I do know who you are talking about and he would do a much better job of responding to your book than I ever could.

On me remaining anonymous
I explained my reasons for remaining anonymous above. However, I would point out that, unlike your book, my reply is not intended as a researched document, merely my responses. Your book with Wohlforth is touted as an in-depth analysis of political cults conducted by unbiased academic researchers. I would contend that, given both your history and that of Tim Wohlforth , this book is far from unbiased.

Tourish comments, “The piece concerned is actually not ‘mine’”. I trust this is an attempt to spread out the “credit” for the book and not lay the blame for its failings at the door of Tim Wohlforth.

He goes on “Your faith in the internal regime of the CWI and its democratic traditions is not one that is widely shared”. My faith in the CWI is not shared by opponents of the CWI and I would not expect it to be. “An organisation that is serious about acquiring influence rather than vegetating in sectarian isolation might appreciate the need to occasionally justify its existence to others”. We do justify our existence to the people that matter. We have done just that in Dublin West, Dublin North, Coventry, Lewisham, many other parts of the world, within CPSU, NIPSA, PCS and other unions, within the anti-poll tax campaign, the anti water charges campaign, the anti-bin tax campaign etc. The CWI does not have to justify its existence to its opponents and any member of the CWI would defend the CWI when under attack by our opponents.

On Ted Grant’s name
The point I was making here, and I think it was obvious, was that you were attempting to paint a tainted picture of a man who was committed to building a revolutionary socialist organisation, for YOUR purposes and to prove YOUR point.

Tourish continues, “One of the most damaging traits of all kinds of cults (political, religious, psychotherapeutic or whatever) is the idea that the group concerned is humanity’s last great hope for salvation.” The ONLY hope for humanity is a socialist society. I firmly believe this, and that is the reason why I am a socialist activist, you clearly do not!

Denis Tourish says “When I joined in 1974, the constant refrain was that we faced either socialism or barbarism within 10 to 15 years. For all I know, this is still the tune banged out on the party Pianolas”. No Denis, when John Throne left Ireland in the mid 80’s the Armageddon type comments tended to be few and far between. The recent World Congress of the CWI ratified a long and detailed document that contained a sober analysis of the current world situation and the perspectives for the immediate period ahead. It does not contain any predictions of Armageddon or imminent socialist revolution.

Tourish claims that his point is proved by “Peter Taaffe wrote that the 1990s were to be the red-90s” Again Tourish is indicating something that is not being claimed. Peter Taaffe was talking about the prospects for the growth of left wing ideas not the inevitability of socialist revolution before the millennium. Unfortunately, it was difficult to predict the effect of the collapse of Stalinism on the consciousness of working class people and how slow the process would be. However, there are now clear indications that this process is well underway (The RC in Italy, the SSP in Scotland, what’s happening in Brazil & Argentina etc.).

Tourish contends, “Our most essential point was that Taaffe enjoyed and enjoys unrivalled authority within the CWI, and we document various ways in which this was manifest – e.g. a word from him here or there was enough to break people within the organisation. He has been the equivalent of its general secretary since 1964 – a tenure that might soon outpace that of Castro” What utter claptrap. Peter Taaffe commands the respect of the membership of the CWI and the SP in England. As Denis well knows, the leadership of the CWI is a collective leadership and power does not rest in the hands of one individual, it would not be tolerated. Taaffe has played an enormous role in helping to develop the political and organisational leadership of the CWI, a collective leadership I have confidence in (if I didn’t I would oppose it). To make comparisons with Castro is disingenuous.

Denis Tourish dismisses my criticism of the failure to address the positive aspects of the Liverpool Labour Council of the mid-1980’s, Tourish says “Our emphasis was on the internal dynamics of various organisations, not for the most part the social context in which they sought influence”. For your benefit Denis, I would like to give you a quote from Tim Wohlforth (your co-writer of this book) “Clearly the Militant group self-destructed by carrying out a suicidal confrontation in Liverpool with Thatcher. Having lost its local power it then, in typical Trot fashion, split, losing most members in the process” (Marxism discussion group, 2nd January 2001 – I took me all of 3 minutes to find it). Obviously, as far as Tim is concerned, the Militant shouldn’t have taken on Thatcher, the Council shouldn’t have built all those houses, created all those jobs. The Councillors shouldn’t have risked their jobs and homes, got surcharged and banned from office. Liverpool should have lain down in front of the Thatcher steamroller and let the working class people of Liverpool suffer the consequences. That is how to “make friends and influence people”. A question for you Denis “Do YOU agree with the comments of Tim Wohlforth above?

On the 1992 split Tourish contends that I was speaking “jaw dropping nonsense” and goes on
“…these discussions…..were all confined to the top leadership bodies, in order not to disturb the illusion of unanimity.” The facts, by someone there at the time, are as follows; in the initial stages the debate on the “open turn” took place in the “leadership bodies” in an attempt to find an accommodation between the two differing views. Understandable if you consider, in particular, the individuals involved. If agreement had been reached then the discussion would have been taken into the broader organisation. Unfortunately, this did not happen. The debate on the “open turn” then involved the entire British organisation and the CWI. Discussion documents from both sides were made available and in the end a conference of the British organisation was held, debated the issues involved and voted 93% to 7% in favour of the majority faction and against Ted Grant and his supporters. I was sad to see the split. It was a huge setback for the work of the CWI. But these things happen. If you had endeavoured to find out what actually occurred then you would not have made such fundamental errors in your research.

He then continues, “secondary disputes do sometimes erupt – but even these tend to end in expulsion, or members leaving. SP member can defend the expulsion of his Pakistani comrades if he wishes (and perhaps likewise, diss his associates in Scotland, Merseyside and God knows where else). In their entirety, they justify the conclusion that the CWI strives more towards a monolithic internal culture rather than one characterised by ongoing debates, factions and the presence of different points of view.” I will absolutely defend the decision to expel the Pakistani section (or in reality the leadership of the section as they were the ones involved). They were engaging in very questionable practices and refused to stop. Any revolutionary organisation should not accept such a situation. I was very disappointed with the decision of the ISM in Scotland to split. It was a serious setback for the CWI and in reality for the working class of Scotland. The SSP has the potential to become a mass broad left party in Scotland (a process the CWI will endeavour to contribute to) but unfortunately the possibility now exists that the leadership of the SSP will bring the party into coalition with the SNP and the opportunity could be lost. A similar situation (on a much smaller scale) emerged on Merseyside. Expulsion, though regrettable is sometimes a necessity. It is very rare in the CWI and (to the best of my knowledge) has never happened in Ireland. I would also like to take you up on the implication that if an organisation does not have a dissenting faction, that somehow it is undemocratic and monolithic. Is this what you are suggesting? If it were the case, then I would have to disagree.

Denis Tourish suggests, “Whether they (Grant and his supporters) were kicked out, or whether they felt that differences of opinion necessitated the construction of a separate organisation – does it really matter???” Yes it does Denis, for this reason, YOU attempt to use this repeatedly to back up you claim the Peter Taaffe (“our guru”) does not tolerate dissent and resorts to expulsions to eliminate all dissent in “his cult”.

Denis Tourish suggests that I have a “Walter Mitty” type complex because of my claim that “On a worldwide basis the influence of the CWI is greater than anytime in its history… This type of false accounting is, again, typical of cults and their inflated sense of self-importance. It has nothing to do with actually changing society“. You are correct that the CWI has no mass base anywhere in the world, but that was not what I was claiming!!!!!!!! I will quote what I said in the original posting “On a worldwide basis the influence of the CWI is greater than at anytime in its history. This is not to say that we don’t have a long way to go but we are getting there.” I wish we were bigger and had more influence and hopefully we will in the future. There is no exaggeration about how big our influence is (I did not predict the world revolution led by the CWI within 5 years or any period in the future – see response to Jim Monaghan above) merely a rebuttal of your prediction of our slide into oblivion. Visit the CWI website and see for yourself.

Denis Tourish says again “Real politics is about building alliances, achieving influence, and making a difference in the real world”, and suggests that I have given a “comprehensive declaration of irrelevance from the CWI” by saying that “I doubt if any bourgeois politician could have said it better”. Denis, I would contend that the alliances we want to build (with working class organisations and communities), the influence we want to have and the real difference we want to make to the world, is SUBSTANTIALLY different from what you are talking about – and you well know it. The CWI is always conscious of the need to build mass broad – left parties, we consciously make an effort to build alliances (as currently in the North with hospital campaigns for the Assembly elections).

The “subjective” factor – Yes Denis, history has shown the necessity of building a mass revolutionary party as part of the process of revolution. Working class people hold up the SP to scrutiny every time we stand in elections (council, parliamentary or union etc.), every time we participate in a campaign. We will have no hand, act or part, with holding up our organisation to scrutiny by our opponents and the opponents of the working class. You state that you “have disagreements with almost every aspect of the CWI’ programme and perspectives. But my views on this don’t differ from those of most of its political opponents, and I therefore focus my critique on those areas where I hold a distinctive view”. I would suggest that the claim the left-wing organisations are cults is far from a distinctive view. It is a common tactic among right-wing commentators.

Coming to the end Denis Tourish claims, “ the history of the far left has been one of irrelevance and sectarian fragmentation”. I doubt even the most conservative of commentators would claim that the Bolsheviks (not to talk of many others) were irrelevant. I do not think that the people in Liverpool that owe their homes to the actions of the “Militant” in Liverpool would regard us as being irrelevant.

Tourish criticises me for suggesting that he lived in the ivory towers of academia and suggested that I shouldn’t try to psychoanalyse his motives. Firstly I was not trying to psychoanalyse your motives (I wouldn’t know how!). However, the motivations of people are important and we should know where people are coming from. For the benefit of those on indymedia that are interested I include the following which I copied from the biography of Denis Tourish on the website of the University of Aberdeen:

Dennis Tourish, Ph.D., Department of Management, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland

Dr. Tourish is also joint co-ordinator of a new Executive Diploma in Leadership (Link), designed to enhance the leadership effectiveness of Chief Executive Officers and other top managers.

Dr Tourish previously worked as a manager in the National Health Service (NHS). He is a member of the Academy of Management,

He has held a number of research grants, including £30,000 from the European Social Fund to study the effects of training in selection interviewing on job seeking adolescents.

Dr Tourish has worked with a large number of private and public sector organisations in the design, implementation and evaluation of a range of communication initiatives. Work has included conducting communication audits, and a variety of senior management development programmes.

I will apologise for suggesting you were an ivory tower living academic. After reviewing my comments, I will reassess my view. I would suggest that you are in fact an enemy of the working class and should be treated as such. The sole purpose, in my opinion, of your book is an attempt to sow doubts among activists about revolutionary politics. You and Tim Wohlforth have touted the book around left wing discussion boards and indymedia sites.

Finally, you finish by saying “Many CWI leaders, and long standing apologists such as SP member, appear to be lost causes. It is my hope that some of their actual or would be members are not. I would rather many of them learned from my experiences, rather than repeat the mistakes I made in the 1970s and 1980s. Here’s hoping”. I can assure you I will not make the same mistake as you and turn my back on working class people.

by Dennis Tourish Sun Aug 10, 2003 13:29

As usual, most of the substantive points I make about the CWI’s internal regime and how the general research into group dynamics and cults can help us to understand it better, are ignored. I have no wish to merely repeat points made in my long paper on the CWI, developed in the chapter co-written with Tim Wohlforth and then summarised at several times on this site. For the most part, it appears to me that SP member prowls around my opinions, and occasionally growls at them, but is incapable of getting to grips with the essence of the issues.

A few points:

Anonymity

SP member remains keen to protect his anonymity, while railing bitterly against my protection of some sources in our book. He protects his own anonymity to avoid abuse on Indymedia. Some of our interviewees had rather greater fears, including censure by their employer. I continue to see nothing wrong with respecting their wishes. Moreover, protecting the identity of interviewees is a perfectly standard approach in social science research. In singing the praises of open disclosure, SP member rather resembles a bald man selling hair-restorer.

Catastrophism

I have said that ‘one of the most damaging traits of all kinds of cults… is the idea that that the group concerned is humanity’s last great hope for salvation.’ This is fundamental to the existence of the CWI – only their program can redeem the situation; only their leadership can help the working class achieve power; only their organisational structures are appropriate. This mindset permeates their activities, programme and perspectives. It also means that they approach other individuals and groups with a sectarian attitude, well documented elsewhere on this site. And what does this mean? It means that the organisation is not open to genuine debate and engagement, but sees it role as that of an advanced cadre bringing enlightenment to others, and which must protect the purity of its ideals in doing so. Hence the horror of debate and dissent, either within or without its ranks.

This is rather different from the view SP member now advances, to the effect that socialism is the only hope for humanity. It is perfectly possible to agree with his point here – but the CWI goes much further. It has this view of its own infallible, unique, tremendously important role in history. This ensures that any dissent is seen as imperilling its unanimity and cohesiveness, both viewed as vital if a mass party is to be built. The result is that organised dissent is crushed, by one means or another. SP member asks if I am arguing that the absence of factions and debates means there is a monolithic and oppressive internal environment, something he would dispute. I imagine that few others would share his view. Of course, the absence of factions means that the culture is monolithic, intolerant of dissent and oppressive! The only place where you get substantial numbers of people agreeing with each other on every issue, or else leaving to form their own groups, is – a cult.

It is this persistent belief that all of the far left Trotskyist groups have in their own importance that condemns them to irrelevance and sectarian fragmentation. SP member challenges my view that this has been the fate of the far left, and cites the example of the Bolsheviks. I do stand corrected here – they did achieve some influence (though to what ends is a different matter entirely – we need to grow out of idealising and idolising Petrograd in 1917 as well). But look at the facts, ever since. Assuming we trace the CWI’s lineage back to 1938 when the Fourth International was founded, this represnts over 60 years of activity. And what do we have? The CWI’s numbers have dwindled drastically. Meanwhile, there are possibly thousands of competing Trotskyist sects in the world today – each one as convinced as the CWI of its correctness and indispensability, and each one as busy maintaining web-sites that most working people wouldn’t even glance at. The recent trend towards splits within the CWI might ensure that it adds a few score new such organisations to this lengthy list in the years ahead. Some little touch of humility about its traditions, beliefs and achievements would be in order.

Linked to all of this is the presence of the view that ‘time is short ‘(echoes of Paisley), and that unless much energy is expended in building the party then the destruction of humanity could well occur. SP member seems to argue that only John Throne ever held this belief. Well, if only it were so. I also argued it. I heard all leaders of the CWI, including Peter Hadden, Peter Taaffe and Ted Grant argue the same thing at this time, repeatedly. It was an absolutely common part of our approach, and would have been regarded as non-controversial within our ranks. Peter Taaffe’s nonsensical predictions about the Red 90s are part of the same mindset.

For that matter, SP member claimed earlier to have boldly argued against this perspective, when the pamphlet socialism or catastrophe was published, and to have incurred no sanction for his defiance. I personally recall no such discussion. But assuming that I am wrong and SP member is right about the CWI’s internal regime, perhaps he could refresh my memory. When and where were the conferences at which this was debated? What alternative documents did he propose? What was the vote on his alternative position? I would be pleased to hear about this.

The role of Peter Taaffe

SP member asserts that there is a collective leadership in the CWI and that my argument about the power of Peter Taaffe is ‘claptrap.’ I am reminded of Stalin’s constitution for the USSR in the 1930s, hailed by hacks the world over as making Russia the most democratic country in the world. Formal guarantees mean nothing. It is what happens on the ground that counts. The fact is that there is no sustained opposition to Taaffe within the CWI, and anybody who tries is given short thrift. The same is true in Ireland. There may well have been no expulsions – but there are many ways to skin a cat. I personally know of several former CWI leaders, who were subject to absolutely terrible pressure by one means or another, so that in the end they left rather than face more of it, or further waste their time on sectarian nonsense.

Taaffe and his coterie of cult leaders are much more concerned about ensuring their own sectarian longevity than influencing the working class. To achieve the latter would mean surrendering their illusions of absolute correctness, and actually collaborating with others in struggle to work out a programme and tactics that reflect the needs of the situation rather than the need to build the CWI. For the most part, they have demonstrated their incapacity to do so. How else to explain their collapse from 8000 members to about 400 in Britain? How else to explain 30 years of activity in Northern Ireland, resulting in about 30 members? WHATEVER points you make about the objective situation cannot alone explain this – even if we grant it is part of the explanation. Your internal regime, and the sectarian, exclusivist, ultimatist and cultic mindset of your leaders are deeply implicated in this failure.

Thus, I don’t believe Tim has ever said that Liverpool Council shouldn’t have taken on Thatcher! What he did say was that the particular approach of the CWI was inappropriate, and of course led to defeat – a not unimportant detail. It is quite possible to debate your tactics in Liverpool without disagreeing with your objectives, or advocating the surrender of all positions. It is typical of a sectarian mindset, and a cultic one, to brand all criticism as treachery, to brand all opponents as enemies, to insist that black is white and white is black. Time, perhaps, to move on?

Internal debate, and the expulsion (or otherwise) of Ted Grant

You are being quite disingenuous in arguing that because the debate with Grant that preceded his departure reached the rank and file, then there is no problem with open debate in your organisation. Naturally, when several of your most important leaders confronted Taaffe it could not be kept hidden. I have read all the major documents on this debate. The point is that Taaffe subsequently pointed out this was only the tip of the iceberg, and that in the previous period there were many differences with Grant across a whole range of issues. He alludes to these briefly in his book. I repeat: at the time these differences arose they were not permitted to reach the ears of the rank and file. For most of them, the final rupture with Grant was like a thunderbolt. What does this tell us about your internal regime?

It tells us that the leadership thinks its view is to reach an agreed position and then (mis)educate the membership, in a one way communication process I find typical of cults. The leaders conduct themselves like a conclave of cardinals, have an equally inflated notion of their intellectual worth, and are every bit as immune to corrective feedback. They hammer their agreed position into people, ignoring feedback or, if critical feedback occurs, driving out the dissenters. The task is to project the image of a monolithic, infallible, all seeing, all knowing, all wise leadership, that already knows everything anybody needs to know about how to lead the working class. SP member continues to defend the expulsions of all and sundry who have disagreed with Taaffe’s line – while holding on to the contradictory view that the internal regime is open, honest, not at all similar to cults and tolerant of dissent. Don’t you see a problem here? I rather think others would.

You also continue to challenge the view that Ted Grant was expelled, arguing instead that he left and that this invalidates my critique. I repeat: Grant and his followers have a different view of events. Their argument is that they were effectively driven out; that branches supporting them were closed down; that they were barracked and heckled at your conference; that expulsions occurred. For the non-aligned, there is no way of knowing which view is right. If the truth is ever established and differs from what I have written I will happily publish a correction - it is by no means a vital point. But let us accept your view for a moment. This means that the founder of your organisation, who had a huge impact on its culture, also held the view that the only way to resolve differences was by establishing a separate organisation. Complete agreement, or absolute separation – such is the norm within the CWI. Pretty cultic, to me. And while it has everything to do with sectarianism, and cultic empire building, it has absolute nothing to do with achieving the liberation of the working class.

The influence of the CWI

You claim your organisation’s influence is greater than ever, despite the decline in your numbers. Few will share this sanguine view, and I don’t think that you do yourself any good by claiming it. Facing facts is essential. Outlandish claims of influence, numbers (or imminent insurrection) are further cult characteristics. The spectacle you present here is here is of a man stuck in quicksand, frightened of sinking any lower, but scared to move from your starting position in case the little solid foundation that is left gives way.

An enemy of the working class?

The least relevant part of this stuff is where I work and what I have been doing since 1988, when I had the great pleasure of leaving the CWI. For example, SP member says that right wing commentators have also have said that the CWI is a cult – ergo, I am in their company. This crude amalgam is pure Stalinism, and unworthy of a serious response. If I join with Fianna Fail TDs in claiming that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, does that make me a Fianna Fail member, or for that matter make my position wrong? I have no idea what such people argue about the CWI, and have little interest in finding out.

But because I work in a department of management studies I am an enemy of the working class!

Firstly, I would say that in the social sciences (particularly, in social psychology and communication) a great deal of valuable research has been carried out into organisational decision making, conformity effects, leadership and group processes. To my knowledge, Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky wrote little on these questions. It might be useful to make use of the knowledge that has been gleaned in these areas, rather than rely on Holy Scripture. It is, again, typical of cults that they only prize knowledge, if that is what it is, generated within their own ranks. A wider reading brief might be useful.

As to me, I could deconstruct every line of what SP member writes here. Yes, I was an NHS manager – in a very lowly administrative position, no different to what I know many CWI members would have, and then for 18 months. (Note: even ward sisters are technically classed as NHS managers!) I left precisely because I had no desire to move up the ranks and become a senior manager. I am now a Professor of Communication. I am also a member of the Academy of Management (AOM). And what is this AOM? It is a professional organisation of academics who research organisations, management, business and much else. It is not a cult. There is no guru, agreed transitional programme or tablets of stone. It is an academic body that publishes journals and holds conferences, and has within it every shade of opinion imaginable. For example, it has a critical management studies stream, which consists mostly of Marxists (and some Trotskyists I know), who publish very interesting material on power relations within organisations, argue against capitalism and debate alternative forms of social organisation - some of which would make useful reading for the CWI. Yes, I have worked for a few senior management teams (generally, in small organisations) on particular projects – in common with many thousands of others who get hired for their expertise on this or that issue. None of this has ever involved dealing with trade unions, downsizing, wage cutting or anything else that could be remotely construed as anti-working class, and many of my academic publications specifically criticise all these practices.

The truth is that the leadership of the CWI regards all who disagree with it as its enemies, which they imagine also makes them enemies of the working class. This is a good description of sectarianism, which slides so easily into cultism. It illuminates the problems faced by those who raise disagreements internally. In double quick time, they also find themselves branded as enemies, and treated accordingly. I know of at least one former leader who raised disagreements, only to find himself accused of leading a petit bourgeois opposition – even though he hadn’t even yet gotten to the point of declaring a faction! Among my beefs about the CWI is that its leaders pose as people interested in the liberation of the working class, and recruit many enthusiastic young people fired up by a similar ambition. But such is their cynicism, intolerance, duplicity and arrogance that they almost always lay waste this enthusiasm, and in the process turn many of these people off from politics – permanently. For the most part, limited exceptions aside, their own sectarian longevity is much more important than participating, humbly, in the actual movements that occur in society. Whatever influence they acquire or good they do is down to the diligence of the rank and file membership, and in spite of the wise counsel obtained from on high. I am not a revolutionary socialist, but I dispute the view that I am an enemy of the working class. However, I am proud to accept that I am an enemy of the CWI.

The point SP member seems to be keen to make is that only those actively engaged in revolutionary politics can say anything useful about the internal regimes of leftist organisations. This rules out most of the world’s population, actually, and is again part of the problem – dialogue in order to acquire influence means engaging with those you haven’t yet convinced, and even those not yet engaged in struggle. The alternative is to vegetate in sectarian isolation, convinced that you already know everything there is that you need to know. The CWI’s view of how to build alliances and achieve influence in the real world is predicated on wholly false assumptions about almost everything – including its own role and indispensability. In my view, they are little more than attempts to create front organisations behind which cult building can continue apace. Most people find that working with over a long period is impossible.

Those genuinely interested in changing and improving society can find a better way. A necessary beginning involves acknowledging that past practices have failed, rather dismally. I hope that what I have written, alone and with Tim Wohlforth, is helpful to those considering alternative forms of organisation.

by Dennis Tourish Sun Aug 10, 2003 14:53

Just to correct a typo in the above - I meant to say that I left the CWI in 1985, not 1988.

by s Sun Aug 10, 2003 15:35

Previously on this thread i asked for clarity about the back groung of quoted sources.
I didnt quite expect the information that has come forward in the last 3 contributions but I do think that the points about D Tourish either from the Aberdeen University web site or from his own discription do help to put the general discussion in context.

by marxist Sun Aug 10, 2003 15:38

I am greatly encouraged to read that the AOM has formed a marxist wing (so like the old days when the Militant was the marxist wing of the LP). How do I join Dennis.:)

by he Sun Aug 10, 2003 21:22

Denis, is it the British or the American Academy of Management that has the marxist group in it?

by John Meehan Mon Aug 11, 2003 00:11

I refer to the comment below :

"To John Meehan:
A vibrant, open and democratic life is vital for any revolutionary organisation. The SP is not perfect; no one involved in it would claim it is. There are often discussions about how to ensure that the lifeblood of democracy is maintained. Those who have been involved in the SP for a significant period of time, including me, are very conscious of ensuring this is the case."

But a little more than good intentions are needed.

I welcome the realistic approach here - the recognition that "the SP is not perfect".

My personal politics are pro United Secretariat of the Fourth International - and that organisation is not perfect either.

I think that the right to organise "tendencies" (or "platforms" as they are called in the Scottish Socialist Party) has to be promoted and guaranteed within left wing organisations.

This cannot automatically prevent a degeneration into "cultism", but it does help curb the phenomenon.

Many far left organisations - including most of those describing themselves as Trotskyist - do not, in practice, guarantee this right.

The Irish SWP and its co-thinkers, for example, only allows internal currents in a pre-conference period, after which they must dissolve - this was also the practice of the ex-Trotskyist USA SWP (when it was affiliated to the USFI).

This is far too restrictive.

I do not know the exact position of the CWI on the "internal régime" question, but I expect it is more restrictive than the SSP, for example.

The SSP allows the organising of "platforms". The United Secretariat of the Fourth Intenational (USFI) guarantees such rights in its statutes - and in my experience, at asn international level, backed up that guarantee in practice.

A full nd free internal discussion régime like this tends to curb the wilder sectarian excesses and exaggerations that crop up in all heated debates and exchanges - although, of course, it cannot eliminate the phenomenon.

by JJ McGarrity Mon Aug 11, 2003 16:07

Welcome discussion.

I welcome this discussion both its tone and content. While I have no actual experience of the CWI or the Socialist Party, I was a member of the Workers Party for many years and I can say with certainty that some of the points made by Denis Tourish struck a chord. I think that left political organizations can often develop such traits to justify almost anything and frequently to ensure leadership infallibility.

My own experience of the internal dynamics of the WP and the way ‘dissent’ was ‘handled’; First, a leadership figure, (usually someone you would respect) would have a friendly chat and explain the reason the Party line was correct and the line that you proposed was ‘dodgy’. To enforce this the person would usually label your position, petit bourgeois or Trotskyist (in the WP being called a Trot was equal to a priest accused of pedophilia) or Nationalist (ie Provo, like a nun professing the joys of Satanism) or Ultra leftist, (ie Earpy – IRSPish, seen as a hellish combination of Trotskyism and Nationalism) or Social Democratic (fuck off and join Labour).

If these ‘friendly’ approaches were ignored then formal disciplinary procedures would be initiated. Accusations of factionalism would be charged. This would automatically have the effect of placing your original position secondary to your loyalty to the Party. Other members would not even know what you were arguing for all they would know is that you were attempting to split the Party and that was a ‘mortal sin’ against the Party. You would find yourself marginalized, people you had friendly chats with in the past would barely tolerate your company and eventually your imposed isolation would leave you with no alternative but to resign or suffer ‘internal damnation’.

I suspect that many revolutionary left groups are similar in varying degrees. I have discussed with many both within the WP and other left groups and I conclude (and these conclusions are mine only) that certain traits exist in revolutionary left organizations that lend to anti democratic internal practices.

1- Democratic Centralism. No one denies that there is a need to have an agreed programme if you want to be taken seriously, but, the insistence that everybody must endorse absolutely every position taken by a Party is unrealistic, and frankly lend credence to the ‘cult’ label. There is a need, indeed a requirement that any authentic revolutionary organization would be awash with dissent. Marx said “question everything” and BTW I doubt that he was directing this exclusively to the leaderships of left groups. You can find that Left parties have executive meetings of the leadership lasting 8 to 10 hours were a particular position is trashed out and a ‘line’ agreed, members are left in the dark not knowing the content of the debate let alone being afforded any opportunity to contribute to the debate. Instead a position is fed down the line for consumption.

2- “We are the Vanguard”- The Party will lead the workers to revolution. The party is the only organization with the correct analysis/ real revolutionary programme/ historical lineage, of the Bolsheviks. This has a number of problems both internal and external. Externally it means that all calls for broad fronts, coalitions, alliances are between the real revolutionary Party and “leftists” who are either reformist or need to be ‘worked on’ (potential recruits). This IMO, negates the possibility of real cooperation on the left. Internally, I believe that the logic of vanguardism further embeds the infallibility of the revolutionary Party’s leadership. If the Party line is unquestionably correct, the leadership (as the authors of the line) is doubly correct; to challenge one is to disparage the other.

3- The Party Machine. Paid full-timers can be abused and abusers. Any left group will tell of hardship experienced by full time staff and I would not disagree or challenge any of them. My limited knowledge of the WP’s staff was that they worked hard for little financial reward and often to unending criticism of the unpaid party workers and particularly the elected representatives. In a previous post, someone referred to Stalin’s constitution and socialists should take heed of the point made. If a socialist group requires a full time person to carry out necessary work on behalf of the Party then their working conditions should be BETTER than others exploited by capitalists. If your Party wants to improve the lot of the working class then prove it! Start in your own back yard, better pay, longer holidays, and second to none working conditions. If you can’t afford that, well your Party can’t afford to have a full-time worker, wait until you can.

Apart from that, you can find that a Party worker can wield excessive power. In organizations, information is power, and those at HQ are often more informed than the leadership that may only meet monthly. They also have the power to influence members calling to the office, the opportunity to canvass for leadership positions (as they can be the local branches only link to the organization), they have the power to ignore or de-prioritise decisions that they disagree with. They can also decide what area gets priority and what area is least important. Information Technology has the potential to minimize the accumulation of information by any elite if it is used.

I have to agree with the ‘solutions’ offered in Ray’s post.

Decentralise power
Try to minimize centres of power, full-time party workers. Look at less formal approaches to decision making that involve more participation by your grassroots.

Tolerate dissent
Encourage dissent, if your members are not challenging, it’s usually a sign of lethargy or indifference. If you want sheep, you will get sheep, incompetent unquestioning drones.

Allow factions to exist
It is inhuman to expect everybody to agree 100%. Why do Left organizations feel so threatened by factions. Personally, if you agree in general terms with a groups programme you should be welcome irrespective of your fondness for Cuba or dislike of gender mixed schools or whatever and your desire to convince the greater membership to adopt your stance.

Finally, I want to address one particular trait that is truly appalling and has currency in most of our left groups in Ireland and that is the demonizing of members who leave/resign/are expelled.

In my own experience I have known people to have their character assassinated because they are no-longer members. Disgusting lies and innuendo used to besmirch their names and condemnation to complete isolation from the Party that often they have given large chunks of their adult life to (members are reluctant to be seen in their company). Open hostility to ex-members is a real sign of an anti democratic organization, and furthermore, smacks of a level of intolerance that should concern all (you sometimes wonder what would befall a dissenter if any of these organizations were actually in power!). This is inexcusable in any circumstances no matter what the ‘sin’ of the ex member. So what if he/she is now in the PD’s?

In conclusion, I must admit that when I was in the WP I was guilty of participating in most of the things I now consider wrong. I avoided ex members, argued for unquestioning loyality to the Party, had absolute contempt for ALL other Parties, especially Left Parties and sadly participated (no matter how passively in the demonizing of people). The internal dynamics of the WP that I so passionately endorsed ended up fucking me over (poetic justice). I sometimes wonder are the dynamics of ALL organizations prone to these problems?

by Dennis Tourish Mon Aug 11, 2003 16:54 d.tourish at abdn dot ac dot uk

I have to say that I thought JJ's contribution above on the WP and its dynamics was quite brilliant. I also think that every single one of the crimes he lists that the organisation inflicted on its dissenters also apply to the CWI - it might have different terms of abuse for dissenters, but intense and unreasoning abuse it is. For example, I also witnessed (and experienced) people that I had been close to absolutely ignoring me once I left. I had committed the crime of dissent, so even hullo was out of the question. This type of behaviour goes beyond sectarianism, and is purely cultic. They also so alienate working class people that a mass base ultimately proves elusive: it has zero in common with normal behaviour in the labour movement. I repeat: you can have a monolithic, tightly controlled internal environment - or you can have some real influence in the outside world. You cannot have both.

These are indeed problems common across much of the left. Just recently, I had some email correspondence from a resigned SWP member in Britain, listing precisely similar difficulties in that organisation.

Part of the explanation for this is that all these organisations rely on democratic centralism. More precisely, they rely on a version of this invented by Zinoviev, popularised further by Stalin and from which Trotsky unfortunately felt unable to break (despite the earlier penetrating criticisms he made of it). When social scientists carry out an experiemnt a thousand times and have the same result each time, they usually conclude they are observing a pretty reliable phenomenon. The almost identical degenerations of each far left organisation into caricatures of themselves, and cults to boot, should compel those interesting in learning from history to fundamentally reappraise their practice.

The postings on this site from SP member, and other defences of the CWI tradition elsewhere, suggest that it maybe should rename itself The Ostrich Tendency. Others might be more interested in moving on from the sectarian quagmires of the past.

by AOM Mon Aug 11, 2003 17:31

"The postings on this site from SP member, and other defences of the CWI tradition elsewhere, suggest that it maybe should rename itself The Ostrich Tendency. Others might be more interested in moving on from the sectarian quagmires of the past".
It is great that Denis learned so much from his past actions that he has risen above the need for abuse in these discussions.

by Chekov Mon Aug 11, 2003 17:56

The term 'ostrich' is not personalised abuse. Denis is saying that the CWI members have shown a tendency to hide their heads in the sand in this discussion - it is evidence based argument not ad hominem abuse. Maybe the evidence doesn't support it, but you'd have to make that case.

Incidentally your 'AOM' title is much more 'ad hominem' than anything Denis has written IMHO.

by . Mon Aug 11, 2003 18:02

.

by Ray Mon Aug 11, 2003 18:23

This is only amusing to the ignorant, to be honest.
'Critical theory' is (or was) a movement within sociology, heavily influenced by Marxism. Try googling for Water Benjamin, or 'the Frankfurt school'. Critical theorists working on the area of management could well be described as a Marxist wing of the AOM.
Remember what people were saying earlier about cult members not reading outside of the approved list of gurus? Perhaps some wider reading would have meant that these names were familiar to you...

by Dennis Tourish Mon Aug 11, 2003 19:24

In general, this discussion has been conducted in such a manner that the arguments rather than abuse have been to the fore. My gripe with much CWI material on these and other issues is that they throw out insults, without addressing the issues - eg I am a crank, so and so is obsessive, X is senile. I wouldn't mind being called a crank at all (my skin is thick) - if it followed on from an argument seeking to demonstrate the point. Without an argument, it simply betrays an empty position, and is no different to a belligerent child screaming in frustration . I am sure I sometimes stray from this ideal myself, and this is to be regretted. But with the CWI it is more a matter of policy...

Harping on about the AOM is an excellent example, and evidence only that the writers know nothing about what they are seeking to demonise. People in universities study management, just as they study politics, group dynamics, society, psychology and much else. It doesn’t mean that they necessarily practice it, endorse it, or eulogise Enron – though some do. Thus sociologists have a sociological association which holds conferences and publishes journals - and which anyone is free to write for. It does not have an agreed party position on anything, and because it studies society does not therefore apologise for it or justify its structures. The AOM is nothing more than an umbrella forum for anyone interested in management, in all its aspects. My membership consists of paying an annual sub. to receive its journals and information about its events. I have met right wing Bush supporters in such forums, keen to promote rabid free market reforms and bomb the bejasus out of Iraq; Marxists critical of society - and for the most part people bereft of any political position whatsoever. The word conference also means something different to academics than it does to a cult. For the most part, academic conferences consist of a zillion competing panels, with people presenting papers and those attending the conference going to whatever ones they wish - or more often still having a drink at the bar. Hour long lead-offs are fortunately absent. There are no perspectives documents, or resolutions commiting those present to any ideological line - including the maintenance of capitalist property relations. They are simply forums for that thing called debate - something which, in any genuine form, is for the most part sadly lacking in the CWI. So much for the AOM. I am also an active member of my trade union, and have engaged in strike action at its behest - I am not sure where this sits in the pantheon of criminal anti-working class activities I am allegedly conducting.

But there is another important detail here. I haven't declared myself to be a revolutionary party. I don't have 100s of members (or in the case of the CWI in NI, 30 or so), I don't have a central committee, I don't publish a newspaper, and I am not seeking the leadership of the working class. The CWI on the other hand aspires to all these things. It is this which justifies discussion of its internal regime - I don't have a regime to debate. Attempts to chunter on about the AOM, in my view, are a mere diversionary tactic, like a bad magician uses diversions during a poorly rehearsed trick. The attitude is: Since we feel uncomfortable debating our own traditions, lets fire some flak in all directions, and run for cover beneath the barrage. It is a poorly conceived smokescreen, the use of which is further testimony of the organisation’s internal problems.

For those who have missed the links can I provide this one, to my original piece on the CWI - which fleshes out all these points, and might be of some interest

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

Finally, and perhaps finally on this thread, SP member began the whole thing be asserting that members of the CWI were too amused by the cult allegation to take it seriously. Well, I am amused by their amusement. Others evidently find it of more interest. For example, there is now a link to it on the Ozleft discussion page, widely read by left activists in Australia. This also contains much other excellent material on these questions. See

http://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/Organising.html

Right wingers have their own motivation for using the word cult as a political swearword, just as some on the left have often been guilty of indiscriminately employing the term fascist. I use it much more precisely, and doubt if anyone in Fianna Fail has provided the in-depth analysis of this that I have. I think many left and former left activists are also concerned about the repeated patterns of distortion, abuse, deception, hypocrisy, intolerance of debate and the demonising of dissenters that has disfigured left wing discourse. Is it so hard to understand that working class people expect movements purporting to act on their behalf to practice what they preach, to model democracy and openness, not to mention the just treatment of their own members? Failure to grasp this explains why the CWI continues to crumble in sectarian isolation.

Rather than rehearse the well-learnt mistakes of the past, most people are now more than ready to move on.

by Rose McCann Tue Aug 12, 2003 06:08

JJ McGarrity wrote above

“I sometimes wonder are the dynamics of ALL organizations prone to these problems?”

I was a member of the Australian Democratic Socialist Party (publishers of Green Left Weekly and formerly FI) for about 13 years. I’m currently a member of the Australian Greens.

My experience in DSP/SWP plus some 30 years experience in the lower echelons of the paid workforce have made me very interested indeed in this question. It is the subject of significant current relevant enquiry by, e.g. object relations psychoanalytic theorists and practitioners such as Robert Young and other contributors to the Journal of Human Nature (available online). I recommend this site.

Using the insights and tools of Marxist, Freudian and Darwinian theory, Robert Young and others examine phenomenon such as virulent projective identification and abusive behaviour within left political sects. They show how this occurs in essentially similar ways or processes, (mostly unconscious and generally unchallenged except by those considered subversives or troublemakers) and for many of the same reasons, as it routinely occurs within other types of groups, organisations and at societal level. It is a discussion that is extremely useful and relevant today -- not least in understanding the mass phenomenon in the West of Islamophobia.

Similar processes are in train, and do partly explain, the continual degeneration or marginalisation of left political groups (all of which seem to have, to one degree or another, cultic features) and their chronic inability to play a constructive role beyond limited and not very effective propagandising and fund-raising and the organisation of street demonstrations.

Dennis Tourish’s expose of all this is very effective and he is to be commended also for drawing attention to the internal dynamics of these organisations which mirror exactly the worst sort of bullying and hypocritical behaviour and anti-democratic practices that most people experience in the brutal, cut-throat and competitive world of work.

I remember the outrage party members always felt and voiced when, for example, in the context of a philosophical conference debate, Australian Aboriginal activists would confront white left activists (even self-styled pure-as-the-driven snow human beings -- because Marxist! -- that we deluded ourselves as being) with the incontrovertible reality of the existence within our psyches of, at the very least, remnant racist attitudes (again mostly unconscious).

The notion that we were intrinsically and by definition better and nobler human beings than the rest of humanity was explicitly and repeatedly endorsed by the party leadership as a means of boosting our commitment to being “100 per centers” -- to the use the favoured and creepy term of DSP National Secretary and full timer John Percy.

Actually I can think of no other organisation where the mere act of leaving, even after many years of dedicated and generous service, precipitates such a reaction from remaining members of generalised ostracism, character assassination and contempt. One does indeed ask what would be the behaviour if such individuals had say the power of a Stalin or a Mao Tse Tung.

I commend contributors to this discussion above who have done the simple deed of reversing the negative organisational and behavioural characteristics of left political sects as a way of illustrating the needed corrective. Of course, such changes would be momentous and not easily achieved. But until there is, as a starting point, an awareness of the problem and its causes, any such change is unthinkable. And unfortunately, without such change, the left project of social transformation is doomed.

by John Throne. - labors militant voice Tue Aug 12, 2003 09:48 loughfinn at aol dot com

I am sorry that I have come late to this discussion. I only yesterday knew it was taking place.

I do not agree that the CWI is a cult. I think that while there are elements of cultism this is an accusation that does not stand. This I believe is why the SP member chooses to take up this particular charge. But this does not deal with the essential issue which in my opinion is that all trotskyist organizations are over centralized, that they have been influenced by the extreme centralization forced on the Bolsheviks during the civil war period and immediately afterwards, the rise of stalinism and the extreme centralization that stalinism carried out in its internal life, the extreme centralization forced on trotskyism when it was being slaughtered by stalinism and the result is over centralization in all trotskyist organizations. This is seen as the norm. And this “norm” is over centralization to such a degree that it makes it impossible for these organizations ever to become mass organizations. This I believe is the essence of the issue not the charge of being a cult or cults.

I suppose more than any other voice critical of the CWI I have more knowledge of the workings of that organization than anybody else. For 50 years we explained that the only defense against bureaucratic degeneration were correct perspectives and orientation and program. We argued that any organization that was mistaken on these and unable to correct them through open and honest debate would degenerate and become bureaucratic.

Let us look at this the CWI’s own theory in relation to it itself over the past 20 years. I believe that the CWI had a generally correct analysis of the world, not in detail but generally, over the period of the 1950’s, the 1960’s, the 1970’s and the early 1980’s. This was the basis for the united internal life and the lack of splits and the respect for and authority of the leadership. However as the 1980’s developed the world processes began to increasingly negate the analysis and the orientation of the CWI. Capitalism had more vitality than we thought, stalinism was more rotten than we thought, and our opinion that it was a race between the political revolution in the East and the socialist revolution in the west began to be exposed as incorrect. The collapse of stalinism, the reintroduction of capitalism to the stalinist world, the development of new technology and the long growth cycles in the 1980’s and the 1990’s combined to leave our world view in tatters round us.

Then we faced the real challenge, more serious than any we had faced to then. Could we openly and honestly face up to these major errors, was our internal life capable of dealing with this crisis without major destruction of the organization. Tragically the answer has been shown to be no. Ted Grant and co denied that anything was wrong at all. They denied that capitalism was going back to the stalinist world even though it was taking place before their very eyes, and they denied that the social democratic organizations were losing their base in the working class. They denied that we had to have a new world analysis and a new orientation. This included having to move away from our orientation to the mass social democratic organizations. Everything was as it was before and we were right all the time.

The CWI made a real effort to confront the task of adjusting to the new period. We made our open turn away from entryism. But more important in the context of this discussion there began the talk about the need to open up and have an open and honest discussion and to embark on a period of free flowing and open discussion in order to clarify the new world situation, perspectives and orientation. However Ted Grant and co immediately set about preparing for a split. They had the view that we had made no mistakes, and that was it.

However they also had another view and that was that the revolutionary organization had to be unified and monolithic. And concretely that Ted G and Alan W were the leaders and this had to be the way it was. I remember sitting discussing with these two Comrades at this time and Alan W pronounced to me that he would defend to the death the analysis of the organization and the organization itself. I asked him was he saying that because I no longer agreed with the world analysis which was so clearly being negated by events that this meant I was attacking the organization. He and Ted G were silent as neither could think of a way to admit to this which of course was what they thought.

By the way Ted G and co were not expelled from the CWI. I spent quite some time in Europe debating with these individuals and their faction at this time and from the beginning of the debate everywhere they went they approached individual members they thought they could influence and prepared them for a split. But no split was necessary at this time. it was a time when the ideas had to be re- thought and clarified. This should have been done openly.

The entire membership should have been challenged to go back to the books, to discuss with the working class, we should have financed expeditions to the stalinist world with the aim of clarifying what was going on, to the former colonial countries and used the resources of the organization to clarify the issues. The organization should have had the emphasis towards becoming a huge think tank while it continued its involvement in the working class struggles and in the process clarified its ideas. The differences could have been maintained within the organization at that time if it was not for the view of the Ted G faction at that time that a revolutionary organization had to be monolithic and they were the leaders and that was that, and god was in his or her heaven and all was well with the world.

They split to achieve such an organization.. This was serious mistake and weakened the theoretical base of the organization and its ability to clarify its perspectives and orientation. This split flowed from the mistaken perspectives and orientation yes, but it did not have to flow from these mistakes if the organization had not had the wrong view of itself and its internal life. It had far too centralized a view of what a revolutionary organization should be. So instead of the organization using its considerable theoretical resources and its roots in the working class internationally to turn towards a period of discussion and brain storming and even experimentation to clarify perspectives and orientation Ted G and co split. We could have agreed to continue to debate the issue of what was going to happen in the stalinist world and done this openly and publicly in our publications and with the working class base that we had and agreed to allow events to unfold. No immediate organizational decisions made a total agreement and therefore a split necessary.

On the issue of the work in the Labor Party and entryism this was a bit more difficult as an immediate organizational decision had to be made . To continue with entryism or not. There could have been a number of ways to deal with this. For example we could have tried to experiment in some areas with an open turn under a different name and see the response. Or god forgive us we could have actually accepted what we preached that is democratic centralism that the majority decide and the minority agree to go along while being allowed to argue for its ideas and see what happened. But no the organization had to be unified and the leaders had to be in their proper place and to get this Ted G and Alan W had to split.

I moved back to work in London at that time. I was still a member of the IS to which I had been elected when I left Ireland in 1983 and of which I had been a member since that time. A new atmosphere was announced by us all. We were opening up etc, the old ways were gone. And for a while we tried. The organization or at least some sections of it tried. But in the following two years I came to conclude that the majority of the top leadership of the international were incapable of honestly facing up to the mistakes and of accepting a new internal life. I remember meeting after meeting where all was blamed on Ted G and slowly the over centralized model was forced back on the organization.

By 1994 I could no longer live with this. I made a statement to this extent and resigned from the IS and returned to work in the last section I had been centrally involved in building. I said openly to Comrades that I would never again let any section of the organization I was involved in have such an over centralized balance without a major struggle. This timing is important as the CWI tries to portray my situation as if I had no complaints until I was in the minority in the US section. When I resigned from the IS there was no talk anywhere of a minority or a majority in the US section.

At that time I could not understand fully what the general issues were that were involved. I could not see that the model itself was in general over centralized. I could not fully see the degree to which the post Ted G leadership was even worse than the Ted G period because it contained even more people who were without any real confidence in their ideas and therefore could not accept any criticism and alternative views.

But most important of all the old cold war world had collapsed and we had no clear analysis of what was taking shape. Look back at our analysis Comrades from the CWI. We totally under estimated the degree of the defeat of the miners strike in Britain. We did not see the reintroduction of capitalism to the stalinist world. We underestimated the growth cycles of capitalism and the effect of new technology We did not see the power of the offensive that capitalism was about to launch on the working class internationally. And we had no world view to put in place of the old world view and we could not conjure one out of our heads by sheer determination.

I should say here that the rest of the left were in the main in even worse situations. This was a time when the world had changed in a way we had not suspected and it was a time when the outlines of the new period could not yet be seen through the clouds of dust that had been thrown up by the collapse of old regimes and old perspectives documents. I am not blaming the CWI for this lack of world analysis and short and immediate term perspectives any more than my own lack at the time. What I am saying is that the model of the organization that was seen as the norm meant that this period of confusion and crisis and inevitable debate and disagreement led to splits upon splits and expulsions and organizational break up and decline to a degree that was far in excess of what was inevitable if the over centralized monolithic model had not been seen as the norm.

Such a serious collapse of the CWI would not have taken place if it had been capable of honestly accepting that we had no overall world view for the immediate and medium term and that clarifying a new world analysis was in fact the main task facing the organization, not facing the leadership but facing the entire organization. And that as well as making sure we were participating in the day to day struggles of the working class and trying to build we were seeking to openly and honestly face up to the mistakes we had made and the need to discuss and clarify and develop a new analysis and orientation.

But what made this such a serious and destructive crisis for the organization was its incorrect view of its internal life. The leadership did not have the respect it did when its world view and orientation was being proven generally correct by events, the organization did not have the unity it had when its world view and orientation was generally correct. And it was absolutely impossible for this to be the case. Our own past theory had taught us that this was the case. But the majority of the leadership thought the organizational norm had to be imposed, the organization had to be unified like the old days and monolithic. The result was the majority of the leadership moved to seek to impose this unity by organizational means. The bureaucratic fist began to be clenched and used.

There was no longer any talk about what we had explained for the previous decades. That is that unity and respect for the leadership only comes from a correct world view, orientation and program. And without these then any organization will have factions and sustained internal struggle. That in fact these are essential to such a period and only in this way can an organization develop. Engels idea to which we had paid lip service that a party inevitably develops through internal struggle was cast by the wayside. Instead the independent voices who insisted in speaking out had to be silenced or sidelined.

Of course there was a great disappointment in the way events had negated our analysis. There were many Comrades tired and loosing energy. However I saw and opposed as the top couple of people in the IS and especially the British leadership moved to bring new young inexperienced people into more and more top positions and push the more experienced ones to the side. This was part of rebuilding the old model. A leadership that did not make mistakes, a leadership whose word was law. An organization that was over centralized and incapable of becoming a mass organization. A new relatively inexperienced layer of young Comrades could be trained in the old models ways easier than dealing with the more experienced older members who had begun to see the mistakes that we had all made. These new relatively inexperienced Comrades were also more dependent on the couple of older leading members for their ideas and positions.

There was one infamous incident in the British section where a leading Comrade from a region was moved to work in the center. This Comrade made a tours of all the regions and came back with a serious and critical report. It reflected the reality of the situation. Shouting matches up and down corridors resulted as the old leadership made it clear that any analysis other than that the bad times were over and things were going ahead again as we had got rid of the logjam of Ted G and company and under the new all seeing leadership we would be soon back to our winning ways. In the course of a lull in one of these discussion the general secretary of the British section explained how even if he was removed he would not go and he would have to be carried out. No doubt in his own mind he was essential to the revolutionary party and the revolution. So much for collective action and leadership and democratic process.

But not all of us shut up or stepped aside or retreated to create a local or national organization or went over to centrism or reformism. Some such as the US minority amongst others decided to fight to try to save this international organization we had helped build. In the US some Comrades had been very disappointed by our wrong perspectives and some had become tired. These tended to look towards the so called Labor Party of a tiny wing of the bureaucracy as a shelter from the storm, as their only hope. The IS seized on this and built on this and created their majority around this and with every lie and dirty trick they found necessary they developed this majority and we were expelled. By the way members of the IS and their close supporters were telling others that we had to be expelled before we had committed any of the crimes that we were supposedly expelled for and before we were in the minority. This is all documented if people want to read it they can see most of the material on our web site Laborsmilitantvoice.com. There is other material also.

This international organization to which most of us had given our adult life and some of us our health had to get us out. In the then existing period of crisis and confusion and mistakes of the leadership we were incompatible with reimposing the model. This model where the leadership makes no mistakes of any consequence and the organizational norm is unity on all but the most inconsequentional things. We would not accept this so we had to go.

I was in the LP in Ireland for many years and the leading member of the CWI there at that time. There were many vicious attacks on us and myself by the social democracy. But nobody had ever accused me of financial corruption. In a matter of months of being convinced that the US minority was not going to accept the reimposition of the model I was being accused by the IS of financial corruption, extortion and blackmail. The model had to be reimposed at all costs. It is good that state power was not in the hands of the IS.

The two political issues in which we were in a minority were that we said the tiny group that called itself the Labor Party in the US would not develop and that we should instead orient to the new movements that were stirring in society. This was around the mid 1990’s. About three to four years before Seattle. The majority and the IS said no all resources and our orientation had to be in the Labor Party. Comrades should use their imagination. The CWI could have been part of the build up and rising in Seattle from years before rather than sitting in the so called LP. What a serious mistake.

Imagine how hard it is for the leadership to face up to and accept this mistake now. The second issue was where we opposed the recruitment of a group in San Francisco who had an orientation to the left petit bourgeois, who supported the team concept in industry and who ran ads for prostitution in their paper. Yes ads for prostitution. The IS in defense of this group that they wanted in to act as a base for themselves against us on the West coast defended these prostitution ads as “well its San Francisco”. What an insult to San Francisco workers.

The contributor from the SP who started this discussion on this thread sounds very reasonable. He or she goes on about how we were a minority and we were expelled and that is the way things go, no sentimentality in politics and how ridiculous that the CWI is supposed to apologize to me etc. etc. Either this person is consciously dishonest or he/she is totally blinded by their understanding of loyalty to the CWI. Of course there is not much difference. In 1998/99 the IS had to intervene in the US section and move against its leadership and move the paper and leadership to San Francisco from New York in order to change its orientation from the Labor Party, in order to drag it out of the LP. . The section was stuck in the Labor Party while the struggles took place elsewhere. In other words our analysis was correct. And then more recently they had to get rid of the San Francisco group because of differences and the reformist politics of this group.

The contributor from the SP and the CWI in general says they admit mistakes etc. Well let us see anywhere where they admit that on these two issues they were wrong and the expelled US minority were correct. These are mistakes with concrete consequences today in the organization. They simply refuse to face up to these so they have to keep slandering and lying about what happened. One leading CWI member said in private that it took two earthquakes to get them out of the LP. The Seattle events and the Nader campaign. Well we were expelled supposedly for understanding this four years before. The contributor from the SP is refusing to face up to the real history of the events and of the CWI. Instead I am written off as if I wrote too many documents and the CWI is supposed to apologize to me.

I have many contacts with CWI members. I regularly am contacted by still active and loyal members. I always ask them to raise this, to raise that on the issues we were correct and on this basis ask them to call for a re- opening of the issue of our expulsion. With a couple of very honorable exceptions this is usually the end of the correspondence. After these events that showed that on the issues we had been correct I went to Dublin and met with a leading CWI and SP comrade whose friendship and comradeship I miss very much. A man who I believe is incorruptible in the day to day battles of the class struggle. I asked this Comrade that on the basis of the developments in the US he ask for a re- opening of the discussion and for our case to be re- heard and re- looked at. He first denied we were expelled, he then said we had been given our right to appeal, he then went back to denying we were expelled, then back to saying we had been given our right to appeal. Then he said he would not take up my case as I had got myself into the jam I was in and I would have to get myself out of it.

What we see here is the organizational model imposing itself on Comrades and forcing them to abandon their principles supposedly but incorrectly in the interests of the organization. If this Comrade were to take this position I requested then the CWI apparatus would be turned on him. He would be vilified and slandered. He would be driven out. So instead with all the good work he is doing weighing in his mind, with all the good work he can continue to do as member of the CWI, and with a clear example of what he will face very clear to him in the shape of what was done to me he makes a decision. Keep quiet. Let it go. This is beginnings of a corruption of the internal life.

To me the issue is that the revolutionary organizations have to have an internal life that allows for the working class to fight and to breath. That not only accepts debate and sustained struggle and factions as an inevitable part of the life of the organization but understands that this is the only way the party can develop. An internal life that does not see a faction or serious difference as inevitably meaning a split. An organization which debates its differences openly in front of the working class and asks the working class for help in clarifying the issues.

This is especially necessary in this period. Look at the situation with the SSP. The CWI could have disagreed with the idea to launch the SSP as it did against the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the Scottish section of the CWI. It could then have said okay we disagree. But it is not a question of the immediate power hanging in the balance. Go ahead with the SSP initiative and with the full support of the CWI. Let us see who is correct on the basis of events and let us discuss this regularly in our open publications. What an example this would have been to the revolutionary left.

The CWI could have avoided this split except for the internal model that it has which demands monolithic unity and a leadership which knows everything and teaches the membership. The result of this internal model was that as soon as the leadership saw that it was losing the argument in Scotland the CWI leadership through personal contacts approached a Comrade in Scotland and formed a faction, at first in secret and from the beginning with a view of splitting the section there.

Of course the huge world events of the past decade and a half are at the root of the crisis in the CWI as the CWI correspondent says. But this is only the beginning of the discussion instead of the end as he or she makes out. From these great events flows the inability of the model of organization of the CWI and the revolutionary left in general to deal with the inevitable debates that flowed from this, to be able to be a vehicle through which its own resources could mobilize to debate and discuss and clarify with the least amount of splitting and organizational divisions. There is something wrong with the model. By the way it is worth thinking about the fact that Zinoviev and Kamenev if I remember correctly opposed the 1917 insurrection and did so openly and yet were not expelled from either the party or their positions. Jesus keeping in mind what happened to the US minority for supposedly opposing the orientation to the LP and the recruitment of the San Francisco group I do not know what would have happened to us if we done something like Zinoviev or Kamenev.

In a final note. I do not agree with Dennis T and his cult analysis. But Dennis and I remain friends. I am not impressed by the attacks on him for his job etc. I do not know the details of his work and writings but I do know this. When it suits them the IS will reach into the deepest reaches of academia for ideas to sustain them. When I was on the IS I objected to the method of the IS Comrade who was given responsibility to try and draw up some sort of economic perspectives for the 1990’s. This Comrade had a friend in either Oxford or Cambridge I forget which who was an economics professor and academic. And whose family were a British bourgeois high street banking family as opposed to Dennis from the working class in Strabane. The IS Comrade would go and have secret discussions with this person and come to the IS and present this persons views as his own. The IS member was supposed to know everything in advance you see. I objected to this process and the IS member responded by saying, “I do not have time to give seminars on economics to the IS”. The refusal of the rest of the IS to oppose in any way this attitude was one of the reasons I resigned from the IS.

Imagine how when this IS member thought this about the rest of the IS, that he had to give us seminars, what he thought about his relationship to the the membership of the organization. By the way this same IS member led the attacks and slanders on the US minority through many many visits there. When the IS had to change the policy of the US section in 1998/99 without any discussion with this member of the IS other IS members traveled to the US accompanied by Hadden and without warning launched an attack on the policy of the section and this IS member. This IS member has now concluded that the CWI has a problem of bureaucratic centralism. I am waiting to hear from him if he can openly face up to and acknowledge the wrong methods he engaged in.

Members of the CWI will think that I am acting in a way that gives its enemies ammunition against it. This is of course one of the pressures that is used to keep members in line. But I believe that the CWI cannot become a mass revolutionary organization with its present internal life. Therefore members who go along with its present internal life are contributing to the crisis and the waste of the very good work and the resources of the CWI. Only an open and honest debate and discussion of the mistakes and wrong internal model can open the door to the development of the CWI and the revolutionary socialist movement into a mass movement of the working class. The working class will not move into an organization where it can not argue and debate and breath and challenge and the next morning accept its mistakes and criticize the people that yesterday it took a lead from. It will not happen. The longer a real internal battle against this wrong model not only in the CWI but in the revolutionary socialist movement in general and the wrong attitudes of those who enforce it the longer the crisis of the working class leadership will be prolonged.

In my work now I believe in the building of a new anti capitalist international along the lines of the first international. I believe in building the small revolutionary socialist group Labors Militant Voice which would be part of this new international in which all anti capitalist forces who opposed the capitalist offensive through mass mobilization and direct independent movement of the working class could be part. The old ways of course claw at us all. It is challenging to build a new organization which is not hamstrung from the beginning with elements of the old model or too mechanical a struggle against the old model. But so far we are making progress in my opinion. It is very exciting to be learning new things at such a late stage and to have come through the past period without having sacrificed principles in the name of some illusory interest of the organization of which I was a member.

I would like to suggest that discussion along the lines of the internal life of the revolutionary socialist organization, the need for a new international which offers a way forward to the 20 million plus who marched earlier this year against the invasion of Iraq, the need for a program to take this new international movement forward, the need for tactics that confronts and throws back the capitalist offensive are crucial issues for us all to discuss. I think that this discussion is very useful in this regard.

John Throne.

by Badman Tue Aug 12, 2003 11:25

Won't you please let JT back in. He soooooo wants to. Then he can keep these CWI policy analyses specially for your internal documents and spare us on indymedia.

by s Tue Aug 12, 2003 11:34

John
From your point of view do you think the CWI, ever was a genuine organisation and can it be reformed and developed?

by Jim Monaghan Tue Aug 12, 2003 12:02

One of the problems of the October revolution was the attempts to mechaniocally apply the perceived lessons of it to other countries.This lead to torturous attempts to equate phases in other revolutionary upheavals to "similar" ones in Russia. Where is our Febuary etc. As well there was equations done of parties and social classes. Here the CPI saw the Republicans as their potential Social Revolutionary partners (junior of course) in a revolution.
Trotskyists took the few writings by Troitsky on Ireland and saw within then the answers to everything. ( a touch of that spoof science fiction quest for the universal answer)
Then there are the claims for something approaching Apostolic descent.At this remove is akin to finding the real Jacobite pretender.
For Trotskyists it is Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and then a host of pretenders ranging form the sane,Cannon Mandel, Hansen,Cliff, Grant to the insane Healy, Posadas and others.
Let us be honest there have not been any real tests which could demarcate groups into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. All groups set revolutionary exams for their rivals. The eternal headline. "This proves the irredemeanably reformist/treacherousness etc of the whatever". (add in and oput in your favourite group. I can see the article in Socialist Worker. "The refusal of the Socialist Party to enter into an alliance "on our terms" proves once and for all whatever.

For me the collapse of the remnants of October (Deformed or Degenerate or State Capitalist) has left a sour taste in the mouths of most European Workers if not all workers everywhere.Practically everything has to be struggled for again. Even the words Socialism etc. have meanings for many far removed from our definitions.. We must patiently explain.
There are no short cuts or manouvres etc, which can accelerate the march of history.The bloody history of the Republican fragments proves this.
Alliances, honest dealings with others both individuals and groups, patiently building not just apparatuses but trust is the way forward.
Allied to this an end of hysteria, the revolution is not on tomorrow. I remember the crap from the Healyites where we were told that it was like Germany in 1932 and if we did not build a party in months it would be a fascist dictatorship.( As if selling out of date papers in the pubs would have stopped anything.)

There is a huge audience out there for our ideas. We could convince a layer of the antiwar movement and impress others if we do it right.We would be taken seriously and lay the longterm basis for winning over the broader masses. Or we can go a sectarian course where we repel potential members and sympathisers.
I ask the Left sects (because that is what you are and are perceived to be even if you do not admit it). Some are irreformable I persist in thinking that the SP and in spite of themselves the SWP are still worth engaging with. Ask yourselves why you have failed to create something lasting out of the antiwar movement.Why are the 100,000 plus being left to the Labour Party in the next election. I ask the SWP why do people who have such similar politics to yourself ( Yes it would take a scholar to analysis the difference on paper between say Des Derwin and yourselves)are so annoyed with you and find it easier to work with tendencies where the differences are much greater.On the National Struggle I am on paper much closer to the SWP and regard Haddons line on the Belfast agreement as reformist twaddle.

I ahve to admit that the slag in bigger parties that Trotskyists are nitpicking sectarians is on many occassions hard to answer effectively.Nowadays the most bitter criticism In most cases not even rational criticism but polemics and worse) of Trotskyist parties comes not from the old Stalinists but from their Trotskyist rivals.In Sinn Fein the rightwing attack their Leftish rivals by calling them Trotskyists. ( In a similar manner the rightwing course in the stickies was underpinned by antitrotskyism, perhaps this is a new job for Eogfhan Harris)

by Dennis Tourish Tue Aug 12, 2003 12:09

I very much enjoyed the contribution here of my old friend John Throne. I am happy to accept his version of events, rather than those of SP member, on the issue of whether Ted Grant jumped or was pushed from the CWI. It was a factual error on our part to say he had been expelled, and if I write on this issue again will update my account. (Unlike the CWI leadership, I don't have problem acknowledging mistaks - nobody has 100% wisdom, and I'm not founding an anti-cult cult here). As John says, of course, Grant's departure betrays an important point about the CWI's culture - this view of monolithism, a 100% united leadership etc. Given that this view is common across the left, it really is the key that needs to be debated.

by Curious Tue Aug 12, 2003 15:28

Please explain why you were happy to accept John Throne's claim that Grant wasn't expelled but you wouldn't accept the same claim from SP member. Sounds very petty to me!

by Ray Tue Aug 12, 2003 15:35

Throne was a senior figure in the CWI, so he'd have first-hand information, and since he was expelled he has no reason to lie. SP member may not have the same level of knowledge and, since he's still a member, is motivated to convince others that the CWI don't expel people (this does not mean that he _is_ dishonest, just that he has _reason_ to be dishonest). This may seem curious or petty to CWI members, but it makes perfect sense.

by Poacher turned gamekeeper Tue Aug 12, 2003 16:06

It has been raised a couple of times above and nobody has seen fit to answer it but if the Socialist Party really has never expelled anyone in more than 30 years of existence that marks them out as being a cut above pretty much all of the far left either in Ireland or internationally.

The closest thing seems to be the lengthy moaning of John Throne about how the Socialist Party's equivalents in America kicked him out and then the Socialist Party wouldn't give him a side-entrance back in.

So can anyone name someone, anyone who was expelled from the Socialist Party and for what reason?

by Ray Tue Aug 12, 2003 16:26

Or do international expulsions from the CWI not count?

by Poacher turrned gamekeeper Tue Aug 12, 2003 16:32

That's a different question, Ray. I am really interested in whether or not the Socialist Party (as opposed to the CWI) has ever expelled anyone. It was stated above that they haven't. Nobody seems to have contradicted that claim.

by Archivist Tue Aug 12, 2003 16:45

I wonder why it is so important to differentiate between the CWI expelling people, and the SP doing so? I thought it was all supposed to be the one big happy organisation?

The SP in Britain has certainly expelled people, most noticeably the bulk of its leadership in Merseyside - rather close to Ireland. In Ireland, I personally don't know of anybody expelled. But I do know of many driven to resignation by the pressure and the pettiness. Names like Finn Geaney and Clem McCloskey, who spent many years in its national leadership, spring to mind.

As a defence of the organisation's internal regime, this strikes me as pretty ineffective.

by Janus Tue Aug 12, 2003 16:57

I don't think people should get too hung up on whether a person is expelled in that they are hauled before a disciplinary committee, accused, tried and expelled or simply that they are forced out.

Frankly, the first is a preferred alternative. Sinn Féin for example has a disciplinary procedure that allows for explusion and an appeals process. I don't know how other parties handle such matters, but I think being formally expelled, having had the right to defend yourself, is preferable to being forced out through people changing the locks on the door, through people refusing to speak to you in work or social life, through your work being destroyed, bullying, intimidation, physical threats, actual physical violence, deprivation of information etc. all things I know were practiced in one party or another over the years.

I think if an organisation has never expelled anyone it's actually a REALLY bad sign, because it means ex-members were bullied or forced out. There's no party, no organisation, that can survive 30 years without having had to kick someone out for something.

by Ray Tue Aug 12, 2003 17:01

Often there isn't a lot of difference between someone being expelled, and someone resigning. If you know you're going to be sacked, why not quit while you still have the choice?
I don't think a lack of expulsions says anything much about an organisation's level of democracy, one way or the other. Democracy is measured by the openness of debate, level of debate, freedom to put forward ideas, etc, etc.

Anyway, how many people have the Scientologists expelled over the years? What does that say about them?

by Archivist Tue Aug 12, 2003 17:27

Some good points here on this. I personally remember meeting a leading CWI member at the time Ted Grant and co were leaving. She told me that Grant was 'senile' and his key supporter, Alan Woods, was 'schizophrenic'. Seems to have made for a very poisened discussion, and maybe helps explain why they left - not that I think they were much better. Imagine the tone of the debates they were supposed to be having, if this is way they were slandering each other to outsiders. But this type of so-called discussion is pretty terrible, and very seriously off putting to anyone who isn't a sectarian fanatic.

I thought John Throne made the point very well here, that organisations with these habits will never grow to any real size. 'Something is wrong with the model.' Time for fresh thinking?

by Davy Tue Aug 12, 2003 17:40

Exactly

by Ray Tue Aug 12, 2003 17:59

Care to post the constitution of the SWP up here?
Or just tell us what rights factions have? How the CC is elected? How many expulsions and splits there have been over the lifetime of the SWP?

by A different Socialist Party member - SP Tue Aug 12, 2003 18:47

I would normally not bother to respond to the provocations of a former socialist turned red-baiting academic, but I'm bored today. Like the original "SP member", I am a member of the Socialist Party but not of any leadership body.

Ray points out that the meat of Dennis Tourish's attack on the Committee for a Workers International is a list of eight factors which he suggests make the CWI into a cult. Quite apart from the fact that there is nothing scientific or rigorous about what amounts to a list of insults, let's follow Janus' and Ray's example and apply them to the Socialist Party and the CWI.

]1 An authoritarian leadership, and the
]concentration of all real power in its hands,
]despite formal commitments to the opposite

The Socialist Party and the CWI have democratically elected leadership bodies. Once elected those leadership bodies have no arbitrary or "authoritarian" powers. Delegate Conferences are the supreme decision making bodies and they always have the right not just to over-rule any leadership body but to recall and replace them. No positions are elected by slate nowadays. The rights of minorities to organise themselves in opposition (factional rights) are protected and that includes the right to form long term factions.

All of the above are formal indications of a democratic structure. It is possible, however, for a determined leadership and a lax membership to allow any set of democratic structures to be subverted. All that we can do is to be as vigilant as possible and try to ensure that as many members as possible take an active part in the democratic life of the organisation. My experience of the CWI and the Socialist Party is that we do just that.

] 2 Hatred of and intolerance of dissent

This is not true of either the Socialist Party or the CWI. Perhaps a personal experience might be illuminating here.

I spent nearly a year arguing vehemently against the SP position on a fairly major issue of policy with regard to the North (from a basically left republican influenced angle). Eventually I became convinced that my attitude to that issue was incompatible with my attitude to the North in general.

Over that period, when quite frankly I made a pain in the hole of myself, I never once encountered "hatred of and intolerance of dissent". Not once. Other members of the SP, including but certainly not limited to people in leadership roles, argued with me and challenged my view but never once sought to prevent me from putting it forward.

The internal life of the SP and the CWI is filled with debate and discussion on everything from practical strategic issues and on issues of theory. That is as it should be.

Unfortunately serious political disagreements sometimes end up in people going their seperate ways. That's true of any political organisation. But the CWI and the Socialist Party does its best to encourage dissenters to stay. We don't kick people out for expressing different political opinions but we make no apologies for the rare expulsions which happen when people refuse to abide by the democratically agreed rules of the organisation (I say "rare" in the case of the CWI as a whole, I don't think that the Socialist Party has *ever* expelled anyone).

The case of Scotland, shamefully and disgustingly misrepresented by John Throne in his contribution above, is a good example. The majority of the International Socialist Movement (the CWI in Scotland) decided to leave the CWI a couple of years ago. That was a sad decision but probably inevitable in the circumstances. Let's take a look at the background.

The ISM majority came to the conclusion that it was no longer necessary to build a revolutionary party. All that was needed was to build broad socialist parties that (in the words of Murray Smith, a leading ISM member) "leave open the question of revolution or reform". With that in mind they proposed to launch the Scottish Socialist Party as such a broad organisation and to all intents and purposes to dissolve the ISM within it.

The rest of the CWI, including a minority of the ISM disagreed with this as a political perspective. Instead we argued that while we should build the Scottish Socialist Party it was also necessary to build and maintain a coherent, democratic and disciplined revolutionary organisation within it. That is what the CWI in Scotland continues to do.

The ISM majority argued their case for a long period of time. Their documents were distributed to CWI members around the world. They were not expelled and no disciplinary action of any sort was taken against them. Even when they started to wind down the ISM as a revolutionary organisation there were no expulsions. None. Anyone who is interested can read all of the major documents produced by all sides in the discussion on the CWI's resource website www.marxist.net

]3 Demonising of dissenters - eg I am a crank, John Throne is pathetic, Ted Grant was senile

This is at root just an aspect of the claim already falsely made above.

There is a particular irony though in Dennis Tourish, whose main contribution to this site is to slander the CWI as cult objecting to being "demonised" by the CWI! He has even written a book partially devoted to this nonsense. Just who is "demonising" who here? For the record, I personally don't think that you are a "crank", Dennis, I think that you are much lower than that.

]4 Banning/ purging of factions/ absence of sustained debate and alternative viewpoints

Again this is a restatement of allegations already made in points (1) and (2).

]5 Unethical manipulation of people - eg the existence of numerous fronts, behind which the real objectives of your group are hidden

The Socialist Party does not customarily work through fronts. At present we are involved as a party in two broad campaigns, the Irish Anti-War Movement and the Campaign Against the Bin Tax. We have influence in both but we control neither and we don't seek to control them. We are also involved in the left groupings in the trade unions, many of which were established on our initiative. Again we don't control them or seek to control them.

We are highly critical of the practice of some others on the left who are prone to building a "front of the month". When we set up broad campaigns - like the anti-water tax and anti-bin tax campaigns - we do our best to give them a democratic structure and a real democratic life.

In our Labour Party days, I understand (this is long before my time and I could be wrong) that we did sometimes use fronts to carry out the activism we thought was necessary without giving the right wing of the Labour Party ammunition to expell us.

Overall, like anyone else in the Socialist Party, I agree that the use of fronts is dishonest and to be avoided.

]6 Overworking of a tired and full time cadre, so
]that they have less time to think for themselves

We make no bones about the fact that being a member of the CWI is hard work. We have a very big goal and we take the struggle for socialism extremely seriously.

That said we do not encourage our members to work themselves into the ground or to burn themselves out. Different people are living in different circumstances and are able to devote different amounts of effort to political activism. That is well understood in the CWI. Nobody is put under pressure to take on more activism than they are willing and able to take on and neither should they be.

Further, the allegation that our members are pushed into hard work to stop them thinking for themselves is patronising and insulting. Our members work hard in all of the campaigns we are involved in because we appreciate that what we are doing matters.

Socialist Party members formed most of the activist core of the anti-water tax movement, that resulted in the removal of that unjust tax on working class people. The same went for the poll tax and hopefully the same will go for the bin tax. Socialist Party members play a central role in building a fighting left in the trade union movement and led the term time workers to victory in the largest industrial dispute in the North for a decade. Socialist Youth members (and CWI members worldwide) initiated and built a huge number of the enormous school student strikes against the war in Iraq. Socialist Party members (not alone but in large part) are the people who are on the ground campaigning on everything from council house rent rises to religious sectarianism.

So yes, we take our activism seriously and we are proud to do so.

]7 So 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.

This is just laughable. If I didn't know better this alone would almost convince me that Dennis had never been involved in the Socialist Party or any other left wing organisation.

I've never been in the home of a member of the Socialist Party that doesn't have books spilling off shelves and covering almost every available surface. Books on every conceivable subject by every conceivable author. That's not unique to the Socialist Party, it's something which most left activists have in common.


]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."

Let's make this clear. John Throne and a few of his supporters were democratically removed from their leadership positions by the rank and file of Socialist Alternative, the CWI in the USA. They refused to accept this and worked to damage the democratic decisions of the organisation. Because of that, the overwhelming majority of the section voted to throw them out.

It's a simple as that, although it is a pity. John played a very important role in the development of Militant in Ireland many years ago. It is unfortunate that he couldn't accept that the majority of Socialist Alternative had a right to depose him and that his past role did not give him a licence to try to subvert the decisions of the organisation.

I've gone on for quite long enough here. Like the original "SP member" who started this thread, I'm not interested in an extended debate with Dennis Tourish - a former socialist turned red-baiting academic. Neither am I writing for the benefit of the usual couple of Indymedia trolls who would argue that the Socialist Party sacrifice virgins to Satan if they thought it might help them to smear us (although actually they have been noticeably absent from this thread). Instead I'm writing for those who are really interested in building a genuine socialist movement in the country and around the world.

The Socialist Party and the CWI are small organisations in the greater scheme of things. We have no vainglorious illusions about where we actually are but we are doing our best to contribute to changing the world.

by Janus Tue Aug 12, 2003 18:54

Or who is on the CC? How many branches of the party are there and other top secret pieces of information the proletariat is not worthy of hearing.

by Janus Tue Aug 12, 2003 19:11

Frankly, I think the jury is still out on whether the SP sacrifice young virgins to Satan. There's a lot of evidence either way and I haven't made a conclusive judgement myself.

Seriously though, reading the last post, I'd have to wonder whether there's a bit of rose tinited glasses about it. You refer to my analysis of SF above. I wouldn't have written that as a member, if I was a member, it'd be a lot more like yours. There's a natural tendency to defend your party from attack. As a mate of mine who had extensive experience of both once put it, 'Being in a party is a bit like being in a gang, you back each other and your party up no matter what, even if you have problems with individuals or whatever, you keep it internal.' Odd people they used to have in the Sticks.

Outside party politics these days, I'd have a critical attitude to most party's internal democracy, though I'd reckon the Shinners would probably have the edge on the rest, expect where Peace Process stuff is being decided where, for better or for worse, it's handled by a very small group of people. While the membership would always have the final say, they'd often not know very much about the process leading up to debate.

I think most people find SP members more open and approachable than say, SWP activists, but that's not saying a whole Hell of a lot. Generally, people on the Left don't hve a sense of humour and comrades, if you can't laugh at your own idiosyncracies, you've no business laughing at capitalism's. If people took things a wee bit less seriously, probably be less of the cult aura.

And with the image of Peter Taafe telling ideologically correct knock, knock jokes coming to mind, I'll wander away.

by aom Tue Aug 12, 2003 19:49

A secret History of the IRA by Ed Moloney

by Janus Tue Aug 12, 2003 20:01

Ireland Her Own by TA Jackson.

Your go.

by Common Sense Tue Aug 12, 2003 21:25

"Throne was a senior figure in the CWI, so he'd have first-hand information, and since he was expelled he has no reason to lie".

Of course he has reason to lie. Throne has spent the last six or seven years since he was booted out of the CWI going on about his treatment. If you think that SP members have a reason to lie would have just as much reason to lie about whether they have expelled people or not, then Throne obviously has the same motivation to lie if it serves his purpose. Obviously neither were lying about this situation.

Also for Ray
I wonder how many people have been expelled by the CWI Internationally. Throne was expelled by the US section, and we have gone over and over about this since on indymedia. It appears the Pakistan section were expelled for corruption (a pretty good reason if you ask me). The question is how many others have been expelled? Has there been any other section booted out by the CWI? I wonder what the answer is.

by aom Tue Aug 12, 2003 21:33

How about

"Outside party politics these days, I'd have a critical attitude to most party's internal democracy, though I'd reckon the Shinners would probably have the edge on the rest, expect where Peace Process stuff is being decided where, for better or for worse, it's handled by a very small group of people. While the membership would always have the final say, they'd often not know very much about the process leading up to debate."

minor detail that aul peace process stuff.

by curious interested anonymous Tue Aug 12, 2003 23:03

"Frankly, I think the jury is still out on whether the SP sacrifice young virgins to Satan. There's a lot of evidence either way and I haven't made a conclusive judgement myself."

So, that's what happened to Pat C. I hope they gave him the traditional send off.

by Dennis Tourish Wed Aug 13, 2003 00:26

It occurs to me that anyone still interested in this thread might read the contribution from 'another socialist party member', and imagine that it was written by either me or some other critic - as a spoof, seeking to demonstrate the opposite of what it is ostensibly arguing. I can assure them I had nothing to do with it, and the author is apparantly quite serious.

Thus -
1. the rights of long term factions are protected (it just so happens we don't have any). Convenient, that. So normal, so like trade unions and other labour movement organisations. The fact that one or two people sometimes argue on solitary and secondary points isn't the issue - you sometimes find a blade of grass in the even the most hostile terrain. What is at issue is the inability of this organisation's leadership to accept that people other than themselves have valid points of view, are entitled to defend them (in factions, publicly and in party forums), and that any vibrant and growing organisation would welcome such things rather than booting everybody out.

2. John Throne was defeated in the US section - but organised somehow continued to sabotage the decisions taken. Could this sabotage conceivably have consisted of - continuing to hold on to his views? Heinious crime that, and a terrible blow to the proletariat.

3. We don't demonise and vilify people - but I am lower than a crank, a red baiting academic and an enemy of the working class. I can almost feel the author's disgust that he hasn't got a cheka to unleash against me. The sad truth is, and there are too many people around capable of attesting to it, that anyone who organises serious dissent within this organisation is berated in equally scurrilous terms.

SP members can't resist replying to material on this site, while continually protesting that they aren't going to. Actually, the more they write about their organisation the worse it looks - if I was their guru, I might well advise a period of silence as the wisest policy.

by Denis says one thing, does another Wed Aug 13, 2003 02:42

was 3 comments ago

by Badman Wed Aug 13, 2003 03:32

Was not "intended to open up a debate on this analysis," so we all sometimes get carried away by debate - a good thing. Enough snide comments about Tourish, nobody's interested in the man himself.

So rather than sniping, why not play a little game.

Introducing
Badman's cult self assesment test.

Here are a number of ways to see if your party really is a bit on the cult side. Try these lines next time you're hanging out with a bunch of comrades:

1) No, I can't make it to the papersale tonight, I have to see the eviction on big brother.

2) (wait until somebody mentions a figure for people on a demo or protest) Funny, I reckoned there were only about a third of that many people there - and I counted.

3) I find that [insert leader's name]'s speechs are so boring.

4) I thought that [insert name of leader of closest opposition party] was very good at that meeting [last night/whenever], his was the best speech.

5) Sure there is a chance that things are looking up for the future, but I reckon that things are probably on the way down, our movement might cease to exist within a couple of years if things go badly.

You don't have to believe any of them, just try them to see the reaction. These are all the type of statements that should be considered totally acceptable in a healthy group. My own guesses are that most of these statements would pass without offence in most of the mainstream political parties, the Shinners and Greens would be worst of that lot (they'd maybe fall down on 1,3 & 5). I'd guess that the SP would fall down on all 5, except maybe 4, and that any of these comments would cause the offender to be looked on with suspicion for ever after by the party leadership. The SWP would definitely fall down on all 5 and the offending comrade would earn themselves an instant lecture from the nearest leader. The Sparts would send you straight off to re-education camp in China.

Anybody else got any good cult-self assesment test questions?

by Ed Lewis Wed Aug 13, 2003 04:57 ozleft at optushome dot com dot au

I don't know much about Irish politics or the Socialist Party/CWI, and so don't intend to comment specifically on either, but I was a member of a small left party in Australia with mainly Trotskyist politics (these days called the Democratic Socialist Party and before that the Socialist Workers Party) for about 22 years, for much of that time in national leadership bodies and working full-time for the organisation.

Much of what Dennis Tourish and John Throne have to say rings true, not just to me, but to many others who have had similar experiences. I have spoken to many such people, from organisations including the DSP, Socialist Labour League, Spartacists, etc, and there is quite a body of writing by former members of far-left organisations who have concluded that the model is wrong: that the small socialist cadre organisation/propaganda sect adapts to existence as just that, and is rarely, if ever, able to break that mould. Over time, the purpose of its existence becomes to replicate itself: ie to recruit new members to replace those being lost, and to raise money to ensure its survival, ability to publish its press, etc.

In certain conditions, cultish elements develop in such organisations. Years spent talking only or mainly to people who have similar or identical views leads to a poor grasp of reality, particularly if the organisation continually tells its members it has the only solution for the world's problems. In this sense, socialist propaganda sects are not very different from religious sects. Socialism becomes a sort of secular religion, and while everyone has a right to the comfort of their beliefs, that sort of socialism is not a living social movement.

Some aspects of cultism are evident in many such organisations, although cultishness is not always dominant. Some, over time, have unquestionably developed into full-blown cults: the more grotesque examples include the British SLL/WRP under Gerry Healy and the Trotskyist current of Juan Posadas in Latin America. Posadas, after a long period of sound political activity, developed the view that he was in commmunication with space aliens who were going to land and estalish socialism, and he was their voice. This poor individual, who obviously needed medical care, had quite a few followers, and while he is long dead, there are still a few Posadists.

Bob Pitt, a former member of the British Socialist Labour League/Workers Revolutionary Party, has written a book-length study of that organisation, and its leader, Gerry Healy, which is available on the web at http://mysite.freeserve.com/whatnext/Pages.htm/Healy.htm/Contents.htm

The What Next website http://mysite.freeserve.com/whatnext, run mainly by people in Britain with long experience in left propaganda sects, has quite a bit of good writing about this matter.

Of course, this discussion won't be of interest to everyone, but people such as myself, Dennis Tourish, John Throne, Rose McCann and others, who spent many years in such organisations, don't always walk away without thinking about it, weighing what was useful and what was mistaken in the experience, and an increasing number are putting their thoughts in writing, hopefully so others can avoid similar errors.

Louis Proyect, a US socialist with experience in such sects, has written more theoretically on his experiences, and his writings are available at http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/organization.htm.

His essay, Lenin in Context, is well worth reading for those who have an interest in this topic http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/organization/lenin_in_context.htm. Louis Proyect points out that many of the organisational practices that Trotskyist organisations tend to take as a matter of principle today were in fact codified by the Communist International under Zinoviev at a time when the Comintern was trying to "Bolshevise" the socialist/communist parties attracted to the example of the Russian Revolution, and which joined the Third International.

These parties were quite diverse in politics and organisational practices, and the Comintern imposed essentially a Russian model on these organisations over time -- a model that turned out to be inappropriate in most other countries.

The Bolshevisation process included taking leaders of the various Comintern parties to study in the Soviet Union and then placing them in the leadership of the various parties. This process of Bolshevisation coincided with the process of the Stalinist bureaucracy consoldating its power in the USSR.

By the time opposition arose to Stalinism in the parties of the Comintern, the oppositionists tended to view the Zinovievist Comintern methods as "Leninism", and when the Trotskyists were expelled and set up their own organisations, they took over these methods. Right from the beginning, quite a few Trotskyist organisations tended to exhibit an intolerance of differences in practice, reflected in splits over personality clashes or secondary political issues, although they were formally committed to the "right to tendency", etc.

As Louis Proyect points out, the practice of Lenin and the Bolshevik party, pre-1917, was far more tolerant than that of the Comintern.

Of course, all this is a discussion of history, and of not much use to present-day socialists if we treat the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, etc, as a manual or a body of theology that only has to be read properly. But one thing is clear: those who describe the narrow propaganda sect as the Leninist form of organisation don't know what they're talking about. Their education in "Leninism" is based on second-hand or third-hand material worked up by Ted Grant, Gerry Healy or some other long-time activist/educator, who usually made a valuable contribution, but whose writings and views need careful examination.

Most members of propaganda sects have little time for such careful examination, as they are kept frantically busy by an endless round of meetings, paper sales, fund-raising, etc. Some of this activity makes a valuable contribution, and some of it is probably wasted.

This is extremely unfortunate, as people who join small socialist groups usually do so for the best of reasons: to right injustice and fight against militarism, racism, class, national and sexual oppression, etc. People who are prepared to devote time and energy to such matters are important because they're interested in more than their own lot in life, and that's not so common.

My hope is that discussions such as this can help such people use their energies more effectively. Critical evaluation of experience is essential if we are to learn from our political practice, and while Dennis Tourish, myself and others can't expect our views to be automatically accepted, or welcomed, and might even expect strong disagreement, terms such as crank, class enemy, etc, reflect intolerance, fear of discussion and an inability to learn from experience. Organisations with such characteristics are unlikely to contribute very much that's useful to struggles for a more just society.

by Ed Lewis Wed Aug 13, 2003 05:06 ozleft at optushome dot com dot au

I'm sorry, the punctuation got mixed in with some of the links in my previous comment, the links are:

Louis Proyect's page on organisational questions of the Marxist movement: http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/organization.htm

Lenin in context: http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/organization/lenin_in_context.htm

What Next: http://mysite.freeserve.com/whatnext

by John Reimann - Labors Militant Voice Wed Aug 13, 2003 07:32 wildcat99 at earthlink dot net

I notice that prolonged debates/discussions on indymedia tend to degenerate into contests over who can make the most witty, snide remark. I hope that this discussion doesn't totally collapse into that swamp. I also hope that a few comments on my own experiences in the CWI will be helpful.

I joined the CWI in 1982. At that time I was an officer in my local of the carpenters union here in Oakland California. I don't think I was particularly susceptible to cults and cult leaderships, as I had managed to ward them all off here. (We had a member of Wohlforth's group in my union local and he was a total madman, by the way.) I joined the CWI for a number of reasons:

They (including John Throne) helped me understand the world around me. This included such issues as the nature of the post WW II economic boom and why it had ended and the nature of the issues in Northern Ireland. (This was a question that always bothered me: I knew I couldn't support British troops in Ireland, but I also didn't feel it was correct to simply dismiss the feelings of a section of the working class, in this case the protestants.)

I was also impressed with the true internationalism of the CWI as well as its international influence. (For the CWI member to say that that group's influence now is greater than at any time simply discredits anything else he or she may have to say. The reasons for the collapse of the CWI's influence may be totally beyond the control of Peter Taaffe & co., but to deny this decline has happened is ridiculous. In the early and mid 80s, the CWI had a number of members of parliament in Britain; its S. African members were discussing with the top leaders of the S. African trade unions and played a role in the discussions that led to the formation of COSATU. In following years it built viable organizations in a number of different countries in almost all continents. Today, in North America, for instance, it has almost totally disappeared.)

I never got along well with Ted Grant, nor was I ever a great admirer of Peter Taaffe personally. However, I do feel that both of them made some important contributions. To simply dismiss them as cult leaders is not correct, in my opinion. Nor is it correct to ignore the serious mistakes in perspectives that both these individuals made - mistakes that were accepted by almost all the rest of the CWI membership and leadership, myself included.

However, the SP members who dismiss Dennis Tourish simply ignore the facts, starting with the claim of increased influence of the CWI. They also ignore the facts as to the decline (more like "collapse") of the British section of the CWI. I knew quite a few members of the British section - most of them very solid, serious, enthusiastic, loyal working class comrades. Almost every single one of them drifted away from the group. In almost every case, you could see it coming. They started commenting (to me, personally, not out loud) about how the mood within the working class and what they saw coming in the working class was different from the perspectives of the leadership of the CWI.

How unfortunate that these many comrades did not feel comfortable about openly raising their differences in the branches and right up the organization! How unfortunate that the atmosphere within the organization did not encourage open debate and organizing around different ideas (ie. factions)! These many comrades would have played a huge role and perhaps prevented the collapse of the organization to which they had dedicated so much time, energy and money.

As to the expulsion of the US minority - of which I was a member: First one little detail: It was not simply a debate about the perspectives for the Labor "Party" here in the US; the majority faction was also unwilling to raise the issue of socialism or any other major differences with the L"P" leadership. At least not on a consistent, serious basis.

Beyond this, I agree wholeheartedly with John T's explanation and analysis of what happened. And it is not simply a matter of whether he "sooooo much" wants back into the CWI. It is a matter of understanding what happened and drawing the conclusions and operating based on these lessons. Neither the "cult" theory nor the uncritical defense of the CWI (along with a denial regarding it's decline) will help accomplish this.

by Ray Wed Aug 13, 2003 10:23

I thought this was obvious enough but...

You can start by assuming that everyone who is in the CWI, or has been expelled by the CWI, has reason to lie. Those who are still members would be motivated to deny undemocratic behaviour, deny anything cult-like, and paint as rosy a picture as possible. Those who have been expelled, or just left, would have reason to exagerrate undemocratic behaviour, invent cult-like stuff, and paint as bad a picture as possible. That seems clear enough to me.

Now, the claim that 'Ted Grant' was expelled is something that paints the CWI in a bad light. Therefore those in the CWI have reason to deny it, while those outside the CWI have reason to assert it. This also seems clear.

John Throne is outside the CWI. Therefore he would have reason to paint a bad picture of it, therefore he would have reason to claim that Grant was expelled. He has no reason to deny the claim, because he has no reason to paint a rosy picture of the CWI.

Therefore, if John Throne claims that Ted Grant was expelled, we have reason to doubt him - he may simply be trying to diss the CWI. If he claims that Grant was not expelled, he's probably telling the truth, because it doesn't advance his case. Its hardly rocket science.

As for the question of international expulsions, didn't the Pakistan branch have thousands of members? That seems like a fair few expulsions to me. If you are arguing that the SP is great because it hasn't expelled people, then the fact that the CWI has expelled (many) people obviously makes them less great.
You may argue that the expulsion was justified, but you could make the same argument about any expulsion from the SP. If 'no expulsions' and 'only justified expulsions' are equal, why make a big deal about there being no expulsions?
(and finally, how much do you know about the Pakistan expulsion? You say 'it appears' they were corrupt. Is that just what you were told? Were they allowed an appeal?)

by SP member posting original comments Wed Aug 13, 2003 12:48

This is to correct some inaccuracies and to make a couple of comments

To Badman:
He says my comments were.... "not "intended to open up a debate on this analysis," so we all sometimes get carried away by debate - a good thing"

I said I would not open a debate with DENIS TOURISH on these issues. In my opinion Tourish is not interested in debate, his intentions are to sow doubts in the minds of activists about the motivations of left wing organisations. I have absolutely no problem in debating any or all of these issues with any left activists in order to help the discussion on the best way to build the left.

To Ray and Activist
I am a member of the CWI and I would accept that I would not be making arguements from an independant and unbiased standpoint. The point is neither are Denis Tourish, John Throne or John Reinmann. The have there own reasons for arguing a certain point of view. I will defend the CWI IN PUBLIC against all attacks against it. If I was not willing to do that then there is no point in me being a member of a revolutionary organisation. If I have disagreements on personalities, points of programme, policy, organisation etc. then I will raise then within the CWI. If I feel strongly enough then I will demand they be addressed. If I find that others agree with me then a faction can be formed. However, if the majority reach a decision contrary to my views then I have to accept that. This does not mean that I have to change my own opinions, in fact I can continue to argue the case and continue to have factional rights. However, I am not entitled to attempt to ignore and/or circumvent/sabotage the decision of the majority.

As regards expulsions:
Tourish claims "John Throne was defeated in the US section - but organised somehow continued to sabotage the decisions taken. Could this sabotage conceivably have consisted of - continuing to hold on to his views? Heinious crime that, and a terrible blow to the proletariat".

Expulsions are sometimes, unfortunately, necessary. John Throne, John Reinmann and 4 others were expelled not for having a different point of view to the rest of the US section, but because they refused to accept the decision (primarily on organisational matters) of the US conference and actively attempted to block/ circumvent/sabotage those decisions. Ask Throne for ALL the documents and if you have time to read them you can make your own judgement.

Ray says:
"As for the question of international expulsions, didn't the Pakistan branch have thousands of members? That seems like a fair few expulsions to me. If you are arguing that the SP is great because it hasn't expelled people, then the fact that the CWI has expelled (many) people obviously makes them less great".

There has been big play made out of the claim that the CWI (the guru Taaffe) expels all dissenting voices. Expulsions are a last resort, and only take place after a period of intense debate and discussion, every attempt is made to find a compromise. In fact, I have often expressed the view within the CWI that I felt we were making too many compromises. In relation to Pakistan, the paper membership in 1998 at the world congress was in the region of 1,100 (as given by Farooq Tariq, Gen. Sec. of the Labour Party Pakistan). I say paper membership as the reality was a substantial number of these people only joined the LPP in order to get jobs in the NGO scams the LPP were running. Many others joined , but never actually participated in the LPP. The initial doubts about the activities of the leadership of the LPP arose in 1995, three years before their expulsion. Over the 3 years there was intense discussion and debate on the issue, between the International Secretariat of the CWI and the leadership and members of the LPP, and subsequently within the CWI internationally. Discussion documents were made available to the members from both sides, as is the norm. The leadership of the LPP refused to change their fraudulent methods of organisation. Not all the membership of the LPP were expelled from the CWI. A small number (40 or 50) of activisits that opposed the activities of the leadership of the LPP, remained with the CWI.

Activist says:
"I wonder why it is so important to differentiate between the CWI expelling people, and the SP doing so? I thought it was all supposed to be the one big happy organisation?

The SP in Britain has certainly expelled people, most noticeably the bulk of its leadership in Merseyside - rather close to Ireland. In Ireland, I personally don't know of anybody expelled. But I do know of many driven to resignation by the pressure and the pettiness. Names like Finn Geaney and Clem McCloskey, who spent many years in its national leadership, spring to mind.

As a defence of the organisation's internal regime, this strikes me as pretty ineffective."

Regularly on this site the SP is accused of trampling on the democratic rights of its members, so the practical issue of expulsions in Ireland are relevent. However, in this debate it is really a side issue.

In relation to Merseyside, to the best of my knowledge, there were no expulsions on Merseyside (I will stand corrected on this, if anyone has concrete information). Most of the active leadership on Merseyside are still in the CWI and the SP in England has made substantial strides in regaining a small amount of the lost ground on Merseyside. The people who left were unwilling to abide by the rules of the CWI, namely (a) make a financial contribution to the CWI, (b) sell CWI material (c) attending and participate in CWI meetings. There was also a situation that the SP leadership in London wanted to dispense with the services of the SP full-timer in Liverpool because he was a full-time student and unable to carry out the work of the SP.
I knew Finn Geaney and Clem McCloskey personally, living in the same accomodationas Clem for a short period and occasionally staying in Finn's house. Both had disagreements and both left without taking those disagreements into the organisation. Finn Geaney produced a document outlining his disagreements AFTER he left the CWI. Even though there was no responsibility on the Militant leadership to do so, the document was circulated and replied to by the leadership. I was annoyed with both former comrades over their actions. If a member has a problem with the organisation then they have a responsibility to themselves and to the membership to fight their corner. Neither Finn nor Clem did this.

Much play has been made about my claim that the CWI has greater influence now than at any time in the past.
Let's look at the facts
South of Ireland: definitely
North of Ireland: Always a difficult place to organise but we have substantially more than the 30 members Tourish claims and an influence in a number of, mainly, public sector unions. Socialist Youth has also grown rapidly with branches in a number of towns across the North.
England, Scotland, Wales: We suffered a serious decline in the late 80'and 90's. However, there are now significant inroads being made in regaining some of the lost ground. We have councillors in a number of areas and are knowking on doors in others. I would argue the the CWI, not the left, has now more influence within the trade union movement in Britain than in the past.

Sections are growing in the following areas:
France, Germany, Austria, Greece, Israel/Palestine, a number of former Soviet Republics, Sweden, Nigeria, Brazil, Australia, Holland, Belgium, Portugal, India, Sri Lanka plus others
We lost sections in the following areas as a result of the split in 1992:
Denmark, Spain Mexico, although we are rebuilding again in Spain.
We suffered setbacks in South Africa, Pakistan.
New groups have been established in: Italy, Finland, New Zealand (I think), Argentina, Turkey.

All in all things within the CWI are very positive at the moment. Yes we make mistakes, everyone does. Do we correct them? we do our best, if at all possible. Do we have a homogenious mass of zombies as members? Of course not. There are members within the CWI that do have disagreements. There are comrades within the SP in Ireland that have disagreements. But we recognise that we are all attempting to achieve the same goal. Lets make no mistake, we are a very small international organisation with a long long way to go. I would encourage others to join and help us.

by Ray Wed Aug 13, 2003 12:55

What was the total international membership of the CWI in 1988? 1993? Today? Rough estimates will do.

by Q Wed Aug 13, 2003 13:08

Janus caught a glance of your comment. Very quickly as must sprint, in Belfast swp branches are in west belfast, Lisburn road, Ormeau road and city centre/hollywood. At term time we have active branches in Queens, BIFHE and Jordanstown. We also have a workplace branch in NIPSA biggest branch situated in Belfast city centre of seven mainly union reps. These are the belfast branches I am sure you can get a list of all branches on our site. Who is on the CC the CC is elected in london by our comrades there and am unsure about its entire elected committee, here we have a PC represented from all over Ireland. must go hope answers

by Ray Wed Aug 13, 2003 13:21

Who is on the CC? How were they elected (individually or as a slate)? How long have the current CC members been on the CC? Was there ever a time when Tony Cliff was not on the CC?
What about the Irish PC? Individual elections or a slate? How long has Kieran Allen been on the Irish PC without interruption? RBB?
Are factions allowed in the SWP? Why not? (Bonus points for answering without reference to Trotsky, Lenin, or the Bolsheviks)

by Archivist Wed Aug 13, 2003 14:09

I can't let this pass. SP member writes:
'I knew Finn Geaney and Clem McCloskey personally... Both had disagreements and both left without taking those disagreements into the organisation. Finn Geaney produced a document outlining his disagreements AFTER he left the CWI. Even though there was no responsibility on the Militant leadership to do so, the document was circulated and replied to by the leadership. I was annoyed with both former comrades over their actions. If a member has a problem with the organisation then they have a responsibility to themselves and to the membership to fight their corner. Neither Finn nor Clem did this.'

This is utter bollocks. I know for a fact Finn busted a gut trying to discuss his worries with the CWI leadership. All they did was harangue him, invent a conspiracy he was allegedly leading (they always do), and start monitoring who he was talking to and when. This is all spelled out in his resignation letter. Clem was one of those allegedly implicated in this conspiracy, and like Finn thought bugger this - I have better things to do with my life. Even if this wasn't the case, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of those, including those in responsible positions in the CWI, have walked rather than do what SP member says they should have done, and debate their views internally. Why is this???? If the internal regime is so damn healthy why do most people just give up the ghost, figuring it isn't worth the abuse and the hassle that it would involve.

This type of nonsense would do credit to the stalinist school of falsification.... It is both sad and pathetic. As a contribution to the liberation of the working class, it is neither here nor there.

by john throne - labos militant voice Wed Aug 13, 2003 15:43 loughfinn at aol dot com

I do not have time to go into this issue of how many were expelled etc nor do I think it is the main issue. The main issues to me are how do we build a new organization based on learning the lessons of the over centralized models of the past but which still fights for a revolutionary policy and how to we help build an alternative for the 20 million plus who marched against the invasion of Iraq and the many millions and tens of millions more who are trying to confront capitalisms offensive.

It is to try and answer these questions that I debate the issues around the CWI. It is not because I want back in again. I do not . What I want is what is in the interests of the working class, that is a revolutionary alternative in which active revolutionary workers can live and breath and a mass anti capitalist alternative in which the millions can organize against capitalism and in which the different views can be represented and heard.

But I would like to say in passing that the CWI members are leaving out a small detail in their defense of the CWI and its "non expulsion" policy. It is called "Placing yourself outside the organization." An intersting term if ever there was one. This is the concept where life is made so impossible for you inside, conditions are set on you which are so impossible, that you do what many many people have said and say screw this it is not worth it. Here is one way that it works.

It was the experience of myself. I and others here in the US had a disagreement. We made it clear that we were forming a faction to fight for our ideas. The members of the faction were all experienced and combative people with respect in the international. This was not going to be any cake walk for the leadership. A real struggle was on the cards. This was not going to be a discussion ot two in a pub and then we would all agree. So the slanders and lies were set in motion and along with this the follwing conditions were set for me personally. I could no longer attend the Chicago branch of the CWI. I was living in Chicago. I could no longer get copies of the paper to sell. In other words I was effectively expelled. I refused to accept this and would go to meetings demanding to get in. They changed them to a Comrades home where they pulled the private property thing on me. And of course his kids were there etc. But I continued to circulate material and fight internationally. By doing so I "broke the conditions" the majority had decided on for me and therefore and "placed myself outside the organization." On our own dime and because we were relatively well paid workkers we refused to accept this and kept going to other sections and international meetings to demand our rights. These were denied. Then they had to formally expell us which was what they were trying to avoid. Most other people would have thrown up their hands and left and they would then have "placed themselves outside the orgganization" and our SP Comrades who are on this list could have explained that there were never any expulsions in the US section. Its a nice trick if you can get away with it.

Comrade Finn geaney is talked about. This Comrade held down a full time job teaching, edited our paper and was the national treasure in the 1970's in the Irish section of the CWI. I do not yet understand how he could do all this work. I was the full timer and running around the country. And he was squeezed out of the organization in the most shameful manner. Please do not insult the readers here by saying that Finn and also Comrades like Clem just decided to leave and that was all.

The Pakistan section. I was on the IS when the section was awarded grants by union organizations in Sweden. There was rejoycing all round. The IS was so enthusiastic that it asked for some of the money to be given to other sections in the area. It was clean money then you see. But disaster struck. The Pakistan section was the only that refused to vote for our expulsion at the International Executive Committee. They did not even vote for us they just abstained. After the session of the meeting where this took place we went over and said to the Comrade they will be coming for you and suddenly the grants that were so rejoyced over became evidence of corruption and the rest of the story you are familiar with.

But the main issue is how do we build a revolutionary organization with an internal life in which workers can live and breath and which still studies and fights for marxist theory and the socialist revolution and how do we build a mass international for the millions who are looking to take on the capitlaist offensive.

John Throne.

by what is to - be done? Wed Aug 13, 2003 15:49

I would like to ask anyone out there who has experienced these 'cults' or anti democratic internal organisations did their experience turn them off socialism? If not are they interested in socialist organisations that are to the left of the Labour party but reject democratic centralism?

by Badman Wed Aug 13, 2003 16:11

I've been sitting on the fence about the CWI cult claims - until now. This is a bridge too far. If there is any truth in what JT and archivist wrote above, about Finn and Pakistan in particular, then the CWI are looking seriously fucking bad. Throughout all this I've sort of been assuming that the problem had eased a bit since the 1980's, but somebody is telling some major pork pies here, and I can see smoke starting to rise from the CWI's trousers. The scary thing is that the 'placing of oneself outside the organisation' sounds very plausible, much more so than the SP member's explanations for the whole farce. JT's insider account of the Pakistani expulsion is also incredibly damaging when contrasted with the explanations that the SP members are giving. I'm getting scared for you poor souls in the SP. Tell you what, for 50 quid I'll kidnap you and keep you until you're deprogrammed. Any takers?

Back when I was a naive nipper, I nearly went along to a Millie meeting. For some reason I thought better of it. There was something about the atmosphere of the thing that scared me off. I am now sooooooo glad about this, words can't express it.

by left activist Wed Aug 13, 2003 19:41

I have read above that people in the CWI are entitled to form factions. Can I ask some SP member to list for me how many long standing factions there now are, who is in them (in general terms), what the issues are, and what sorts of rival position papers are in circulation? If there are none, then it doesn't support their argument. Instead, it is like those elections you used to have in the USSR - where 99% of votes conveniently came in for the CP candidate. In other words, purely formal rights are irrelevant - if no one is using them, it suggests to me that they are always pressurised to conform to the leadership's line, or get out.

Given what I have read so far, I will be giving this organisation a very wide berth.

by Jake Wed Aug 13, 2003 20:07

This discussion raises the question of whether all the far left orgs in ireland display the cult-like qualities outlined above, so heres a go:

SWP without a doubt is a secular cult. Anyone with any knowledge of that party, other than its own members would argee on this. For objective observers the jurys out on the SP(CWI), but most would agree that it certainly exhibits some of the cult symptoms, to a greater or lesser degree. It could go down the road of the British SP (relative irrelevence) or develop in a more positive direction.

Some of the smaller groups such as Socialist Democracy, the Sparts, etc are just wannabe cults, who just dont have to enough members to display the cult qualities clearly.

The anarchist groups are, in theory at least, libertarian in their internal organisation, but in practise the Anarchist Federation, mainly Belfast based, seem quite doctrinaire and sectarian. The WSM on the other hand seem to be more open.

The least cult-like left groups seem to be the small groupings which emerged from other left organisations because they disagreed with the dictatorial internal regimes. All appear to have a democratic internal regime, though this is easy when you only have a handful of members. These are:

Socialist Alternative: Basically these were the UCD branch of the SWP, who broke over the frontism and authoritarianism of the SWP. Seem to be influenced by anarchist ideas.

Irish Socialist Network: Dublin based ex-Workers Party members, seem to have reacted strongly to the Stalinist structure of that party and to be influenced by developments on the left in Scotland and elsewhere in Europe.

International Socialists: Belfast based also broke from SWP.

Some sections of the Communist Party including their Cork members and the revived CYM also seem to be developing towards a more open way of working.

by John Reimann - Labors Militant Voice Thu Aug 14, 2003 05:31 wildcat99 at earthlink dot net

A few details:

First of all, the abstention of the Pakistani representative that Sean refers to was not at a vote to expel us; The comrade's abstention came on a vote was about a year before our expulsion. This was when the whole issue of the divisions within the US section first came up for discussion in the IEC. The Pakistani representative on the IEC felt that he did not have enough information one way or another to make up his mind so he abstained. In other words, this was an implicit declaration that he was going to make up his mind based on the facts as he understood them, not just blind trust of the leadership. As Sean says, it was immediately after that that the CWI leadership suddenly discovered that there was something unprincipled about the section there taking money from certain European union funds. They sent representatives there over and over again to try to split the group but failed so they eventually expelled the entire group. I was there a few years ago and it it totally false what was said that the members who joined did so simply in order to get jobs from NGO's.

As far as our having been expelled for refusing to accept the policies of the group here - this refers to an event that happened over a year prior to our expulsion. In any case, what happened was that the policy was changed behind closed doors without anybody saying anything directly to us. This particular event was not the reason for our expulsion, although the CWI leadership is now claiming so evidently.

The main point is this: Some people who are reading this may recall similar debates with CWI members on this site some months ago. At that time, we were told that as far as our part was concerned, we never raised any political issues, that it was not a political issue on our part. When I pointed to the political issues (as Sean and I have done in this thread) there was a deafening silence on the part of the CWI members. This despite the fact that I asked over and over for their comments on these political points. Readers will notice that the issue of the perspectives for the US Labor "Party", how socialists should have related to it, etc. - these issues again go without a comment by the CWI supporters on this thread.

This is a perfect example of how the regime and the atmosphere within the organization is directly linked to the issue of being able to correct mistakes. There has not been one major instance where Taaffe and co. have ever admitted to making any serious mistakes. It is not possible in this period to develop correctly with this sort of attitude, especially since there is no serious, persistent challenge of their political and organizational mistake permitted. If CWI members disagre withthis, I challenge them to name one single instance where there was sucha challenge that did not lead to the challengers either leaving the CWI or being expelled.

Nevertheless, I do not agree that the CWI is or was a "cult". When I hear "cult", I think of Jim Jones and Jonestown and that sort of thing. I think that the main quality of a cult is that its members turn away from the real, material world almost totally. Yes, it is true that there are elements of this in the CWI, as there are in the Republican and Democratic Parties here. But I don't agree that this is the major feature of any of these. (I don't mean to imply that the CWI and the Democrats and Republicans are in the same ballpark - just that any political group is liable to have elements of this tendency.) Incidentally, the qualities that were listed as those of a "cult" all apply to my (former) union (Carpenters Union). I don't think it is a cult either.

by John Reimann - Labors Militant Voice Thu Aug 14, 2003 09:59 wildcat99 at earthlink dot net

It's now past midnight here and I can't sleep because my knee is hurting, so I'm here at the computer, filling up empty space. While I'm at it, I'd like to comment on one other point that "SP member" makes. He or she writes:

"I am a member of the CWI and I would accept that I would not be making arguements from an independant and unbiased standpoint. The point is neither are Denis Tourish, John Throne or John Reinmann. The have there own reasons for arguing a certain point of view. I will defend the CWI IN PUBLIC against all attacks against it. If I was not willing to do that then there is no point in me being a member of a revolutionary organisation. If I have disagreements on personalities, points of programme, policy, organisation etc. then I will raise then within the CWI. If I feel strongly enough then I will demand they be addressed. If I find that others agree with me then a faction can be formed. However, if the majority reach a decision contrary to my views then I have to accept that. This does not mean that I have to change my own opinions, in fact I can continue to argue the case and continue to have factional rights. However, I am not entitled to attempt to ignore and/or circumvent/sabotage the decision of the majority. "

I used to follwo this method, and did while I was in the CWI (although with some misgiving). However, I now feel this was mistaken. Take this particular instance, for example. We have no idea WHAT SP Member actually believes. He is told certain things by the CWI leadership and feels obligated to defend the CWI from all criticisms from outside ("attacks" he calls it).

We cannot escape a fundamental aspect of human psychology: When one feels obligated to put forward any particular view, or feels obligated to oppose any particular view, then what one says tends to become what one believes. So this is an important way in which those who belong to left groups which follow this approach are controlled.

Some will take this to denounce the principle of "democratic centralism." But we should realize that how this principle was applied historically has not always been the same. There was a time when factions within the Bolshevik Party actually published their own public newspaper, for instance. There were other times when even the existence of offical factions was banned. This latter instance has become the norm in groups that consider themselves to be Marxist; although the official banning of factions is not done, they are most strongly discouraged, and the establishment of a faction is seen as a step towards an inevitable split.

The fact of the matter is that there is no way to really argue for an idea within an organization if one is prohibited from testing out this idea outside the organization.

I also feel most strongly that in today's extremely complex and contradictory world, there is no way to develop ideas and perspectives and a program without the maximum degree of openness. This includes feeling free to differ openly.

Of course, there are limits to this, and these limits are not rigidly established, but I believe most strongly that we should err towards too much openness rather than not enough if we err at all. This is a conclusion that we in Labor's Militant Voice have drawn, partly arising from our experience in the CWI.

Just one other little example: SP Member claims that we were expelled for refusing to accept certain organizational decisions and trying to sabotage these decisions. However, he or she cannot say which organizational decisions we sabotaged. At the same time, he or she refuses to comment on the political issues we have raised. This means that he, or she, cannot learn from experience and cannot develop. This would be simply sad if it were not for the fact that this approach also plays a disastrously harmful role throughout the entire left.

by Dennis Tourish Thu Aug 14, 2003 10:57

There have been many thoughtful and useful contributions on this site, from people such as John Reimann. I do not believe that the contributions thus far from SP members have been useful. Rather, they have been content to defend the indefensible, show no sign of realising how important it is that justice is not just done but seen to be done (and therefore of the disastrous impact they make on people’s perception of them by the manner in which they treat dissenters, such as John Throne); and show every sign of continuing to exhibit naked sectarian intolerance.

Take this idea that it is impermissible to openly debate with me – not the most important raised here, but symptomatic of the mindset. Why? It appears that I am lower than a crank (what, precisely, - vermin?) and therefore I can be ignored. What they call me worries me not a jot. I regard it as a compliment. But my analysis of the CWI has now been quite widely read. It is on a variety of websites. Quite a few copies of the book I wrote with Tim Wohlforth have been sold, and many of them are lodged in Universities. Others in leftist or would be leftist organisations, even if they disagree with my use of the word cult, report that they find much of it of interest, and that it usefully summarises some of their experiences. Yet because I am a contaminated source, it is not worth engaging with these issues – and if people active in the labour movement share some similar concerns, as the contributions to this discussion show that they do, then they too can be damned. This is a very sectarian and I would say cultic mindset.

It also seems to imply that only those on the revolutionary left can contribute something to discussions about appropriate forms of organisation, and there is therefore no need to learn something from other sources of knowledge. Yet people have been researching organisational forms for decades, and psychologists in particular have discovered much about how to make effective decisions, involve people in the process, and avoid the premature agreement of large numbers of people to destructive ideas. Such research is useful in this context. All of it is a closed book to the CWI leadership, who are happy to go to bed at night with little other than quotations from Trotsky ringing in their ears. No progressive movement of thought is possible on this limited basis.

For example, one of the best contributions to this research has been from Robert Jay Lifton, who wrote a book on the psychology of totalism in the early 1960s, and which is seminal to the study of dysfunctional group dynamics. The following link is to an edited chapter in which he outlines 8 conditions often found in destructive environments more interested in controlling people’s thoughts than engaging with the world. (Before anyone in the CWI starts, I don’t agree with all his analysis or terminology, but find much of it useful – you don’t have to agree or disagree with people 100% to find their material of value). It is therefore incidentally very illuminating on the internal life of the CWI and kindred organisations:

http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing19.html

Finally, I still believe that the use of the word cult – it is not a term of abuse, but has a precise content – is useful. I think John Reimann is mistaken to believe that the separation of such groups off from society (such as the infamous Jim Jones did in the 1970s, leading to mass suicides and murder in the Guyanese jungle) is what really sets cults apart from other organisations. Few cults go this far. Rather, the criteria I outlined in my original paper on the CWI, which have been summarised often on Indymedia, and which Tim and I look at in more detail in our book, are the key. I do not believe that trade unions, most political parties and other organisations exhibit these traits to any serious extent, and certainly not to the extent of the CWI. For example, few trade unions have a general secretary in post for almost 40 years. (‘Badman’s’ cult inventory is also thought provoking, as well as funny, on the differences between normal, rational organisations and what I consider to be cults like the CWI/ SWP). But whether we agree or disagree on the word cult, it would appear that there is a growing body of evidence to the effect that the internal regime of the CWI is intolerant of dissent, and demonises dissenters, does not practice democracy in a form that most of us would recognise, has a well entrenched power elite at the top which is incapable of admitting to anything other than minor mistakes, has learnt nothing from its recent experiences, has an Enron accounting approach to discussing its influence or lack of it in society ('our influence is greater than ever???'), has a sectarian approach to alliances with others, and much else besides.

A ‘strangers beware’ sign posted outside its offices might do no harm.

by ASF Belfast Thu Aug 14, 2003 11:45

In relation to your comments on the anarchist organisations:

1. The Anarchist Federation is not even nearly Belfast based.
2. The Anarcho-Syndicalist Federation are mainly Belfast based.
3. The ASF are a collection of individuals with different interpretations of anarcho-syndicalism, far from doctrinaire in that this implies a homogenous analysis, far from sectarian in the six counties sense and in the political sense we have good relations with most other activist groups and like most of them, we also treat with suspicion strictly centralist groups (we wouldn't be anarchists otherwise).
4. We do not believe the AF to be doctrinaire or sectarian.
5. We do not believe the WSM to be more (or less) open than the AF or ASF (better known, perhaps).

by Jake Thu Aug 14, 2003 14:27

Apologies to the comrades in the AF and accept the points made. Just shows the danger of accepting second hand info about a group at face value. Will try harder next time!

by SP member Thu Aug 14, 2003 14:48

As I said before I am not posting here for the benefit of ex-CWI members or opponents of CWI on indymedia. No matter what the answer they would not be happy. Anyway, to my comments:

Activist, "knows for a fact" about Finn and Clem. Were you there, did you discuss with them. This is a fact, neither Finn nor Clem openly explained their disagreements within the organisation, never published any documents, never initiated any debate within the CWI. For that matter neither did Denis Tourish. Maybe they did not have confidence in their own arguements or in the membership, I don't know. I have a major problem with people who give out privately about things behind people's backs. I think they are doing a dis-service to themselves and to the members of the organisation as a whole. Incidentally, the leadership of any organisation (and this is assuming there is no dissenting voices within the leadership) would much prefer these matters out in the open (and this makes common sense). Let's get them out in the open, debate them and come to a conclusion. To John Throne's credit he did write and argue extensively. So did Ted Grant, the ISM and the LPP.

To Badman (are you now posting under a new psuedonym)
It is convenient for John Throne and Reinmann to claim that action was only taken against the LPP after they had abstained on a vote about the USA. Believe that if you will. The problem was not that the LPP received money from Sweden, rather that, subsequently, a significant amount of the work of the leadership of the LPP was going into securing more and more funding to the detriment of party work and finally that there was patronage being exhibited in the allocation of jobs within the ngos'. Remember Pakistan is a huge country with little work, income and no welfare. To be in a position of being able to give people a job and then abuse that position is unacceptable. I am sure John Throne has all the documents relating to Pakistan maybe he can make them available.

In relation to the USA:
I am not going to rehash as long, extensive and exhaustive debate about the expulsion of 6 members of the USA section. Both the contributors here are fully aware of the circumstances and can provide all the documents necessary.

To left activist:
I do not know of any factions currently existing within the CWI. They may exist but I am not aware. But I absolutely reject the assertion that unless there are factions that some how an organisation is undemocratic. This is rubbish. Factions exist because of disagreements over programmatic or organisational matters. They do not exist independantly without a reason. They come into existance, serve their purpose and can then dissolve if the difficulty is resolved. Claiming that factions should exist without reason is laughable.

Left-wing cults.
Denis Tourish is remarkable in his support for comments of ex-members of the CWI, but I think he should read John Reinmann arguement on this point. In reality any organisation, political, sporting or otherwise could be argued as being a cult. It reminds me a little of the cynicism of my father when he was in old age, and finding religion "Never join anything except your hands".
The CWI is a revolutionary organisation, operating under marxist democratic principles and structures. We are not a social club, debating society or cult. Commitment is required, it is hard work, but so are so many other aspects of life. I am under no illusions about what I am involved in.

John Reinmann said "I used to follwo this method , and did while I was in the CWI (although with some misgiving). However, I now feel this was mistaken. Take this particular instance, for example. We have no idea WHAT SP Member actually believes. He is told certain things by the CWI leadership and feels obligated to defend the CWI from all criticisms from outside ("attacks" he calls it)".
You can infer that I am a revolutionary socialist, and a member of a revolutionary organisation. Are or have there been things in the CWI that I don't like and would like to change? of course there are. Do I attempt to change them? of course I do. Do I accept the democratic decisions of the organisation at branch, national, international level, of course I do. Does it make me change my views? of course not. Have I been subject to any disciplinary action or sanction? of course not. Do I defend what I am being told to defend by Taaffe? of course not. I make up my own mind and act accordingly. If there is something that I disagree with what do I do? Within the CWI I will argue my case, in public I will keep my mouth shut. Those are the rules and I accept them. Would I support attempts to change the rules on this issue? most definitely not.If I am not happy with them I can leave. However, I will say that, there are numerous examples of concessions being made to people (in some cases wrongly in my opinion, and I said so) in order to accomodate differing viewpoints (and before you ask I am not going to go into the details). People can work together for a common goal whether they are in full agreement or not. It does not mean that every minute detail of disagreement has to be resolved, this would be laughable and unworkable.

Finally, Touish is not impressed by contributions from members of the CWI. This doesn't surprise me but then I wasn't doing it for his benefit. It won't surprise him either, that I wasn't particularly impressed with his, but then he wasn't doing it for mine, despite what he may claim.

by Badman Thu Aug 14, 2003 16:03

"To Badman (are you now posting under a new psuedonym)"

Nope, I've only got the one pseudonym and I'll be keeping my identity to myself if you don't mind, I don't want my boss to do google me and discover what he pays me for.

Anyway my problems with SP member's response are the following:

If long-standing members of the organisation are leaving without bringing up differences, you can't automatically blame them for it. Surely it makes you wonder if there is a cultural problem within the organisation where people feel that it is simply not worth it. Especially given the fact that many people are saying exactly that, that the consequences of bringing up serious disagreements are such that it is hardly worth it.

The more serious problem I have is with your statement that: "Within the CWI I will argue my case, in public I will keep my mouth shut." I think that this is wrong, bad and dangerous for any healthy group. It means that you come across as an automaton outside your organisation. I think that it is a basic requirement of any healthy organisation that members be free to disagree in public. If the majority in the organisation have a particular point of view, then the organisation's resources will be chanelled into supporting that view. Why require that the members misrepresent themselves in public as well?

I think that this is the very reason why the SWP are so spooky. It is just plain weird to come across a bunch of people who all seem to have exactly the same opinion about everything. The SWP even largely use the same slogans to express their opinion, which scares people away. Enforcing this uniformity of expression on people actually removes their humanity. To quote Chomsky (wearing his linguistics hat):

"If some individual were to restrict himself largely to a definite set of linguistic patterns, to a set of habitual responses to stimulus configurations ... we would regard him as mentally defective, as being less human than animal. He would immediately be set apart from normal humans by his inability to understand normal discourse, or to take part in it in the normal way – the normal way being innovative, free from control by external stimuli, and appropriate to a new and ever-changing situation"

Pretty much sums up the trots ;-)

by pat c Thu Aug 14, 2003 18:14

"Let's make this clear. John Throne and a few of his supporters were democratically removed from their leadership positions by the rank and file of Socialist Alternative, the CWI in the USA. They refused to accept this and worked to damage the democratic decisions of the organisation. Because of that, the overwhelming majority of the section voted to throw them out."

errr, Democraticaly Removed? Why were they not allowed to make their case in person? Surely a proper appeal would entail JT, JR and the others being allowed to circulate position papers on their appeal to allmembers of the US section during the pre-conference discussion period. It would also mean themhaving a right to address and make their case at the conference.They have never been given this rigth. Nor have they been allowed the right of appeal to the CWI World Congress.

So Dennis Tourish is an evil manager and an enemy of the Working Class! Strange, only a few weeks ago I was being berated by the SP because I wasnt active in the MANAGERS union,the PSEU! A great leader of the SP is a MANAGER and active in the PSEU. Is he an enemy of the working class?

REallySP member (Stephen Boyd) you are tying yourself in knots.

This isnt unusal for the SP, hs says the Pakistan sectionof the CWI were expelled for taking money from NGOs, SPmembers says it was because they tok money from the Swedish Social Democracy. Lads, stick to one story.

This is getting like the anti-war lobby of the ICTU Conference which the SP refused to support.Eventually they gave 3 contradictory reasons for not supporting it!

by Phuq Hedd Thu Aug 14, 2003 18:25

QUOTE: Do I defend what I am being told to defend by Taaffe? of course not. I make up my own mind and act accordingly. If there is something that I disagree with what do I do? Within the CWI I will argue my case, in public I will keep my mouth shut.

ANSWER: This quote (along with a similar one in the previous comment) seems paradoxical. You admit to defending in public positions which you don't agree with and then you simultaneously state that you don't defend them. Regardless of all that I am impressed that the level of debate has risen to this level. Kudos to all the contributors from all perspectives.

by SP member Thu Aug 14, 2003 22:33

To Badman:
Public perception does not mean internal democracy. Members of bourgeois parties constantly fight with one another in public, does this mean they are democratic parties? of course not. If you actually think about it, arguing in public will actually exasperate differences as it makes compromise or internal discussion more difficult.

"Why require that the members misrepresent themselves in public as well?"
Members are not required to misrepresent themselves in public. They can choose not to engage in any discussion or activity they feel the cannot support.

To Pat C:
wondering what kept you. Sorry Pat you are jumping to similar conclusions as Denis Tourish. If you had read my initial posting properly, you would have read that I said I was not a member of any elected leadership bodies of the SP or CWI - hence I could not be Mr. Boyd.

I never claimed that Tourish was an evil manager (I did say in my opinion he was an enemy of the working class because he is opposed to socialist change). I posted his biography in order to allow people judge the merits of his arguments in the full knowledge of what he does. In my opinion the purpose of Tourish's writings is not to benefit the left but to sabotage not just the work of the CWI but the left (including you) in general. You can hold a different view if you wish. As regards Pakistan, the LPP received money from among others the Swedish SD. They established a number of ngo and ngo type groups. The main problem was the way the leadership behaved in the way they used these groups.

In relation to John Throne etc. I am not going over this again. The documents amounted to thousands of pages and were circulated not just in the USA but throughout the whole CWI.

To Phuq Hedd:
Please read the posting properly. I did not say I publicly supported positions I disagreed with, I said "If there is something that I disagree with what do I do? Within the CWI I will argue my case, in public I will keep my mouth shut". Same response as above. I do not defend things because I am told to.

by Dennis Tourish Fri Aug 15, 2003 00:51

‘Socialist party member’ quotes history, and analyses both the motivations and behaviours of others, at his peril.

Most people who have disagreements with the CWI leadership walk away, figuring that the hassles of exercising their democratic rights to disagree render it not worth the effort. A courageous few, principally John Throne, took a different stand - with somewhat depressing results. It does not seem to occur to SP member that when so many people evidently disagree with the leadership but balk at openly discussing it, this could be indicative of a very serious problem in terms of how their party is organised. I can think of few other organisations where factions are ‘allowed’, but no one chooses to form one; where people are encouraged to openly critique the leadership, but so many decide not to; where debate is tolerated, but anyone who tries it gets expelled or slandered; where the leadership can be recalled and replaced, but a general secretary stays in post 40 years; and where if anyone leaves, whatever their record, it is entirely their fault and a blameless leadership can continue sailing blithely towards destruction.

For example, it is now raised that I did not openly raise criticisms of the CWI before leaving. This is supposed to demonstrate that I am in some way an evasive and nasty person, who does not discuss things openly – ergo my critique of the CWI now must be invalid. There isn’t even a shred of formal logic in this reasoning, never mind dialectics. Leave aside that it is my arguments about the CWI that count, not my personal history – such topic shifting distractions are normal for this organisation. It also seems to be raised here to suggest that the CWI has an impeccable democratic regime, but that countless numbers of fools inexplicably fail to avail of it. Funny, that.

The details of why I left are too boring to go into in much detail. I apologise for rehashing them here at all. They are only important insofar as they further illuminate what the internal life of the CWI is really like, and refute the distorted impression SP member is trying to create of its tolerant internal regime.

The idea that I did not try to raise my concerns within the organisation is ridiculous. To summarise: I was very concerned about the behaviour of the leadership in Northern Ireland, particularly the arrogant and authoritarian behaviour of Peter Hadden. These problems had been discussed frequently and informally by leading comrades in the area over a number of years - maybe SP member would regard this perfectly normal activity as some kind of impermissible manoeuvring (it wouldn't surprise me). I went one step further, and frequently discussed these issues with the man himself. The pattern was always the same. He would initially deny there was a problem, then agree enthusiastically that I had a point, and to give him credit make some effort for a few days to be a normal human being - before reverting once more to type.

My mistake at this stage was to imagine that the problems of authoritarianism were his personal failings. I did not see that that they were actually systemic to the organisation and part of a flawed model of party building – in this, as in other things, Hadden is only a faithful echo for his guru, Peter Taaffe. I apologise for exaggerating his significance.

When I moved to Dublin, in 1983, I received several phone calls from very anxious and long-standing members still in Belfast complaining that the problems were getting worse. (Interestingly, they have all long since left.) So I raised the issue with Dermot Connolly and Joe Higgins, at that time the two other people who sat with Hadden on the then Political Committee (effectively, its top leadership). They were horrified at my suggestion that the problem was so bad it should be discussed openly and frankly on the central committee, and then possibly amongst the wider membership, although they also agreed that this gentleman did indeed have fundamental problems in terms of how he related to the membership. Their argument was that to discuss it would disorientate people! In other words, a party would only be built if everyone could be convinced that it was led by a monolithic, infallible and all seeing leadership, arriving at identical conclusions by a process of osmosis due to their alleged mastery of the Marxist method. They urged me to drop it, and said they would oppose any attempt to openly discuss this inside the organisation. (Remember: SP member argued that the SP leadership desperately wants all these kinds of problems to be openly discussed. I am reporting here on their actual horror when anyone tries to do so.) In this case, rather than encouraging any such thing I was told that I risked having my political reputation destroyed if I proceeded, and that such was Hadden’s political importance in Northern Ireland they would support him, even if they agreed that his leadership style was creating enormous problems.

In some despair, I then wrote a purely personal letter to John Throne, explaining what had happened and asking his advice on how to raise these questions openly in the Irish section, as was my intent. John was away at the time and I don't think even got the letter until much later. But comrade Hadden did get his hands on it, and started a heresy hunt against me. He actually heard about it because, rather than conspiring, I openly told Dermot Connolly and Joe Higgins I had sent it. Remember: this was a personal letter to a friend, no different to the many letters Lenin wrote before 1917 to his friends in the Bolshevik party (and incidentally Lenin defended his right to a private correspondence with any member of the party he wished). But the argument against me was that I had somehow violated the norms of democratic centralism, had manoeuvred criminally against its leadership, was angling for Hadden's post for myself (God forbid), and was in general a despicable person. If memory serves me, John himself was accused of being party to my completely non-existent conspiracy, and slandered within the wider international organisation for his alleged involvement. Others were told that John had started a conspiracy, and that I was one of his willing stooges in Ireland. Facts were neither here nor there. A subsequent meeting of the then EC passed a resolution condemning my alleged manoeuvring. I am sorry to say that in my own disorientation at that time (what the hell was going on here?) I voted for it myself.

I was much younger and more naive in those days, and had less idea of what it was about then than I do now. I wish I had gone forward with my case, though I know it would have ended in my expulsion. But the problem is clear -an internal regime completely intolerant of dissent, in which the leadership is paranoid about open discussion, in which no effort will be spared to destroy the reputations of anybody openly taking on those who support Peter Taaffe, in which formal guarantees mean nothing, in which every act of dissent is seen as disloyalty at best and the open face of a conspiracy at worst, and in which the leadership is actually petrified of open discussion in front of its own members never mind the working class.

Now, this case is not terribly significant initself. It is only important in that many, many ex-members could tell similar stories – moreover, the ex-members of innumerable Marxist-Leninist organisations could do the same. Please note the pattern. There is never is a right way to go about raising dissent in the CWI, or any similar organisation. You inquire about how to openly raise an issue, but the big guns of the leadership try to talk you out of it, and tell you that you risk the destruction of your political credibility if you carry it forward. You talk to people informally (a perfectly normal activity) – this is a conspiracy. You write to them instead – you are by-passing official structures. You raise it on a committee – you should have informally discussed it first, rather than risk disorientating the membership. You submit a critical article to the Internal Bulletin, but are denounced for not discussing it informally (at the risk of starting a conspiracy!), before committing your views to writing. But whatever you do, it will be wrong. The trick is to make your despicable behaviour in how you express your dissent the issue, rather than engage with the dissent itself. The full weight of the apparatus is then mobilised to destroy the person concerned. Unless you are Peter Taaffe, Hadden or some other Leader, in which case whatever you want to do goes. I am certain that Finn and Clem faced similar pressures, and as busy people with a real life and above all a sense of proportion figured they had better things to do. I personally just felt demoralised, and left for a breather which has thankfully turned into a long and more satisfying alternative life.

I would be not be at all surprised if SP member or someone tries to refute my account above. They might even now say that my antipathy to the organisation is inspired by hostility to Peter Hadden – more psychoanlaysis, which is no more valid when it comes from the CWI than it was when Freud practised it. In point of fact, I am very grateful to the man. If he hadn’t been what he is, I might have stayed longer, and wasted even more of my time. I publicly offer him my thanks. But the facts are as I outline them here, and I will be not be drawn into a detailed cut and thrust on it. It is in any event certainly the case that many members believe that if they try to raise these types of issues then something similar to what happened to me will happen to them. These fears are well founded. This is why so many people play such a critical role, and then seem to vanish into the ether, having decided not to utilise the CWI’s marvellous machinery for internal democracy. This is the real reason for the absence of factions, the absence of debate – and in a wider sense, why, rather than it being greater than ever before, the influence of the CWI is weaker than ever before.

My motivation in writing on the subject is the hope that activists other than the CWI leadership, those interested in genuine social change, can learn from the failures of the Trotskyist party building project and begin to explore better and more effective forms of organising. The CWI is no better and no worse than many other similar organisations that have sidetracked the energies of people struggling to create the social change that is so clearly needed. There is a need for a fundamental reappraisal. SP member is hung up on the shibboleths of the past, and seems congenitally incapable of imagining that there is a different way to behave It is my own personal belief that the CWI as presently constituted will be little more than a footnote to mainly British political history. It is my personal hope that its many thousands of ex-members and even some of its present ones draw sound lessons from the whole experience, and in whatever struggles await us all in the future apply them to avoid creating such utterly dysfunctional forms of organisation again. Enough time has been wasted, the efforts of enough good people across the whole of the left have been squandered. Cultism in all its forms, and to whatever extent it is manifest, is part of the problem rather than part of the solution. It is time for a new beginning.

by john throne - laborsmilitant voice Fri Aug 15, 2003 03:42 loughfinn at aol dot com

I would like to suggest that the two main issues that come out of this discussion and that face the working class and all anti capitalist actvists are these.

1)How do we build a mass international at this time when millions are looking to take on the capitalist offensive in all its various forms but when there is no mass organized international through which these movements can struggle together. I am referring to the movements against mass starvation world wide, the changes in living conditions in the workplaces and the neighbourhoods, the movements against the destruction of the environment, the movements of Seattle and Genoa, the 20 million plus that took to the streets of the worlds cities last febuary against the invasion of Iraq etc., etc.

And

2) How do we build a revolutionary organization with an internal life in which workers can live and breath and which still studies and fights for revolutionary theory and the socialist revolution.

I would like to make a few points about both of these. In relation to the first task I believe that in all our day to day work we have the responsibility of continually explaining that the main feature of the world situation is the offensive of capitalism with US imperialism at its center. And that the aim of this offensive is to establish US Imperialism as the unchallenged ruler of the world and simultaneously to take back all the gains won by the working class in the past 100 years. And from this to explain that if this capitalist offensive succeeds then the earth and all life on the earth as we know it will be threatened. This explanation is important as it sets out the task facing us and gives an international and historical understanding to the struggles. It also clearly identifies the enemy and its objectives and the high stakes that are involved.

I believe that from this we have to take part in struggles in a manner that seeks to confront these attacks of the capitalist offensive head on and defeat them. That seeks to take on and defeat capitalisms offensive locally, nationally and internationally through direct confrontational, fight to win action of the working class. I believe that this tactical aspect, that is how we take on this offensive tactically, is very important for this reason. There are many forces internationally who agree that what capitalism is trying to do should be opposed but they see this opposition as being mass lobbying and demonstrating as opposed to mass action that actually confronts the attacks and defeats them. That is instead of mass actions pleading on capitalism to hold off, or go slower or see the errors of its ways, we stand for mass actions that actually defeat the offensive and in doing so build a new offensive and a new movement of the working class with confidence and power and independence. This in turn would open up a new period and a new class balance of forces. With the international working class inflicting such defeats on the capitalist offensive and therefore showing it could be defeated, this would put back on the agenda of the mass consciousness what should be the alternative to capitalism and also it would bring to the fore in the mass consciousness the power and role of the international working class.

It is based on this analysis that I have approached the Irish SP with the open letter. I believe that the SP and all the left parties and activists should be seeking to build an anti capitalist direct action working class united front. That this should be done in the localities and the cities and the country and internationally. That we should be clearly stating as we struggle that we are for the building of an anti capitalist international through which the tens of millions who have been showing their opposition to capitalisms offensive over the past years can come together. I believe that this new international would have features of the First International which carried out important struggles and within which different ideas and currents and organizations struggled for their respective ideas while struggling together at the same time. For a new International Working Peoples Association which would be based on opposition to capitalism, direct action confrontational fight to win struggles of the working people to defeat the offensive of capitalism, for a new international working class movement to build a new world.

I would be interested in hearing this discussed and conferences and fora along these lines in Ireland and Internationally. That is I would be interested in attempting to make this an issue for all activists and all struggles. I can imagine that many will say this will never happen due to the sectarianism of the SP, the SWP, and yes the anarchists and many left individuals also. But if there were a small group of people, perhaps a number of small groups and individuals that were involved in the day to day struggles of the working class in a direct action manner and showing they were serious and winning a base in the working class then this group could challenge these groups and their go it alone policy to defend this policy in front of the working class. To defend their position of not working together in an anti capitalist international. In this way progress could begin to be made.

A final point on this. If organizations and groups do not adopt this policy then what are they saying to the 20 million that marched in Febuary, to the vast numbers who marched in Ireland earlier this year against the invasion of Iraq, to the millions and millions of activists who are trying to struggle against the effects of capitalisms offensive. For groups like the SP and the SWP they are basically saying that while we will take part in united front activities on specific issues all we are saying about becoming involved in a more general sustained struggle against capitalism is join the SP or the SWP. This is what I object to and what I refer to as sectarianism. It is where these organizations are looking to their own existing resources and how to build these rather than looking at the gigantic movement that keeps threatening to break through but is severely hampered by the lack of any mass international structure and outlook.

Individuals and the smaller left groups also have a responsibility on this issue. What are we saying to this international movement which keeps breaking through internationally, then goes back underground or to its own local campaigns, then seeks to break through internationally again. In my opinion we have a responsibility to have a policy to take this movement forward and through which this movement can give more conscious expression to its impulses and through which this movement can develop a real international consciousness and form. It does not cut it to say join the CWI or to join the SWP international or to have nothing to say.

In relation to the second point, a revolutionary organization based on theory and committed to scientific socialism and in which workers can live and breathe. I would like to deal with this in a new item as I am in a library here which will soon close and I am not sure that my skills allow me to save what I have written etc.

by Rose McCann Fri Aug 15, 2003 08:25

SP member says that Dennis Tourish’s dastardly aim in his polemics against left political groups such as the SP is sabotage of the implied good and valuable work these organisations carry out. As Dennis has exhaustively explained, from what I have read on this site and in his original essay, his starting point and motivation is clearly not antagonism to the anti-capitalist objectives of such groups but their methods.

It is clear to anyone who is no longer in thrall to these organisations (and I do seem it as a form of enchantment) that SP member's and others accusations and slurs against Dennis are just the usual Stalinist red herrings. They are diversions aimed at cutting off considered response and debate to the substantive issues he and others are trying to raise. It is a tried and true tactic used to brutal effect throughout history by bullying and/or corrupt individuals, corporations, parties and other organisations and which any half-way conscious revolutionary not in fear of their lives or livelihoods is obliged to denounce and expose as profoundly anti-democratic.

It is a tactic certainly unworthy of human beings whose nominal aim is human emancipation and a higher form of consciousness and being.

What is being objected to are not the goals of socialism or communism but the flawed organisational structures, the self-replicating and self-defeating internal culture and practices of Leninist vanguard revolutionary parties, call them what you will. We object because in practice these always seem to lead, through a direct cause-and-effect mechanism, to the disempowerment, disenfranchisement and ultimately intellectual stupefaction of the rank-and-file members and any leaders that dare to cross the line of democratic centralist thought and practice as currently constituted.

I and many countless like me think that this means that these organisations are actually fundamentally an obstacle to building significant mass anti-capitalist movements let alone left political parties of any meaning or efficacy. Yes in the final analysis you are currently an obstacle, not a benefit, to the working class, to women, to Indigenous people, to trade unionists, etc, etc.

It is an insult and a self-delusion to think that there are not millions of people in your country and my country and throughout Britain and the rest of Europe, many of the millions of people for example that mobilised against the war on Iraq, who do not explicitly hate and oppose to the depths of their being the well-understood role of US and world imperialist exploitation and oppression. It is an insult and a self-delusion to think that it is only the miniscule numbers of sect members who are engaging in worthwhile political and related forms of struggle against manifestations of that in their daily lives and workplaces. But it is happening, at many levels, sometimes in an organised way, often not and we have much to learn from that and from them. How could we not?

Why would people want to join or remain in organisations that have such contempt for all who are outside them -- often for the mere reason that they are not members, or are no longer members and certainly if they dare to hold views or positions even slightly at variance with the holistic world views, dogmatic beliefs, practices and strictures of sect members?

Everything that Dennis describes from his experience about the way differences are dealt within the formal bodies of Leninist organisations, no matter how slight, or tentative or tactical those differences more often in practice actually are, or at least articulated, rings absolutely true with me and plenty of ex-members of the DSP/SWP in Australia -- to speak from my own direct experience.

Maybe several generational changes and a long passage of time is needed before these sectarian and undemocratic organisations will finally be forced to face the truth about themselves. Unfortunately, history cannot and is not waiting and the future becomes more frightening and the enemy more formidable given the lack of viable revolutionary organisations or mass movements capable of harnessing the creativity of millions of human beings into mounting effective and sustained fight back.

by Badman Fri Aug 15, 2003 11:48

"Public perception does not mean internal democracy. Members of bourgeois parties constantly fight with one another in public, does this mean they are democratic parties?"

Remember SP member, we are talking here about a healthy internal regime, not democracy. It would be conceivable to have a most overbearing and rigid internal regime, which was entirely democratic, in that all the members choose freely to keep each other under surveillance for any signs of counter-revolutionary thought. Happily this doesn't happen too often since people rarely choose to inflict such misery upon themselves.

But the point is that democracy and individual liberty are different things. Bourgeois parties fight in public because some degree of individual freedom (only for the bourgeios, of course) is an integral part of the political project of the bourgeoisie. Individual freedom comes very far down the list of priorities for Leninists, and is very sacrificable in times of crisis. A bourgeois party that had an internal regime like 'democratic' centralism would very quickly end up having no members at all, bar the glorious leadership.

Although, as I said above, democracy and individual freedom are not the same thing, they do tend to go together for obvious reasons. It is indisputable that the bourgeois parties offer a greater degree of individual freedom to their members than the Trotskyists do. It is also indisputable to my mind that they are more democratic than any of the Trot groups. How can I advance such heresy? Well, all political parties claim that they are democratic and most have formal structures that appear to guarantee it but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The trotskyist parties come off second best in every quantifiable comparitive metric. Longeivity of leadership, percentages of members forced out or expelled, existence of factions, circulation of information, and so on. Can you imagine an entrist party surviving for 5 minutes within the SP or SWP?

"If you actually think about it, arguing in public will actually exasperate differences as it makes compromise or internal discussion more difficult."

This strikes me as a very stalinist way of looking at the world. You can extend this principle ad infinitum. If a dissenting member of the central committee brings their disagreement to the membership, it will also exasperate differences amd make compromise more difficult within the central committee (and I think we've heard that one before). By expressing a disagreement at all you are creating a problem, and so on. People have disagreements, you can be honest and open about it and trust people to be able to make up their own minds about the issues, or you can choose to limit the information to certain people and make all decisions in secret. I know which one I prefer.

Why not involve the public in the debates within the organisation? For a party that wishes to sieze the reins of power and run society on our behalf, the public should be seen as an extension of the party's membership. What type of a ruling party would you be, if all debate was rigorously confined to the ranks of the party. That road leads to the party-state, where any involvement in meaningful political debate necessitates membership of the party. Where have we seen that before? And if you can't involve the public in the internal debates now, what chance is there that you'd feel able to in the much more difficult environment that you'll be sure to face if you ever came close to siezing power?

If the party takes a decision, the party's resources will go towards implementing this decision. If a member is representing the party, they will put forward the party line. Thus the individual member is already spending their dues money and their time and energy on promoting the party line. Why also require individual members to pretend to agree with the party line in public when they are representing themselves? Forbidding members from expressing their opinions honestly to all but a select few strikes me as a most monsterous tyranny that dehumanises them to the world.

by Archivist Fri Aug 15, 2003 12:27

Further to Badman's suggestion of some comments SP members could make, in order to test their internal regime, can I suggest that SP members experiment with saying the following: 'I don't agree with all of Dennis Tourish's conclusions, but you know I think he makes some effective points in his debates with the SP.'

It would be very interesting to see how long anyone lasts who makes such a comment internally.

by pat c Fri Aug 15, 2003 18:41

"To Pat C:
wondering what kept you. Sorry Pat you are jumping to similar conclusions as Denis Tourish. If you had read my initial posting properly, you would have read that I said I was not a member of any elected leadership bodies of the SP or CWI - hence I could not be Mr. Boyd. "

And why should we believe you? You use some of the same phraseology as Boyd.He claimed he would be backwith a proper reply if he found the time.

Sorry for the delay but I was on holidays, offline for about 2 weeks. Oh! The horrors!



"I never claimed that Tourish was an evil manager (I did say in my opinion he was an enemy of the working class because he is opposed to socialist change). I posted his biography in order to allow people judge the merits of his arguments in the full knowledge of what he does."

SP Manager Good!
Tourish Manager Bad!

"In my opinion the purpose of Tourish's writings is not to benefit the left but to sabotage not just the work of the CWI but the left (including you) in general. You can hold a different view if you wish."

I havent read any of his managerial writings but you are skating on very thin ice here. Would you like to give a list of approved subjects students should study?


"As regards Pakistan, the LPP received money from among others the Swedish SD. They established a number of ngo and ngo type groups. The main problem was the way the leadership behaved in the way they used these groups."

Well, you have given 3 different reasond as to why they were expell;ed. How come you only noticed their faults AFTER they went against Taafe?

"In relation to John Throne etc. I am not going over this again. The documents amounted to thousands of pages and were circulated not just in the USA but throughout the whole CWI."

It doesnt take thousandsof pages to explain why John Throne was not allowed to make his appeal in person to the conference of the US section; or to the CWI World Congress.

by Phuq Hedd Fri Aug 15, 2003 20:04

QUOTE: Please read the posting properly. I did not say I publicly supported positions I disagreed with, I said "If there is something that I disagree with what do I do? Within the CWI I will argue my case, in public I will keep my mouth shut". Same response as above. I do not defend things because I am told to.

ANSWER: I hope I'm not confusing different anonymous SP members here -- it's hard to tell when you use very similar titles. I'd argue that your stance about "open debate" is far from clear. At the very best keeping silent in public about an issue on which you disagree with your Party is a _tacit_ support of that position. Otherwise there's no advantage to you keeping quiet about it. At worst your definition of "open" debate, as evidenced by the three quotes below actually means _internal_ debate and the use of the word "open" is misleading in this particular discussion -- to most of us it means visible to people outside of the organisation. The three quotes, especially QUOTE 2, are contradictory and paradoxical. How can you debate "any and all issues with any left activists" if there are issues on which you are going to remain silent in public?

QUOTE 1:
Tourish's comments confirm my beliefs
by SP member that made original posting - SP - CWI Sunday, Aug 10 2003, 2:19am
[...] A vibrant, open and democratic life is vital for any revolutionary organisation

QUOTE 2:
As a final contribution
by SP member posting original comments Wednesday, Aug 13 2003, 11:48am
[...] I have absolutely no problem in debating any or all of these issues with any left activists in order to help the discussion on the best way to build the left.
[...]
I will defend the CWI IN PUBLIC against all attacks against it. If I was not willing to do that then there is no point in me being a member of a revolutionary organisation


QUOTE 3:
You guys have been busy
by SP member Thursday, Aug 14 2003, 1:48pm
[...] the leadership of any organisation (and this is assuming there is no dissenting voices within the leadership) would much prefer these matters out in the open (and this makes common sense). Let's get them out in the open, debate them and come to a conclusion.

by SP member Fri Aug 15, 2003 21:23

To Badman

Maybe you and I have a different understanding about what democracy means. I am of the view that you cannot have a healthy internal party regime unless it is democratic and you cannot have a democratic internal regime than is unhealthy, the two go hand in hand like a body and oxygen. I would argue against the notion that any bourgeois party is more democratic than any trot organisation that I know (and that is saying a lot).

The CWI is not organised along the lines of a bourgeois party or even a broad left party, it is organised along the lines of a revolutionary socialist party. Maybe you need to have a discussion about how the CWI is organised with a member of the CWI, find one and ask. (I do not have the time or inclination to do it here.)

To Activist
I do not think that Denis Tourish makes any effective points in his comments. His comments are not unbiased. He starts with the premise that the CWI is a cult and then sets out to prove it. That is my opinion. Incidentally, as I have said before, I have opposed the leadership of the SP on issues in the past without any sanction being imposed.

To Pat C
You can believe that I am Stephen Boyd or not, your choice. While I do not give my name (for reasons explained above) I also do not tell lies about my identity. If you named enough members of the CWI you would probably get the right name eventually.

“I havent read any of his managerial writings but you are skating on very thin ice here. Would you like to give a list of approved subjects students should study?” I am not talking about Tourish’s managerial writings but his writings attacking the left. Again is your hatred of the CWI blinding you to the broader picture? Study what ever you want, who am I to suggest what you should do.

Pat, Questions on Throne have been asked and answered. If you are interested in finding out all the ins and outs email him and ask him for all the documents. I also am not surprised that you go on about the alleged failings of the CWI but never question Throne about his activities during these events.

Finally Denis Tourish has made a number of very serious allegations, including one accusation of criminal activity (stealing mail is regarded as a very serious offence). On a personally level, Denis, I would ask you to consider withdrawing this accusation.

I feel that we may finally have got to the meat of this discussion.

In your comments, Denis, I feel that you actually substantiate the points I was making. Clearly your attitude to the CWI is tainted by your personal relationship with others. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. As I said before there are people in the CWI that I have personal difficulties with. You say that I am implying that you are an “evasive or nasty person”. I would never claim you are anything of the sort. Even my claim that, in my opinion, you are an enemy of the working class, is in a political context. I do not know you personally (having not met you for nearly 20 years) and would never be so personal to make any comment as implied. However, people are conditioned by their experiences and environment and as such express their opinions with this conditioning.

I also never claimed that the CWI had an impeccable internal regime. Like every thing and every one, it is not perfect, it is not static, it is not permanent, and the onus is on its members to ensure that we make more advances than retreats on this. Like all politics, a struggle has to be waged to ensure that the internal democracy of any revolutionary organisation is advanced. You say I try to give a distorted impression that the CWI has a tolerant internal regime. I can only speak from my experience, you can speak from yours. There have been times I think we have been too tolerant and other times not tolerant enough, and I expressed my views on each occasion. The question is not what your opinions are, but if you feel there is something wrong what do you do about it.

I am not going to comment on the personal difficulties you had with Peter Hadden, Dermot Connolly or Joe Higgins. I was not witness to them. You claim that you were threatened that your political reputation would be destroyed if you raised the difficulties you had. I would ask, which is more important, the internal health of the political organisation you were a member of or you political reputation? For me there is no contest on this question. I never suggested there was something wrong about having personal discussions on political issues or implied that to do so was evidence of a conspiracy (I hate conspiracy theories). To clarify, I have a problem with individuals who do not discuss difficulties, but make accusations (usually personal) behind peoples backs over a prolonged period, without ever coming out into the open about their accusations. I never claimed that you violated the norms of democratic centralism, I could not as I do not have any evidence that you did. You suggest that others did, that may be but it is not something I can answer. You also suggest that the difficulties you were claiming had been discussed among many leading comrades over a period of years. If these problems were so great why was there never any attempt by all of these leading comrades to bring them out into the open? Why was a faction never formed? If you were so concerned about it, would your political reputation not have been protected by such action? Why did you not consider requesting the intervention of the appeals commission (control commission in your day)? If you had done any of these things, I would have back to the hilt, your right to raise them. I would have listened to the arguments and made my judgement accordingly. there is no doubt I have a lot of failings, but after 20 years, my opinions on this are as steadfast now as they were the day I joined. As we all grow older we learn and we change, sometimes for the better, some times for the worst, on many different levels.

I reject your implication that anyone who raises issues opposing the leadership either gets expelled (never happened in Ireland) or leaves. I am still a member, and there are others. Even if this was going to happen at least you would have gone out with a fight and your head held high that you stood by what you believed in. I believe you failed both yourself and the CWI as a whole by not fighting your corner. Even when someone is wrong, members and the organisation as a whole can benefit from the experience. People can join, people can leave, people can have disagreements and difficulties. You can choose to do this. Most put a period behind them and get on with their lives. I do not support or agree with people who make public attacks about the organisation (particularly a revolutionary organisation) they were members of, AFTER they leave, without having made the same accusations openly within the organisation. These incidences are few and far between given the number of people that pass through the ranks of the CWI and all left organisations. Do not expect to make the assertions that you have and not to provoke a response.

Finally, I would like to finish by asking a question. You claim that the CWI is a cult and that I, among others, am a lost cause. Using your own rules for defining cults, do you feel that, given the evidence of the comments that I have made here, the tone of those comments etc, that I fit you description of a lost member of a cult?

by Dennis Tourish Sat Aug 16, 2003 00:30 D.Tourish at abdn dot ac dot uk

I do not believe that most people reading SP member’s contribution will find any of it convincing. The general thrust is that those who have left the CWI in disgust at its internal regime have only themselves to blame, for failing to take advantage of its exemplary democratic machinery. Pray, if your regime is in such a pristine state (and it must be, since it is so under-utilised), why aren’t more people clamouring to avail of it? You are talking about many people, including Finn Geaney, who were courageous fighters in a hostile environment for many years, but who felt that your democratic regime was such a sham there was nothing to be gained and much blood, sweat and tears to be lost, from engaging with it any further. Your refrain appears to be that they are either fools for not understanding the options open to them, or cowards for abandoning the fight – truly, it must be a tough life to be surrounded by so many fools and cowards, and this only within your own organisation. Whether there was ever a deficit of courage (and I don’t believe there was) doesn’t change the essence of the issue, which is that to anyone with serious reservations about your regime and policy the options tend to be the same – departure, or a bitter battle culminating in expulsion.

The truth is that dissenters are subject to a merciless drubbing when they pose a serious challenge. Many are told that they ‘have placed themselves outside the organisation.’ In essence, the CWI leadership has the temerity to club dissent into the ground, and then stand over those they have trashed taunting them that they haven’t even put up a better fight. There is a word that describes this. It is bullying. It is also quite normal in cults of all kind. Fortunately, although it can quell debate in a small group, it is absolutely ineffective in the broader labour movement. Your position is not serious.

The real essence of the issue must be the fact that any rational, intelligent, healthy, genuinely democratic party engaged in a struggle for power that has any prospect for success would have the opposite process. There would be debates on fundamentals; there would be factions; there would be a renewal and replacement of top leadership (including the general secretary in Britain, and Northern Ireland); there would be new ideas; there would be an open admission of mistakes; there would be people loudly and passionately arguing different opinions internally and externally. There would, in short, be a radically different regime from what we find in the CWI. Without these things, you do not have the remotest possibility of capturing significant influence in the working class or of changing society.

But you continue to evade the real issues. The following is typical of CWI inspired polemic: ‘In your comments, Denis, I feel that you actually substantiate the points I was making. Clearly your attitude to the CWI is tainted by your personal relationship with others.’ Where oh where to begin? I said earlier that SP member’s approach betrays not even a trace of formal logic, never mind dialectics. This statement bears that out. The premise rests on quicksand, the conclusions dangle from the clouds, and not an atom of causality connects the two. Meanwhile, it is happily assumed that if the motivation of the dissenter can be impugned then the case they make can be dismissed.

Note the assumption that SP member can see inside my head, despite admitting to not having met me for 20 years. This is quite a trick. Money could be made from it, should SP member fancy flogging his technique to Uri Geller. A Nobel Prize in psychology might even be next. How on earth do you know my motivations? The truth is that my approach proceeds from a rational analysis, very little of which you have properly addressed. Of course, I hold no brief for people like the two Peters – Taaffe and Hadden. For that matter, Trotsky held little brief for Stalin, but no-one suggested that his theory of Stalinism was predicated only on personal feelings. My position flows from my understanding of the whole history and orientation of your group, and what I know of group psychology. Moreover, my personal relations with others including Dermot and Joe were emphatically not the issue in my departure – it was the authoritarian habits of the leadership, a very different thing. I got on personally well with both these people, and regret they have anchored themselves to the abusive regime of the CWI leadership.

But finally none of this is the meat of the issue at all. I repeat: I do not have an internal regime to debate. I don’t claim to seek the leadership of the working class. You do. The meat of the issue is actually your undemocratic, intolerant, stifling, overly conformist and destructive internal regime (not my alleged motivations, in which analysis you are sadly in error). My case history is only of interest as one more example of that regime in action.

Despite decades of failure, fragmentation, and growing irrelevance, you still hold this out as the model for a new socialist project and a new society. Your failure is shared by the scores, hundreds and possibly thousands of Trotskyist groups in the world, to whom you are programmatically and organisationally so similar. The world has moved on since the 1930s, but for the CWI it tends to stop with the transitional programme in 1938. I am afraid that I, and many others, take a different view –something that does not make us enemies of the working class. Nor would I suggest for one minute that you are you an enemy of the working class. But I would argue that your own failure to honestly face up to the mistakes, decline and problems of your own organisation and the left in general renders you, at present, irrelevant to human liberation. The problem is that the CWI, like all its compatriots, is engaged in sect building rather than bringing about social change. In that sense, you are a lost cause for the issues that so obviously concern you – the building of a new society, in which all manifestations of bullying, injustice and oppression can be lifted.

by Rose McCann Sat Aug 16, 2003 04:40

Why do former Trots dissatisfied with aspects of party organisation fail to adequately "fight their corner" [SP member} and just leave, often without having even raised substantial differences?

How's this for starters:

1. The first time she raised at a National Committee meeting (a year or so after she joined) a suggestion that a campaign the party was leading should consider adopting a particular demand and the reasons why, the National Secretary of the party peremptorily and rudely rejected the proposal for reasons to this day new member considered ill-considered if not rather reactionary. Not one other NC member contributed to the discussion on the matter or would even talk about it informally afterwards with NC member or explain why the demand was considered unacceptable. (Actually a year or so later the exact same demand was adopted and implemented when it came from the National Office.)

2. This experience taught new party member to be wary of raising new ideas even within elected leadership bodies for fear they would be similarly rejected. She wanted to avoid re-experiencing the strong feelings of humiliation and anxiety that original experience had engended. Standing up against the group and what it had already decided upon was a potentially dangerous and therefore foolhardy thing to do, new member thought. Besides, the experience increased her self-doubt.

3. New party member soon after noticed a change in the formerly over-friendly attitude of National Secretary. Now he tended to both ostentatiously ignore her at party and social events, while at the same time communicate the information that she was under close observation by him.

4. When subsequent different viewpoints or ways of looking at things arose in mind of new party member, she felt mentally constricted by the fact that she had no way of testing or developing these ideas with other party members. This was because to do so at all adequately was impossible because ruled inappropriate given party dictates and norms about how such matters should be raised, i.e. only in formal bodies of the party. Therefore, she tended to push any varying or heretical thoughts to the back of her mind and just get on with the endless round of meetings, paper sales and holding down the exhausting fulltime factory jobs she took as part of the "turn to industry". This after all was what the ideal, valued and loyal party member was exhorted to do. Intellectuals or would-be intellectuals were looked down on and treated with open suspicion in the party, even more so if they were not part of the national leadership, which party member no longer was.

5. New party member who had joined Australian SWP in part because of her discovery of feminism and her exhilaration at finding a group of men and women whose aim was the liberation of women, now found her self-confidence lessening. Her growing feeling of a lack of personal confidence was privately confirmed to her by many other women comrades over the years, even those considered most experienced and brilliant. They all left, some of the most stunningly talented and passionate women party member ever met.

6. As the years passed same member repeatedly witnessed the treatment dished out to other party members who raised new ideas or alternative proposals about organisational or political matters considered wrong or unacceptable by key party leaders -- in particular and always the National Secretary.

7. Several nasty expulsions took place where the accused had their mail stolen, their diaries and personal papers confiscated and read, their motives for raising differences grotesquely impugned (e.g. jealousy, revenge, reverting to type, i.e. petty bourgeois, or succumbing to "alien class forces") and their charges investigated by party bodies under physical conditions and environment notoriously favored by police forces.

8. Some members resigned because they were friends or living with the expelled comrades and they were told by leadership bodies they were not allowed to have anything more to do with them or even talk to them if they wanted to remain members. Some who left and publicly criticised internal party regime,including accusations of corruption by party leader, were themselves subsequently accused of having stolen campaign committee funds and/or consorting with sworn enemy, the Communist Party of Australia.

9. Several times our party member did raise differences in internal party forums, but usually obliquely and tentatively. So they were easily countered by party leadership. Sometimes she did go further, but only in anger and on impulse, so her reasoning ability was impaired as she was under the influence of strong emotion and ill-prepared. Again, the combined forces of larger group were easily brought to bear against single member and occasionally one or two other supporters. Her feelings of failure and inadequacy grew. But so was her impulse to resistance because party member had always been a "troublemaker" or "bold as brass" as her school teachers had always complained.

10. Party member got tired and increasingly bored by apolitical internal environment and lack of stimulation from new ideas. She maintained her membership but reduced activity and financial commitment. She knew that this meant her value as party member had lessened in the eyes of the leadership and therefore the rest of the membership. She knew this meant her viewpoint on most matters, if voiced, would be taken even less seriously, except to extent it might be considered a threat to party unity or functioning or morale.

11. Party member lived for most of this time (10 years) with senior party leader. However, in all that time, when she tried to discuss with him her and others concerns about lack of democracy, rumblings of corrupt practice and openly bullying and sexually predatory behaviour of National Secretary, she was always met with silence.

12. Party leadership increasingly called for renewal of leadership by the newest youth members and older comrades were made to feel unwelcome, even as members, as they were told they were lowering standards, miseducating and standing in the way of up-and-coming youth leaders and members. Many took the hint and left, taking advantage of at last being able to catch up with long deferred personal and family interests and commitments and work imperatives.

13. When party members left generally without a word other than saying for "personal reasons", former party members remained friendly or even on speaking terms only to the extent that former members shut up about their negative experience as members and continued to subscribe to party paper, attend party functions and contribute financially to fund drives and special appeals.

14. It is only after party member leaves and works through the psychological aftermath which included feelings of loss, failure and depression, that she begins, bit by bit, to see and understand the organisation she belonged to in a clear light for the first time. She feels much better now.

15. Ex-party member attempts for a few years after leaving to remain politically active but soon finds that impossible in the committees or campaigns where existing party members are active. She finds that she is treated with hostility and suspicion and challenged over even the most minor tactical points she raises in the context of specific campaign work.

16. Story has a happy ending because ex-member lives with other former longtime member and remains in contact with many other ex-members. There have been many opportunities for exploring and making sense of their common experience and drawing similar conclusions about exactly what was wrong with the party organisation. A very important process.

Party member becomes politically active again but is careful and able to choose more suitable level of commitment. Explosion of intellectual interest and investigation in many fields previously no time for, knowledge of, of interest to her, as fulltime Leninist party member.

by john throne - labors militant voice Sat Aug 16, 2003 06:50 loughfinn at aol dot com

For me the most important issue facing us as activists today is what do we say to the tens of millions who want to fight against the capitalist offensive. I have raised the idea of Labors Militant Voice above above that we work and campaign for these struggles and international movements to develop the structure and form of an anti capitalist international. To this end I believe we should work for anti capitalist fronts in our areas and countries and internationally to which all could join who wanted to fight capitalism, had an orientation to the working class and was prepared to confront capitalism as opposed to trying to lobby and reform it.

I think that an understanding of this work and idea is crucial to approaching the issue that has been getting most attention in this discussion. How to build a revolutionary organization with an internal life in which workers can live and breathe and which still studies and fights for revolutionary theory and socialist revolution. Such an organization would fight for and be part of the anti capitalist international but would itself be an organization more based on theory and clarity of ideas which it would put forward in an open democratic way as it helped build the anti capitalist international.

I still believe we need to build a revolutionary international based on Marxist theory. To me Marxism represents a method which allows us to understand the world and have a chance of successfully changing it. Marxism in general also represents a body of work in which the accumulated history of the class struggle and the history of the gains and defeats of the working class are recorded and lessons are drawn. And like with any other task we have to base ourselves on the experience of the past practicioners of our skill if we are to move forward. So as I say I still believe in building a revolutionary international based on theory and history.

The question is how can this be done in a way that does not degenerate into an organization that squeezes the life out of its participants, that instead allows the workers and others who join to live and breathe. That allows for the information and skills of the past to be passed on but also allows for the input of the members to to have full and free expression. And to go further, that actually consciously seeks to elicit from all its members the full creative energies that each one has and brings these together into a vibrant, combative creative organization.

This is what we in LMV are trying to do at present. We would be very grateful for help with this task. In this regard we are of course interested in the experiences of past members of groups but we are particularly interested in the experience of those Comrades who have experience of groups that have gone wrong in the past but who are now trying to build new groups. The input of those Comrades who have a lot of critical things to say about organization but who not longer build an organization is of course important but it is really only when we get down to building something better than that which has gone before that we really have to deal very concretely with the issues.

In trying to deal with this important issue I would like to comment on a point correctly raised by SP member. I was in the leadership of the CWI for over 20 years. I was the first full timer in Ireland, an international full timer and on the IEC, IS etc etc. So where do I stand in relation to the internal life over this whole period not just when I was in opposition and expelled and what lessons have I drawn. How come I was 20 plus years in the leadership of this organization and then came so devastatingly into collision with it and now have so severe criticisms of it. This is a valid question.

I asked it to myself first when I was standing outside the Irish SP national committee in the North Star Hotel a few years ago when I was seeking my right to appeal and when the EC went outside to have a separate meeting and left the non ec members of the national committee sitting inside with the suggestion that they should read. After a separate meeting and no doubt calling the IS the EC came back and recommended I should not be allowed to appeal to the meeting and this was the decision. I asked myself then “how did I play such a leading role in building this organization which acts in this way.?”

Comrade SP member says correctly that no organization is static or permanent. In 1974 in the British section of the CWI a small group developed that had organizational connections with the IMG. It had a member who was a leading long time member on the British CC of the CWI section who had been won over in secret by the IMG. Some time before the annual conference of the British section this group produced a document which basically put a question mark over all the main ideas of the organization.

This document was circulated, the CC wrote a reply and there was a debate at the conference. A large majority voted for the CC position including myself. It was clear that the leading member of this faction was a member of the IMG from among other things that whole chunks of this groups document were lifted word for word from an IMG document of the time.

There was then a motion from the floor from some young rank and file members in the main, not the leadership we should note, that this person should be removed from the CC. Some also called for his expulsion. The leadership of the section, including Ted G and Peter T led a spirited defense against this explaining that any organizational steps taken against this person would lead to an atmosphere where people would think that to raise alternative ideas would lead to organizational steps being taken against them. This person was re-elected onto the CC.

I was in the CWI for three years at that time and this impressed me a lot. At that time also I had differences on the North. No action was taken against me at that time in fact my position on some of them was accepted. So the CWI has not always been an organization where any serious opposition leads to organizational reprisals and repression of one kind or another of these ideas.

So what is the difference between then and the last decade or so. The difference is that there was great confidence in the perspectives of the organization, in the orientation of the organization in the 1970’s. The perspectives and orientation were being confirmed by events. This was the key factor at that time. And the leadership of the organization had great respect and authority flowing from this and there was great unity in the organization also because of this. As a result there was no pressure on the leadership or on the organization to get rid of alternative views.

However that was not the whole story. The small opposition group and its leader resigned a few months later. This is what the CWI leadership calculated would happen. There was the tendency even then to believe that an organization should be unified and monolithic. However a very important factor in no organizational measures being taken against this group was because of the general correctness of the perspectives and orientation and the confidence this gave the organization and its leadership. While there was the idea that the organization should be monolithic there was great political confidence and genuine unity so no organizational measures were seen to be necessary. Of course this was not explained by the leadership. This appeared to newer members including myself as a great sign of the internal democratic culture.

At that time there were features in the organization which I questioned and in fact some were not practiced in the Irish section because of this. Such as trying to talk people and branches into withdrawing any resolutions they would move to conference. I questioned this and successfully prevented it from becoming the normal practice in the Irish section. However it seemed more of an irritant than anything else. It was not clear that it reflected the view of the leadership that it was there to teach and it should set the curriculum of the lesson down to the last resolution to conference and that unity was the norm.

The general issues in the conflict that Dennis T refers to with Hadden and myself and himself in the mid 1980’s was not clear to me then. Looking back it reflected the view that the leadership should all defend each other against any criticisms from the membership. When I did not automatically defend Hadden this was seen as me betraying Hadden and therefore acting in a way not befitting the leadership and this was major crisis. When that happened and on my own proposal I left working at the international center and to Comrades who were later to be part of our faction and to be expelled I said I would never let such an approach be a part of any section I was working in without a fight.

While making these points in my own defense I was also very responsible in other ways for the balance and internal culture of the organization. This was in my opinion a question of perspectives above all else. The CWI had the perspective that it was a race between socialist revolution in the west and political revolution in the east. There was talk about 5 to 10 years. There was the idea that the organization was being built toward the goal of power in the not too distant future. The concept in my head and most others was we needed an organization capable of acting decisively on the night, for some reason I always envisaged it happening at night, and leading the working class to power.

This led to the internal culture being always slanted towards getting things done. Getting new members, getting more paper sales, getting more donations. Not many people were more focused on this than me and this contributed greatly to the internal culture and for this I hold serious responsibility. Increasingly as the pressure developed further to this end then debate and disagreement seemed to be just getting in the way of getting on with the work. A good member was one that was balanced towards getting the work done rather than questioning and challenging the ideas and perspectives.

It is my understanding that the tendencies that we are talking about as problems in trotskyist organizations were present in the CWI all along. But that they were not so obvious due to the relatively correct perspectives and orientation and the success that flowed from these. The poll tax, the water charges, growing from 2 sections to 35 sections over 20 years etc etc. But that as the perspectives and the orientation were proven wrong in the late 1980’s into the 1990’s then these tendencies surfaced with a vengeance and were major factors in the severity of the decline of the CWI.

The perspectives began to be proven wrong in a serious way as the 1980’s drew to a close. It became clear it was no longer a race between political revolution in the east and socialist revolution in the west rather it was capitalist restoration in the east and a major offensive of capitalism against the working class. Rather than five to ten years it was an entirely different world situation with the role of the working class and perspectives for the class struggle obscured in a way that had not been the case in a century. The orientation towards the mass traditional organizations was wrung and a new orientation demanded. In other words the analysis of the CWI was shown to be very seriously wrong. The leadership’s analysis was being shown to be very seriously wrong.

It was on this basis that all the negative tendencies rushed to the fore with a vengeance and with great strength. The wrong view of organization that it should be monolithic, the wrong view of leadership that it had to appear always right, the wrong internal culture with its balance to getting things done rather than clarifying ideas as well as getting things done. A central feature in all of this was that the leadership could not admit the terrible errors in perspectives. They could not admit they were ordinary mortals who make mistakes, they could not see that it was their duty to bring out in front of the entire organization their mistakes so as all could learn from them.

The Ted G group split so they could have their own monolithic organization with its infallible leadership. Then the new leadership after an effort to open went into the bunker and set about getting a new monolithic organization by getting rid of all independent voices and all opposition. It was at this time that a few of us began to take an open stand against some of the general concepts and move into opposition. After returning to work at the international center when the struggle with the Ted G group developed and then staying there for a couple of years I resigned from the IS and returned to the section I had been working in and with a view to fight to change the internal culture.

If there had been a proper internal culture and view of organization in the CWI at this time then a real powerful creative energy could have developed to try and clarify the new period and our way of working. What was needed was for the leadership to openly and clearly spell out its and the organizations mistakes, for the entire membership to have been mobilized into action to read and discuss and clarify perspectives and orientation and tasks. The need to build on a different basis should have been put in front of the organization. Instead bureaucratic means were used to try and get back to the monolithic organization again with the infallible leadership. Instead of a new creative period the destruction has been terrible.

So as we try and build something new what lessons do we try to apply. We still need in our opinion an organization which studies Marxist theory and the accumulated history of the working class and the class struggle and that draws conclusions. We feel this organization has to have a selective membership, that is that the basis for joining it is agreement with the general conclusions and method of Marxism. However the degree of agreement today in our opinion has to be less than in the past. We are not clear on the limits and boundaries at this time, we are trying to clarify these as we work.

We feel that the the key issues for such an organization are program, orientation and perspectives. While the program we have fought on we feel is generally correct we think we have to give more emphasis to connecting with the existing consciousness of the working class. And in this time where there is such a disconnect between the revolutionary ideas and forces and the working class as a whole we think that we have to try and make the program and the organization concrete and credible through the use of direct action fight to win tactics to a degree that was not used in the past.

In relation to orientation we feel that this is an issue that we cannot be too clear on in the medium and longer term but that in the immediate term we have to try and orient to the spontaneous struggles which confront the attacks of the offensive of capitalism wherever these arise and on basically whatever issue. The old days when the orientation could have been so clearly to the unions or the workplaces or the rank and file of the mass organizations are over for the time being.

In relation to perspectives the conclusion we have drawn is that we were far too over confident about our ability to develop perspectives. That we now have to be far more conditional and questioning of these. Some examples of some questions today. What are the perspectives for China. Can there be an economic development there which can give capitalism some impetus for a period. We think not but... The environmental crisis where does this stand in the economic and political crisis of capitalism. US Imperialism’s aim to totally dominate the world, how will this be thrown back, by reactionary forces such as militant Islam with all the terrible consequences that would flow from this or by a movement of the working class. How will the power and role of the working class begin to reemerge on a world scale and in mass consciousness again.

The internal life that we have to have must be balanced for the foreseeable future towards clarifying ideas rather than being prepared to execute any grand moves. At the same time it must be prepared to be involved in the day to day struggles of the working class in a direct action fight to win manner. This latter is one of the strengths of the Irish SP with its work in the water charges bin charges etc.

The revolutionary organization in this period must have a conscious view of itself as a center of debate and discussion and creative thought as well as combative action. This is the concept we are trying for. We are referring to Engels that a revolutionary party can only develop through internal struggle. But we are not interpreting internal struggle to be war to the death against the “petit bourgeois” tendencies and the “proletarian” etc rather that unless there is a difference and an interchange and conflict of ideas in the revolutionary organization it cannot carry out its work.

We are much more conscious that no matter how well we organize, no matter how we can build and grow if the general basic perspectives are wrong and the organization cannot correct them openly and honestly without intimidation, expulsions and organizational measures bullying etc then our work will come to little avail. This is one of the lessons of the CWI.

However we go further. It is absolutely inevitable that perspectives will be wrong that orientation will be wrong and that these will have to be corrected. And not once but time and time again. The relative stability of the three post war decades will not be repeated. And if these corrections cannot be made openly and honestly then the organization will be destroyed. Whatever form that destruction may take.

To this end we are looking at the emphasis on leadership in the organization. Lenin worked out four conditions for a revolutionary situation. The bourgeois to be split, the middle classes vacillating, the working class ready to go through to the end and the existence of a revolutionary party. We in the CWI in the old days in our great wisdom added a fifth, that the revolutionary organization would have a steeled and theoretically equipped leadership. We were rendering Lenin on leadership even more profound.

Instead our emphasis today is that no organization can become a mass organization without major factional struggles and sustained debate and struggles. Without being able to openly and honestly discuss mistakes and explain why these happened etc. Without changing the view of leadership where the same people see themselves as crucial to the revolution and therefore must be obeyed and in the interest of the revolution must be sustained in their leading positions. Without these type of changes the revolutionary organization cannot become a mass organization.

On some details that we have thought about flowing from these more general conclusions. All differences have to be published in the public papers of the organization and discussed with the working class we are in touch with. This does not have to prevent action. It can be explained that the majority are of this belief and the organization is therefore saying and doing this, but there is another view and while we are working in this way we are still discussing and considering on the basis of our work if the position is correct or not. And we invite the workers we explain this to to help us clarify the positions.

On such things as ec,cc, etc. we think that at the time when the conference meets the cc and ec should be disbanded, when the CC meets the EC should be disbanded. This allows all members of these leading bodies to be free to express their doubts and differences without hesitation. It puts much more pressure on the membership as a whole to develop and decide on policy. There are other issues and details that we are looking at but these give an idea of the way we are thinking. We would be very very pleased to have more input along these lines.

We would also be very pleased to have further help in discussing the internal life of the Bolsheviks in the period up to and during the insurrection. The Bolsheviks had three papers in Petrograd at the time and they did not have the same positions. We are interested in showing that the internal life of revolutionary organizations over the past decades has been a caricature of the Bolsheviks before the distortion of the civil, war and the rise of stalinism.

These are some of the ideas we have been developing around the lessons of the past and how we go about dealing with the problems of building a new revolutionary movement. We would be very interested in discussing these with other Comrades. We think that conferences along these lines, that is to discuss these issues should be held in an attempt to clarify the way to work.



Some details in defense against the wrong arguments of SP member.

In his post to Dennis T he suggests that Dennis should have called for the Control Commission to investigate his case. I am shaking my head here. SP member I am very sure that the SP leadership does not want you or any other member discussing this issue on the indymedia. (probably why SP members have no names and why we have not been hearing from Comrade Cahill the only SP member who has given his name to my memory, in so long.)

The reason the SP leaders do not want this issue discussed is that they have not a leg to stand on in relation to my case and their lies keep escaping and their suggestions keep getting exposed. For example in relation to the Control Commission. This is a body of rank and file members elected at the conference which can be called to investigate and report on disputes between members or between members and the leadership.

Comrade SP member we the US minority faction continually called for the Control Commission to be activated to investigate our case. By the way if anybody wants to deny that the internal life of trotskyism has been influenced by stalinism consider this name. The Control Commission. The CWI changed the name recently as far as I know. Anyway the CWI leadership in spite of our continual requests refused to call the Control Commission into action to investigate. They did not trust this rank and file body especially as it would have had to travel to the US and see things for itself and it would have to make a written report.

We were very much in favor of this rank and file body investigating the conflict, the leadership refused to allow this.This would seem to have some relevance. We were confident in this rank and file body investigating, the leadership was not. So SP member it seems you are increasingly left with trying to intimidate people by saying there are 1000’s of pages if people want to read them. You will not comment on my case again, just go and read the 1,000’s of pages.

Comrade in relation to your points about Dennis T’s job. Sure where we work and what we do has relevance. But the problem is that the CWI has a dishonest approach to this. As I explained a man who was from a high street banking family and lectured in economics in Cambridge or Oxford was the main consultant of the IS on economics in the early 1990’s. And before this another Comrade worked in leading a leading position in an investment company. He went with the Ted G split. These issues are relevant but they should not be used in a dishonest manner.

And finally on another detail. Dennis T need not worry about saying his personal letter to me was stolen. The IS at the time went into my personal files when i was on an international trip and took it out and sent it or a copy of it to Hadden and Dennis and I were accused of a conspiracy. This was in the mid 1980’s.

Comrade SP member your defense is not working. Neither when it tries to take up details nor when it tries to retreat into generalities. For example where you retreat into the general and say: “I also never claimed that the CWI had an impeccable internal regime. Like every thing and every one, it is not perfect, it is not static, it is not permanent and the onus is on its members to ensure that we make more advances than retreats on this”

This reads to me like you are saying Comrade SP member that there are positive and negative features in the internal life of the CWI. I would not disagree with this but it is a generality that covers up move than it explains. Perhaps you would be concrete here. As wee Comrade Lenin said the truth is always concrete, perhaps you would share with us some of the negative features of the CWI as well as the positive. This would enormously strengthen your credibility and also be very helpful to this discussion.

But these details are not really the issue. Nor is the internal life of the CWI or the SP in and of themselves. the real issue is trying to build an organization which bases itself on Marxist ideas and fights for the socialist revolution and in which workers can live and breath rather than having the creative life squeezed out of them.

John Throne.

by John Reimann - Labors Militant Voice Sat Aug 16, 2003 09:04 wildcat99 at earthlink dot net

John Throne gives one example of how the CWI took up the matter of an internal difference - where someone in the CWI was also secretely a member of another organization. I'd like to give a different example:

A few years after I joined the CWI, the CWI leadership came into conflict with the leadership of the section in Sri Lanka. Several meetings of the IEC were dominated by debate with them. (One of the issues was the implicit support of the Sri Lankan comrades for India to intervene in Sri Lanka supposedly on behalf of the Tamil minority.) There were a whole series of debates, including at a world congress. Every branch of the organization internationally was encouraged to discuss the issues involved, including the perspectives for Sri Lanka. I remember we spent an entire Saturday here in Oakland doing this. Everybody was really stimulated by this debate and the general lessons to be learned.

Another point: The international leadership bent over backwards to ensure that the debate did not descent into personal attacks, impugning of the motives of their opponents, trying to psychoanalyse them, etc.

Why did they behave in this correct and principled fashion? I believe it was because they were totally right on the issues, and they knew that a serious debate on the issues, rather than on personal qualities, personal psychology, etc., would help the entire membership develop its world view and understanding. This is exactly what happened.

Of course, in those days (early and mid '80s), having a generally correct world view was a much simpler and easier thing than nowadays - since the collapse of Stalinism.

There was always a tendency to believe that all ideas and positions must flow directly from the top leadership, but in that period this did not act as an absolute barrier to the group developing.

However, the world was turned upside down with the collapse of Stalinism. Or rather, shaken up to the extent that the perspectives of the CWI were generally incorrect. The leadership then reacted by circling its wagons. Rather than open up the organization for a general debate and discussion about just what the hell was happening in the world, they moved to ensure that the murmurs of doubt and disagreement did not obtain an open expression. The tendency to ensure that the few top leaders were the only ones to work out perspectives was enormously strengthened, to the extent that it completely dominated the internal life of the organization.

Incidentally, there were two main issues where the general perspectives were completely wrong: The first was the flat-out assertion that the Stalinist world would not return to capitalism. The second flowed from an underestimation of the reserves of capitalism; it was predicted that the booms of the 80s and 90s would never last. The strength and durability of these booms was continually denied. Resulting from this, the speed at which the working class would move into action was also overestimated.

So, a mad rush to "build the revolutionary organization" was substituted for a serious look at perspectives. Some fundamental ideas were brushed to the side. For instance, it was always the position of the CWI that when the working class moved into action, it would not immediately jump to revolution. This tendency has organizational conclusions - namely that when the class moves into action it will either move into and transform its existing mass organizations or build new ones, or possibly a combination of these two processes.

This being the case, it should be one of the main tasks of any anti-capitalists to assist the working class in this process. Yet comrades in the British group used to complain to me that when they raised the idea that a new mass workers' party was needed in Britain,they would be met with the argument that it was not a mass party that was needed, but a revolutionary one. In other words, the one was counterposed to the other.

This is a perfect, text-book example of sectarianism.

Peter Taaffe and Co. got carried away. They predicted at one point that the Militant (which was changing its name to Socialist Party at that point) would become a small mass party of thousands and tens of thousands. This is actually what they predicted! (How many are in the British group now? Yet this wildly inaccurate prediction is simply forgotten, banished to the black hole, rather than considered and conclusions drawn from this fantasy of Taaffe.)

John Throne, in a previous note on this thread, raises the idea of an anti-capitalist international, similar to the First International, with all sorts of tendencies within it. Such an international organization of the working class will not arise out of thin air. I think that first of all, there will develop anti-capitalist alliances within diferent countries and parts of countries. Such alliances ("united fronts" in Marxist terminology) can play a role in helping turn back the capitalist offensive.

This is what we in Labor's Militant Voice are hoping to be able to help in developing here in the US. To the degree that we have any connections outside the US, we hope that we can work with those individuals and groups towards this end also.

(I'd like to add one interesting footnote to all this: John Throne comments on the perspective that capitalism would be overthrown in the next five to ten years. I accepted this view implicitly; I never explicitly put it forward that I can recall, but I believe that my attitude and actions reflected this. My son, who was about six or eight at the time, picked up on this. He now says that he had concluded that there was no need to study at school because capitalism would be gone by the time he graduated high school anyway!)

by Badman Sat Aug 16, 2003 11:14

"I would argue against the notion that any bourgeois party is more democratic than any trot organisation that I know"

And I would say that this statement shows you to be far removed from the world that most people live in. As I said, all parties claim to be democratic, so this type of claim is worthless by itself. In evaluating claims of democracy, we do have objective metrics that we can use to validate the claim. Longeivity of leadership, existence of factions, public expressions of dissent.... The Trotskyist parties come off second best compared to virtually all bourgeois parties on all these comparisons. The idea that there is something fundamentally different about the revolutionary group which means that these normal measures of democracy are irrelevant, is ludicrous and pathetic. Democracy is democracy, regardless of the type of group. Every dictator the world has ever known has had some type of "special bond" with their followers which has rendered normal democratic metrics irrelevant. Nobody outside the dictators realm ever buys that line, and nobody outside the CWI buys it with the CWI.

You do realise that you are claiming that the SWP and Sparts are more democratic than the mainstream parties, don't you? This claim really takes my breath away and I can't begin to imagine what twists of logic could possible bring you to such a bizzare view of the world.

by Archivist Sat Aug 16, 2003 13:14

I want to comment on SP member's evident fondness for internal debate, during which it appears he believes all questions can be satisfactorily resolved, at the expense of engaging more openly with outside influences.

One of the many problems with this is that on so many fundamental issues the CWI got it spectacularly wrong - eg the collapse of Stalinism; the boom cycles in capitalism over the past 20 years; the red 90s; the prospects for building a 'small, mass party.' This is a formidable list of blunders - and it is by no means comprehensive.

Yet - few of these have been openly, honestly and comprehensively addressed. For example, as someone pointed out, this small mass party perspective was utter nonsense, but how this mistake was made, what methodological errors precipitated it, what flaws in the decision making process resulted in it - of all this, nary a word has been heard. Nevertheless, the CWI still believes that, even in the absence of honest accounting for its mistakes, its leaders can retreat once more into a room and emerge with the right analysis and programme. This will be presented with a confident flourish, and used to argue that only the CWI alone has the wisdom to show the way forward. Doesn't this seem somewhat pompous, pretentious and downright funny? It goes to show that if people talk only to themselves often enough, they can persuade themselves of anything. And in all these respects the CWI is no different to the DSP in Australia, the SWP in Britain, Jack Barnes's SWP in the US and countless others.

The CWI does not have a monopoly of wisdom. No person or group does. No political tradition (eg Trotskyism) does either. Some wider and more open engagement is obviously indicated - unless more sect building, and further colossal political blunders, is what really turns these folks on.

by John Reimann - Labors Militant Voice Sat Aug 16, 2003 21:01 wildcat99 at earthlink dot net

Dear SP Member:

I have been trying to argue on this thread that the CWI is not a cult. However, you are making it more difficult for me to uphold this view. As I wrote before, I do not agree with the definition of a cult as put forward on this thread. I think the main thing is that a cult's members have turned away from the real, material world in their interests and in how they understand and explain things. They simply await the word from on high. This is exactly why the great majority of cults are religious ones.

Let us look at your method: You simply take the position of the CWI leadership (Taaffe, Lynn Walsh, whoever) and regurgitate it here. "The US minority faction was guilty of sabotaging organizational decisions and were expelled for this reason." (Not an exact quote) Yet you give not one single sentence explaining this claim. Finn Geeny left the Irish group in an unprincipled way, according to you. Yet when the explanation is given of what happened, you cannot answer. As to the political differences - really the root cause of the matter - between the minority and the majority factions, you have not a single word to say.

I still believe that the CWI is not and was not a cult. I know that I learned a lot about the real world from the time I was in it. But you certainly exhibit some tendencies common to cults.

One last point: I think that "archivist" (I think it was) hit the nail on the head when he wrote that ideas can only be really tested if they are tested out in the world around us. This means that the code of silence as far as minority rights in a Marxist organization is deadly; those with different views must have the right to test out those views amongst their fellow workers.

by SP member Sat Aug 16, 2003 21:46

Tourish constantly refers to the “exemplary” and “pristine” internal regime of the CWI. Yet you are the claiming that I said it. Don’t build paper castles to knock them down. Tourish claims I imply people who leave the CWI with disagreements are either “fools” or “cowards”. Again paper castles. People leave political organisations for all sorts of reasons, political, personal, they want to move on etc. Some remain friendly, some not. Some do nothing about their disagreements within the organisation, some raise them. Some attack the organisation in public and private after they leave, some do not. Some are fools, some are cowards, some are not. Everyone makes their own personal choice on these matters. The implication of what you are saying is that anyone that ever joins a political organisation would and should always remain a member – if there is a healthy internal regime within that organisation. How divorced from reality can you get.

Can I also say something else which I think is relevant. I have spoke to people that I know and remained friends after they have left the CWI. All of them talk about feeling guilty. Not guilty about leaving the CWI but guilty because they feel that they are letting working class people down by dropping out of political activity. My response is always the same. They should not feel guilty. They played a part in helping working class people as a result of their political activity and they should be proud of what they have done, but it is not the only thing in life, it is not the only way of helping working class people and there are many other ways of contributing in the future.

Denis Tourish also says “There is a word that describes this. It is bullying. It is also quite normal in cults of all kind. Fortunately, although it can quell debate in a small group, it is absolutely ineffective in the broader labour movement. Your position is not serious”. Please refer to the comments by John Throne about the issue of the IMG and Reinmann’s comments about Sri Lanka (I will refer to them later). How does this equate with your description. Maybe this comment comes from the fact that it is such a long time since you were involved in the Labour movement, but I’ve got news for you, what you describe and a lot worse happens in the broader labour and trade union movement. It can include threats of and actual physical assault. Threats of being sacked, by management and by union officials. Attempts to frame people with criminal activity. Rigging of ballots etc. IF the claims you make about the internal regime of the CWI were true and this makes the CWI a cult, then what way would you describe these organisations?

Tourish says that in any genuine democratic organisation “There would be debates on fundamentals; there would be factions; there would be a renewal and replacement of top leadership (including the general secretary in Britain, and Northern Ireland); there would be new ideas; there would be an open admission of mistakes; there would be people loudly and passionately arguing different opinions internally and externally”. Again I reject your claim that an organisation without factions is not democratic. Factions exist for a reason, to fight for a particular position. All political parties, bourgeois and workers alike exist for a reason. If there is no reason then it is a joke to suggest they should exist. Discussions and debate do take place on fundamental issues. The leadership is replaced as and when appropriate, for example I believe there are currently 3 people that are members of the National Committee (out of 28) that were members of the CC when you were on it. Just because 2 people that you think should be removed are still in leadership positions within the CWI does not substantiate your argument.

You equate your writings as similar to those of Trotsky on Stalin (not for the first time throwing in this red herring). Trotsky in all his political writings never started out with the conclusion and then tried to find or create evidence to prove his point. This is exactly what you have done.

Tourish says “My position flows from my understanding of the whole history and orientation of your group, and what I know of group psychology. Moreover, my personal relations with others including Dermot and Joe were emphatically not the issue in my departure – it was the authoritarian habits of the leadership, a very different thing. I got on personally well with both these people, and regret they have anchored themselves to the abusive regime of the CWI leadership”. You haven’t been a member of the CWI for nearly 20 years yet you proclaim to understand the whole history, orientation and group psychology of it. You are absolutely remarkable. You claim it was not your personal relationship with Joe and Dermot (or Peter Hadden) that caused you to leave but the authoritarian habits of the leadership. This is the same leadership that comprised of Dermot, Joe and in the immediate period preceeding it, your good friend and comrade John Throne. You must have been a very tolerant and patient person that was able to get on so well on a personal level with people that behaved in such an authoritarian and abusive manner. I could not be so tolerant in such a situation, maybe it is one of my failings.

Tourish says “I do not have an internal regime to debate. I don’t claim to seek the leadership of the working class. You do. The meat of the issue is actually your undemocratic, intolerant, stifling, overly conformist and destructive internal regime (not my alleged motivations, in which analysis you are sadly in error). My case history is only of interest as one more example of that regime in action”. You are not a revolutionary, you do not want to overthrow capitalism and establish a socialist society (if you did you would be a member of a political organisation attempting to carry out such change), you are firmly wedded to the bourgeois system and your attacks on the left are based on these attitudes.

To Rose McCann

To me, what you outline is an intolerable and unacceptable catalogue of events. But please don’t assume that all left organisations are similar to the one you have experience of. I am glad that you have been able you review your involvement and found it possible to actively participate in political activity at the level that you are.

To John Throne and John Reinmann:
I am not going to get into the broader political situation as outlined. This discussion started by me, relates to the charges by Denis Tourish that the CWI was a cult, something that you also disagree with but you have spent your time outlining all the problems with the CWI yet have not addressed the mistakes in Tourish’s writings. I am sure you would do a very satisfactory job on it if you wanted to.

As far as Throne’s comments about Denis Tourish’s job--- I am not being dishonest. Tourish cannot throw around all the accusations he wants about the CWI and pretend that it is clinical academic research and that he has the interests of present and future members of the CWI at heart. He is using his academic credentials to slander the CWI. All I did was outline what those credentials are.

You, unfortunately, also throw in the Stalinist jibe in relation to the use of the term control commission when you know full well the control talked about is “control by the rank and file”. The SP in Ireland changed the name to the “appeals commission” a number of years ago, not recently. Why would the leadership of the SP have a problem with me talking about it? It is not a secret. The purpose, role etc of the appeals commission are outlined in our constitution, openly available and registered with the Registrar of Political Parties. I really am getting a little fed up of listening to the griping (and that is what it is) by you and Reinmann about your expulsion. You refused to accept the democratic decisions of the conference of the US section. You, and others, actively attempted to circumvent and sabotage these decisions and then you try and present a holier than thou attitude about the whole episode. I will repeat myself again, please place ALL the documents on your website, let people read them if they want, and set up a discussion board and have all the discussions you want about it with those interested. The matter is very much part of our history. The reason that you were and are not allowed to attend SP conferences, is not because the CWI or the EC or the National Committee decided, but because the membership does not want you there and would not tolerate it if it was proposed. This is what happened at last years conference and it will happen at this years if you turn up again.

In relation to this story about this letter to you from Denis Tourish. Are you suggesting that a member of the International Secretariat of the CWI rifled through your personal papers to dig up dirt on Denis Tourish? Is this the same criminal IS that you were working for and continued to work for after this alleged crime?

Both you and John Reinmann quote the example of the IMG and Sri Lanka as examples of the positive way that the CWI leadership dealt with disagreements (although you do add that with hindsight the Taaffe was manouvering rather than being honest). However all that changed when the US minority faction came into conflict with the US majority and the IS. What a coincidence and of course the problem (according to Reinmann) can be traced back to the fall of Stalinism. Well I would like to add another couple of debates that were conducted in the same fashion. The debate on the SSP and the debate on the name change. Both were conducted in the same fashion as before, both were conducted after the fall of Stalinism and both were conducted after the expulsion of the US minority faction.

Throne says “While making these points in my own defense I was also very responsible in other ways for the balance and internal culture of the organization. This was in my opinion a question of perspectives above all else. The CWI had the perspective that it was a race between socialist revolution in the west and political revolution in the east. There was talk about 5 to 10 years”. If I am not mistaken John was this not like what YOU said in “Socialism or Catastrophe” in 1984.

Finally, Throne comments “This reads to me like you are saying Comrade SP member that there are positive and negative features in the internal life of the CWI. I would not disagree with this but it is a generality that covers up move than it explains. Perhaps you would be concrete here. As wee Comrade Lenin said the truth is always concrete, perhaps you would share with us some of the negative features of the CWI as well as the positive. This would enormously strengthen your credibility and also be very helpful to this discussion”. Not a hope John. The CWI is not perfect, cannot be perfect and will never be perfect. This is not a startling revelation, just common sense. And as you well know, any comments that I have to make about the internal regime, politics, programme or perspectives of the CWI, I will do so within the CWI. I have absolutely no intention of providing little titbits of gossip about the CWI to you.

To Badman:
I was a member of the Labour Party for 10 or 12 years. It was not and is not a democratic party. Membership (mostly paper membership) is build around personal fiefdoms of TD’s and councillors. I remember one particular LP conference when two buses arrived from North Kerry, about 100 people got out, all looking like they were over 70 years of age, went into the conference collected their ballot papers, voted, got back on the bus and disappeared. The joke was that Spring could find so few active members in Tralee that he had to raid a few old peoples’ homes to make sure he had enough votes. I am aware of the tendency of the SWP to pack meetings, and the Sparts are the Sparts, but I still stand by my original comment. Of course there is something different about a revolutionary group, they are not bourgeois in origin and do not operate to the norms of so called bourgeois democracy. I particularly find your comments about the fact that bourgeois parties are more democratic because they change their “leader” more often. Let’s shaft the leader so I can get his job.

To activist:
Again you are approaching this from a different direction than me. The SP is constantly engaged in discussion with working class people. It is vital that any workers organisation understands what the workers attitudes are, do they want to struggle, will that struggle be on the industrial, political or social front. What programme will the workers organisations put forward to help and assist those in struggle etc. All our activity and all our discussions with working class people are brought back into the organisation to help us develop our strategies and programme. We do not have a programme and strategy set in “tablets of stone”. If necessary we will alter or amend things in the light of developments. Disputes and disagreements are and can be resolved internally. Winning the confidence of the working class involves being part of that class.

Finally to John Reinmann:
I have not intention of regurgatating the US minority dispute so you can spend your time going over and over old arguments that have been answered many times - change the record, it's getting old, worn and scratched. Do what I suggested to John Throne above and have a nice life.

by Dennis Tourish Sat Aug 16, 2003 23:22

Let me take one paragraph from SP member's latest epistle, and deconstruct it carefully. I could do a similar job on each one, but since it is easier to make mistakes than correct them I fear the internet might crash under the strain. Moreover, SP member rarely seems able to address substantive issues at all – e.g. he has never gotten to grips with my arguments about group dynamics and the psychology of conformity, and how these play out within the CWI, buttressed by the jargon of democratic centralism.

However, here opines our sage:

‘Tourish claims I imply people who leave the CWI with disagreements are either “fools” or “cowards”. Again paper castles. People leave political organisations for all sorts of reasons, political, personal, they want to move on etc. Some remain friendly, some not. Some do nothing about their disagreements within the organisation, some raise them. Some attack the organisation in public and private after they leave, some do not. Some are fools, some are cowards, some are not. Everyone makes their own personal choice on these matters. The implication of what you are saying is that anyone that ever joins a political organisation would and should always remain a member – if there is a healthy internal regime within that organisation. How divorced from reality can you get.’

What exactly is the point? Nobody was debating the many reasons for organisational turnover. But what did happen was that SP member complained, with some venom, that many dissidents in his organisation, including such tremendous people as Finn Geaney (unless he too has become an enemy of the working class?) had unaccountably failed to use the machinery available to all for democratically resolving differences. He scratches his head. It is such a puzzle. Now, his denunciation of them clearly implies that either they are fools, for not knowing what to do (maybe they were too illiterate to write a document?), or cowards for abandoning the struggle. But something is wrong here, even to someone of SP member’s blunted sensibilities. He knows that it is incredible to throw such accusations at so many well-known former activists. So, bereft himself of the courage he urges others to show and hence the ability to admit he is talking nonsense, he backs out of one corner – and straight into another. This one becomes the wholly unrelated accusation that I implied everybody who ever joins an organisation should stay in its ranks, or else it is a diseased organ. Of course, even the healthiest organisation will have some turnover – nobody suggested otherwise. But this is completely different from respected long time leaders developing serious differences, and feeling that it is impossible to get a fair hearing for them within the CWI. Isn’t this rather obvious? Not to SP member, who has yet to avail of the excellent eye testing service at Boots, and continues to throw buckets of whitewash around the darkest corners of his organisation’s practice. The absence of elementary logic here, even on these tiny issues, does not encourage much faith in the CWI’s ability to finally come up with credible perspectives that will withstand the first test of events.

The truth is that when so many talented leaders decide that they will walk rather than engage in debate, it means there is less to the CWI’s internal democratic processes than meets the eye. It suggests that these activists have concluded they would be better off employing their energies elsewhere, rather than facing the moronic abuse that people like Taaffe will throw at them. In short, the CWI’s democratic processes are mostly a façade, like the front of buildings on a movie set, there to conceal the reality of a coercive environment in which genuine debate is absent and major substantive dissent is penalised.

As Rose McCann has suggested these types of problems are indeed common across all manner of left wing organisations. Remarkably, activists in each one seem able to see the problems in their immediate rivals, but avert their gaze in a panic when a mirror is held up to their own practice. Thus, I am sure SP member could wax lyrical about the shortcomings of the SWP, just as he waxes lyrical in his denunciations of capitalist injustice – yet ignores that injustice perpetrated under his own nose, in his own organisation, by his own leadership. SP member does have at least one virtue. He sums up so much of what is wrong on the left. There is no creative thinking, no hint of a new way forward, no critical reappraisal of past practice – in fact, not much sign of thought at all. The sad thing is that this is evidently in spite of his good intentions. But, ultimately, it is no wonder that working people are so sceptical of such organisations, and for the most part hold their noses and pass them by.

by John Reimann - Labors Militant Voice Sun Aug 17, 2003 00:42 wildcat99 at earthlink dot net

I will say this for the record:

"SP Member" is simply lying. I have no interest in debating him for debate's sake, but perhaps there are readers of this thread who are also members of the SP who are really interested in the facts. SP Member makes a public claim (that we violated organizational decisions of the group here) and were thrown out because of this. Yet he refuses to back up this claim with any specifics at all. This is the same method that Joe McCarthy used in the 1950s. SP Member also refuses to address him (or her)self to the fact that we were denied our right to appeal this expulsion to the IEC. He (or she) also refuses to address the political differences that were underlying the entire debate at that time.

I will state catagorically that we did not violate or sabotage any decisions taken by our national conference here. Nor was this the reason given for our expulsion.

Why bother disputing such falsehoods with "SP Member"?

Well, I had forgotten to mention one other reason why I joined the CWI when I did (1982). I found that alone on the left, the British Militant had a real working class base. I met dozens of workers in the group throughout Britain (and also in Ireland). This was very impressive. Almost all of them are out of the organization now. (Of course, SP member fails to mention another possible reason why people may leave a socialist group: That the leadership of that group makes it impossible for them to correct the mistakes being made.) But it is my hope that there is still some base of serious workers and young people in the SP, some of whom might be reading this thread. If so, I would say to them:

The issue of our expulsion in one sense is dead and gone. We are out and we are not interested in getting back in either. Also, the CWI has some great traditions, not all of which is totally obliterated. But much of it is gone and the international has seriously degenerated. Take the question of a mass workers' party (one which SP member chooses to ignore, as well as other political issues): It is complete lunacy to counterpose the building of a mass workers' party to that of building a revolutionary party. To the contrary, if the SP (or any other revolutionary group) could show itself as being able to help lead in the task of building a wider, mass workers' party, it would enormously help them grow and develop. But in order to do so, the SP must drop its antipathy to all other left groups. It must also seriously review its past position on the issue.

The example of the Scottish Socialist Party is a prime example. The CWI went on record as saying that the step of creating the SSP was a serious mistake, that the Scottish comrades should not do so. Only later, when it was successful, did they change their position (while denying that the position was changed at all!)

Also, it must review its incorrect interpretation of "democratic centralism" and internal democracy. SP Member can proclaim until the moon turns blue that there is no problem with internal democracy. Every half-way thoughtful member of the SP knows different. They know that if they raise "uncomfortable" questions too often they will start to get the cold shoulder from the leadership. They know there will be a subtle tendency to isolate them. I've seen this in Britain over and over again.

There is also the issue of being "allowed" to make your disagreements public. There is simply no way to seriously test disagreements over the mood within the working class, for instance, without testing those ideas in the open. The same for programmatic differences, for instance.

I hope that at least some readers will consider these points and ACT upon them.

by Phuq Hedd Sun Aug 17, 2003 03:27

on the issue of how it is possible to be open and to discuss any and all issues with other activists and yet simultaneously defend the Party and also remain silent. An interesting trick if you can manage it. Talk about getting tied up in knots!

by Rose McCann Sun Aug 17, 2003 06:35

Until organisations like the SP in Ireland and the Australian DSP constructively take on board the criticisms of their internal regime by the large number and successive generations of people who devoted enormous amounts of energy and time to them in the past, and who have drawn common conclusions about their defects, which are understood as first and foremost organisational, then their situation remains hopeless.

Look, truly, we're not trying to make you feel bad or wreck your no doubt largely good intentions. Remember we've been there. But until your organisations seriously review and reconstruct themselves, free the membership to be able, at any time, to debate ideas and differences, internally and externally, including through open party publications and in public forums, fully engage and work in a non-sectarian manner with the rest of the left, encourage knowledge and discussion about the dangers, dilemmas and contradictions of group relations and how to counter them, then your situation is hopeless. Whether irrelevant or actual obstacle to class struggle is immaterial, the end result of your current practice is the same. You're wasting your time and needlessly chewing up good and decent people whose desire to help create a better world would certainly be put to greater use in many other ways.

Several of us have had younger generation relatives join, or contemplate joining, Leninist organisations and have had to confront the question: do we encourage this or not? In my case it was definitely not. My special knowledge as a former member was requested. Tell us the truth I was asked. The truth also, I must say, incorporated a lot of wonderful experiences and achievements in the trade union and women's movement, in solidarity campaigns, etc of which I am proud and I told of that too.

In the event, it was the counter-productive and sectarian practice of the DSP youth group Resistance in the student movement which proved decisive in convincing my niece to give them a wide berth. She is politically hyperactive still in the refugee, anti-globalisation and anti-war movements and works with Aboriginal youth communities and women's refuges. I am proud of her for all this and we're very close. I would tremble for her if she joined the DSP or any other of the left sects here, just as I have counselled her to resist her parents' urgings to get a nice policy job in the public service! Yes in both cases there are worse personal fates. But I wouldn't want her to waste her time, be trapped in a sterile and futile environment and become part of the problem rather than part of the solution. And that is how many of us view your organisations because of long and repeated experience and critical reflection.

Dear SP member, Australia is a long way away, I know, but hey, we get about and we get visitors! It is not a question of "assuming" all left organisations are essentially the same. We've even had ex-DSP/SWP members join the CWI and live to tell the tale. We've heard of and read about the same old familiar and tragic story from members of Trotskyist organisations all over the world. The DSP in Australia is considered today by many other left groups and individuals internationally as one of the healthier ones around. But there has been almost no published material yet about its practice from critically engaged ex-members. Specific practices may differ slightly from party to party and from time to time, but relative or not, it still represents a continuum as Dennis has explained. "Leninist" democratic centralist norms are universally applied and perhaps are at the heart of much of the problem.

It is true that perhaps most groups that human beings form could be said to contain, to one degree or another, aspects of cultism, if by that is meant, among other things hierarchy, unchallengable dogma, autocratic leaders, pecking orders, power contests, bullying, coercion, conformity, the inevitable tendency towards the well-documented phenomena of "group think", etc. I'm not too fixated on one word whose definition, as outlined by Dennis and others, is fairly complex.

But what is essentially true is that these typically dyfunctional human group practices and behaviours, label them how you will, are often replicated in left organisations in even more destructive and constricting ways than they are in other organisations, such as trade unions or workplaces, to name the examples SP and others have given. Well, you can always contradict a trade union leadership as a rank and file member, you can resign from a bullying workplace, call in independent arbitrators, or go elsewhere. But if you are a member of an organisation which says that you can be charged and expelled for merely speaking out in a way contrary to what the group has determined and which furthermore is believed to be the only organisation existing that can bring about the objectives you're striving for, then the psychological pressure to just shut up and conform is so very much greater.

Ironically, the most important thing I learned when I was a member of the DSP, was what I learned as a trade union activist. Sure I also learned in the party lots of good theory, Marxist and feminist, and a bit of history. But for many years I was embroiled in complex struggles as a member and elected shopfloor rep in both industrial and white collar jobs. It was brought home to me time and again, sometimes painfully, mostly thrillingly, that it was the greatest folly to try and analyse any situation or decide on any course of action without the fullest possible input from the experiences, viewpoints and insights of the rank-and-file membership. If I ever forgot that I was soon brought up short by my co-workers and I would be amazed often at how I had under-estimated how far they would sometimes be prepared to go, the depths of their bitterness and cynicism about the system and their insights about how to combat it. Sure sometimes we Bolsheviks were way ahead of where they were prepared to go, but to not respect and take into account their views and desires and adjust our practice and positions accordingly, was and is always completely self-defeating.

In my last years in the DSP I often tried to sneak this unforgettable truism into reports to branch meetings, pre-conference discussion etc and draw the analogy with our practice. But the party leadership always viewed getting the fullest possible input from members about "what is to be done" secondary to the more important job of "party building" and all that entails. At times our pre-conference discussion period, usually for about two months every second year, was actually cut short because paper sales were low and the branch needed just a couple more fund-raisers to meet the year's target.

What would be so wrong and dangerous for an existing tiny "Leninist" organisation, whether the SP or the DSP, to allow members to publish their own broadsheets or journals on online web sites, to open up any party press to articles by members with conflicting views on topical matters or questions of theory? What would it matter if an individual member could argue a different point of view in a public meeting or external campaign group? I suggest that not only would it not matter in the slighest from the point of view of the party's integrity, it would be a blast of democratic fresh air and a gift that would reap who knows what untold benefits. Why won't and don't any of you at least try it?
"Dear friend, all theory is grey, and green is the golden tree of life." Goethe

by Pat C Sun Aug 17, 2003 19:26

"" havent read any of his managerial writings but you are skating on very thin ice here. Would you like to give a list of approved subjects students should study??"I am not talking about Tourish’s managerial writings but his writings attacking the left. "

I dont see Tourishs writing as an attack on the Left per se, rather an attack on freakish and undemocratic practices. You did in fact tryand demonise him because of his job, and you even printed info about his manageriel work.

"Again is your hatred of the CWI blinding you to the broader picture? "

I amquestioning your blind defence of the CWI.The fact that you see that as hatred provides more evidence that you are a cultist.

"Study what ever you want, who am I to suggest what you should do."

You are indeed on thin ice, despite your ateempts to crawl out of it, going by your "logic" then every business organistion teacher, every economics and business administration lecturer is an enemy of the working class.

"Pat, Questions on Throne have been asked and answered. If you are interested in finding out all the ins and outs email him and ask him for all the documents. I also am not surprised that you go on about the alleged failings of the CWI but never question Throne about his activities during these events."

All YOU have to dois tell us why John Throne and the others were not allowed to appealtheir expulsion to the US sections conference or to the CWI World Congress. Thats simple, why not do it?
JT didnt deny anyone their rights during this business, the CWI did.


Your defence of the expulsion of the Pakistan section is also odd. If it was wrong for themto accept money from Swedish Social DEmocrats then how is it ok for the SP to accept money fromthe Irish State? ( Allparties with TDs recieve funding) How is the SPnot compromised by this money???

by xxx Mon Aug 18, 2003 12:57

ccc

by Badman Mon Aug 18, 2003 13:51

I was most certainly not claiming that the Labour party or any other mainstream party is democratic, just that it is _more_ democratic than the Leninist parties. Democracy in organisations, like cultism, is a continuum. Unfortunately political organisations tend to congregate around the very un-democratic end of the continuum.

Your depiction of the Labour party, as being built around the personal fiefdoms of ambitious TDs and councillers, strikes me as an accurate depiction of all the mainstream political parties. I also agree that changes of leadership are invariably the result of personal ambition.

However, by the same token, the Leninist parties are quite clearly the personal fiefdoms of a single leadership clique. Not that the existence of different potential leaders is any great democratic sign, but it's a hell of a lot better than an organisation that can have only one. The ability to shaft the leader to get his job is also hardly that great a democratic credential, but it's a hell of a lot better than an organisation where even this is impossible, so tight is the hold of the leadership on the reins of power.

The existence of such a smorgasbord of little Leninist sects, with programmes and politics that appear identical to all but themselves, is explained by the fact that none of them can tolerate any alternative leadership within their ranks. Every time I see one of the inter-leninist debates about deformed workers states, state capitalism, or how many angels can fit on a pin head, I hear the subtext of their argument as: "I want to be Lenin, you'll all have to follow me... No I'm Lenin, I give the orders..."

Finally, as you know, I was not talking about what you dismiss as 'bourgeois democracy'. I am talking about the ability of the members to control their organisation. The bourgeois parties score very poorly on this front, but they still surpass the Leninists with flying colours. Your organisations are so tightly run that they can tolerate only a single leadership clique, they almost never have any factions, the leader is able to ensure that nobody ever gets into a position to challenge them, and policy is almost always debated and decided at the highest levels of leadership and then handed down to the members to accept.

by john throne - labors militant voice Tue Aug 19, 2003 15:24 loughfinn at aol dot com

In relation to the topic of internal life I used to argue in the CWI, and I still hold this position, that the test of a successful leadership was could it build an organization where the leadership could move on to other work, to where it could be replaced. Meaning by this could the organization have a real collective internal life and a leadership which would lead to new leader ships emerging as a matter of natural course. I used to argue that we should actually be working to replace ourselves, that our ability to do so was the real test of successful organizing. When I would raise this I would be met with tight mouths and shaking heads by other people in the leadership of the organization. I did not realize until much later how different the positions were on this, how different the view of organization. When I proposed that I leave Ireland to do other work and then did so I viewed this as a sign of success. I was pleased that the previous work we had all done made this possible.

The other leaders of the CWI have in the main been hanging on to their positions in their national sections and in some cases trying to be the leadership of the CWI at the same time. Look at Hadden, at Taaffe. I still think that the test of a successful method of organizing and of the role of leadership is can it replace itself,. Not in a crude way, but does the normal functioning of the organization lead to this. Unfortunately most leading groups look to October 1917 and quote the words of Trotsky that Lenin was indispensable in the insurrection, and conclude therefore that every organization needs a Lenin, and the tendency therefore is for them all to be striving to be the Lenin. The tendency is to get into the position where one person is indispensable. This is complete insanity. I think the conclusion instead from this period of 1917 should be that the organization must work for a real collective leadership where it would not be in the position of being dependent on one person without whom all is supposed to be lost.

This striving to be the new Lenin, this false conclusion from history, this mad egoism, this leaves no room for others to develop all rounded experience. It results in the inevitable tendency for the leading people to try and ensure that nobody else replaces them. For me there is no greater pleasure than seeing a new young member take things forward and doing things that have not been done before. But if there is the view point that the organization needs a new Lenin and therefore "I am the new Lenin" then this becomes very threatening indeed. It is not hard to justify holding onto the leading position by referring to 1917 etc. I must not be undermined as I am indispensable.

So one other issue I think Marxism/Trotskyism has to discuss and change its view on, is the conclusion that is drawn that Lenin was indispensable in October 1917 therefore all organizations need a Lenin. This may actually have been true in 1917. It is entirely possible that Lenin was indispensable in October 1917. But if this was the case then this was a sign of very unfortunate circumstances and/or an organizational method of extreme high risk and therefore flawed and one to be avoided. Instead of trying to repeat this situation of 1917 the task is openly to recognize this weakness of the Bolsheviks and to build a real collective widely based leadership with much greater autonomy. We need to keep in mind that the Bolsheviks were built in the underground and mainly unified from the outside through the paper and publications. This in the main is not necessary today. And also think with todays new technology how easy it will be to wipe out the "new Lenins." Just look at the West Bank and Gaza where they identify individuals and send in the rockets.

Along with this issue I would like to ask for help and input on another aspect of organization from the one that we have been discussing so far. I believe that Marxism has drawn certain correct conclusions about society and from these certain guidelines about how it can be changed. I believe that Marxism has developed a way of looking at the world, sorry Comrades, but I believe that this is dialectical materialism. I also believe that it is important that this body of ideas is preserved, enriched, developed and passed on. I remember the excitement I felt when I began to grasp these ideas and conclusions as they corresponded to my experience of the world around me. For this the Comrades who originally laid the basis for the CWI have my thanks. I also believe that there is a skill involved in applying these ideas.

I feel that it is important that the working class gets an opportunity to hear and examine these ideas and test them out in practice. Therefore I believe that an organization based on these ideas is necessary. That is a revolutionary socialist organization. Along with others I have been trying to build one now for three decades. Perhaps this is a proof to some on this thread that I should get into another line of work. However I cannot shake the idea that these ideas and this method if taken up by the working class are what can take society forward. And that organization is necessary if this is to happen. So the question that is posed for me is this:While struggling against the internal life that squeezes the life out of members and is over centralized how at the same time can we have an organization that defends and develops these general ideas and tries to develop the skill of applying them.

I believe that this has to be an organization with a selective membership. That is that people join it based on agreement on the general ideas and their willingness to work to explain and apply and develop them. This general approach would, you would think, make it quite easy for all the revolutionary socialist groups to unite. However as we know this is not the case. I and my Comrades are faced concretely with this situation. And any others who are trying to build a group are faced with the same problem.

Labors Militant Voice has tried to work out some basic fundamentals on which we as a group do not think we can compromise in any steps towards unity or as we build the group in general. There are of course the general ideas. Capitalism cannot be reformed, only the working class acting consciously and independently as a class can end capitalism and build a new world, for the unity and independence of the working class, against all efforts to divide the working class, racism, sexism, etc, and the many major and minor tactical conclusions that flow from these. For example, against popular fronts, opposition in principle to all suggestions that the capitalist system and its states can deal with problems, etc etc.

Again there are many groups that would agree on these. But still there is the problem of the many groups that still cannot unite. Unfortunately I do not think that much major progress can be made on this at the present time. I believe that only under the pressure of a new movement of the working class can this task be taken forward. This is not to say that some progress on this cannot be made at present and I am in favor of attempting to do this. However I believe that the main progress that is possible and the main task we can have some unity on is building an anti capitalist international and anti capitalist united fronts in the areas which confront the capitalist offensive in a direct action fight to win manner.

As well as mobilizing and bringing together and giving structure to the emerging anti capitalist forces this can bring together in action all the more theoretically based groups so they can work together and gain experience in doing so. I believe that the SSP is a move in this direction although I believe that the ISM is not giving enough attention to developing itself and its revolutionary socialist platform within it with all the dangers this poses. I believe the idea of an anti capitalist international is what the working class and rising anti capitalist movement now needs and within this the different groups can work and express themselves. I believe this is what we should all be fighting for. This is the thrust of my open letter to the SP as with their resources they could help take this project forward.

However I am still back to the issue of building the revolutionary socialist group which is not overly centralized and rigid. Particularly here I would like to ask for opinions on how to go about trying to define the boundaries of such a group. Myself and other LMV Comrades are faced with this and many others also I would think are faced with this issue. What would it be necessary for us to agree with and what would it be possible for us to differ on and still unite in one revolutionary theoretically based organization. From our point of view one of the issues we have identified and are sure on is our orientation to the working class. And not just in a general way. But in a real and fully understood fashion. That is that we see the working class as the only force that can change the world, that we attempt to work and build our group in the working class, but also and without this the others are pretty much formal positions without much value, that is that all our ideas and policies and knowledge has to be continually tested and discussed with and exchanged within the working class. That is we conduct a real and genuine dialogue with the working class in the most profound manner.

That is that we are part of the working class in an organic fashion. That we work as part of the working class, that we exchange our views in the workplaces and the diners and the pubs and the bus stops and etc etc and that from every one of these conversations we learn something new. That from every one of these conversations we have learnt something in relation to the ideas we are struggling for. That these conversations excite us and are part of the continual clarification of our ideas. That all our work is continually examined in the context of and with the input of the working class. That we are continually looking at our ideas and work in the context of the opinions and interests of the working class. On this approach we believe that as a group we cannot compromise.

But this leaves a vast area out there where differences on issues, and not just tactical issues, divide us from other revolutionary socialists and what do we say here. Of course it is a concrete question and there is no general answer we can give that can solve this. It is a matter of time and place and forces. Particularly it is a question of a new movement of the working class and the development of a new layer of active politically conscious workers developing as a fighting force within the working class. This will create a new battle ground and put new pressure on the various groups to try and unite. Without such a development then I think that not too much progress will be made. However there is also one general organizational issue that I believe is vital if we are not to continue with the rigid over centralized internal lives which squeeze the life out of the workers who join us. This issue is also related to the task of unifying different forces to the extent that this is possible. I am referring to the method of so called democratic centralism where members can argue for a different position inside their groups but have to put the position of the majority outside.

I believe that it is absolutely vital that this approach is debated and discarded. I also believe that for those who consider themselves in the Bolshevik tradition as far as I can see this was not the tradition of the Bolsheviks in their healthy period of development and rise. From 1918 on the entire development of the organization of the bolsheviks and what came out of the Bolsheviks was determined in the main by the needs of fighting a war against a centralized force of conventional armies, in the context of the destruction of the economy and the working class, the defeats internationally and the rise of stalinism. To model the internal life today on this period is completely insane and wrong.

Why is this so important? I was recently reading some material from another group. They were supporting the Kosova liberation army. I was thinking how could I be in the same organization as that group with it having this position and me having to argue for . I think this group also supported the Taliban as the force "fighting imperialism" etc etc. Yet that group was doing good work in other areas. This is just an example and I hope does not lead to a debate over should we or should we not have supported the Kosova liberation army or the Taliban. The point I am trying to get at is that unity on just about every issue is inevitable and therefore an overly centralized stagnant internal life is inevitable unless members can if they so wish express their differences publicly. And not just individually but as a faction. That members can go on working and building their group while at the same time explaining that there are two or three or whatever positions in the group on this or that issue and they agree with this one and what does the non member think of this.

Without this these organizations will be rigid over centralized groups of people who think alike on just about every detail and within which there will be enormous pressure to keep it this way. Also think what would happen concretely with a different approach. Say there is a difference. And there are a couple of positions. These are discussed and action is decided upon on the basis of the majority and sometimes even on the basis of the minority if this is the least difficult and damaging way of testing the ideas. But the discussion goes on. And this discussion is held with contacts and non members also, that it is held with the working class, it is in the publications and pages and web sites of the group. And these discussions combined with events will help decide which position was correct.

This will have an important effect and not only back inside the group but with the working class periphery. Comrades who were correct will be more attentively listened to in the future. Comrades who were wrong will have this noticed also. The group will be seen by its working class periphery as being open and democratic and responsive and they will therefore be much more inclined to join thus making the organization more diverse. But much more along with that. By removing this ban on discussing differences out side the group and linking it with a change in approach in relation to the idea that one person is indispensable a number of important changes will have been wrought.

As mentioned this will allow for a more diverse membership, activists with a wider range of opinions will feel able to join. People who agree with the organization in general but not with every detail will be much more likely to consider joining if they can express their differences publicly. This will allow for an important change in atmosphere and culture in the organization right away. It will also allow for a more genuine and rich discussion on issues as it will involve the working class periphery of the organization. There will be a dialogue between the different positions in the organization and the working class. This will increase the respect and attraction of the group in the working class as it is seen to be more open and democratic and workers will not have to think if they will be able to accept this ban on talking about differences outside the group if they join. And this approach combined with the understanding that a successful leadership is one that can create an internal culture where the leadership is changing and developing and replacing itself and trying to avoid the danger of being dependent on the one Lenin, these are some concrete conclusions we are coming to in relation to trying to build healthy revolutionary organizations.

Such an approach may sound as if it would paralyze the campaigning and day to day work of the organization. However I think this is not so. If the reasons for this approach is understood by all then there will be a powerful internal culture against using this right to speak openly about disagreements to cripple campaigning work. Those that do so would be quickly seen to be doing so. They would be seen to be exploiting and misusing the democratic rights of all members to disrupt the work of the group. Such activity would not be helpful to such people gaining influence in the group. They would be seen to be exploiting the organizations need to test all its ideas in the working class for their own factional gain and this would tend to weaken their influence.

I believe that these changes in approach and policy are essential if we are to succeed in the process of building a more collective leadership and one that is more fluid and open to ideas and change and development. And to be successful in building an organization that allows workers to live and to breathe, an organization that is an organic part of the working class, an organization that has an internal life that corresponds to the best traditions of the working class democracy and that will be able to be taken up and used by the working class in its fight to change the world. An organization that can still base itself on and defend Marxist theory and practice but not squeeze the life out of these ideas and squeeze the life out of its members and repulse the working class activists and become practically useless in the struggle to end capitalism.

by John Reimann - Labors Militant Voice Wed Aug 20, 2003 01:39 wildcat99 at earthlink dot net

I would like to comment on the points that John Throne makes.

But first, I want to make another point that may be connected: I think that some anti-capitalists have looked at the would be (and self-proclaimed) revolutionary parties of all different stripes and have concluded that the very idea of such a party is wrong. Others have drawn this conclusion based on their experiences in such groups or parties.

I can well understand why they would draw such a conclusion, but I disagree. In fact, I think that the building of such a group or party, if done correctly, is really just the making of an unconscious process conscious.

If you think about it, it's clear that workers differentiate themselves in an unconscious way at work, in the union and in their social lives. In my union (carpenters) hiring hall, for instance, like-minded people tend to sit together. We have the Christians, who sit together and talk about how beautiful Jesus is. We have the guys who go to the horse races and talk horses and which horse to bet on. We also have the guys who are somewhat active in the union and are disgusted with how things are being run. We tend to sit together. We don't talk about the union for the entire time we're in the hall. We might talk about sports, or relationships, or whatever. But almost invariably sometime during the two hours we're sitting down there the issue of the union leadership comes up in some way or another. (And not necessarily when I bring it up!)

On the job it's a similar thing.

Then, the guys who have a similar outlook on things tend to socialize together also. And when a union election or some issue (a contract, for instance) comes up, they may formally organize a caucus to try to push something through or get their group elected. This caucus then may last for some time, years even.

My point is that it is a natural process for workers to "clump" together based on their world outlook. At times of heightened activism, this process is more conscious and more directly related to actually DOING something to affect events.

In a period of extremely heightened political activism, this process becomes even more systematic. I think that the struggle to build a revolutionary, working-class based organization in the main anticipates this process, tries to make it conscious and to clarify it. There's more to it than that, of course, but I think this is the core of it.

One aspect of the problem is that in most cases, the formation of these left groups is done with no base in the working class, no relationship to any group of workers, and really no consideration for any sector of workers. The result is all sorts of flights of fancy and puffed-up pretensions. It shows in the names, for instance. (I remember one little group of four or ten that called itself the "Proletarian Tasks Tendency"!)

I mean, we need a sense of modesty and a recognition of who we actually are and what we really represent.

The other thing is in relation to a point John T. makes about orienting to the working class. I suspect that almost every socialist or communist or whatever named group around would claim that this is what they do. Then, all you have to do is start by looking at what issues they stress.

Here in the US, especially areas like the San Francisco Bay area, we see all these groups taking up the issue of US imperialism very readily. Of course, this is a matter of principle for us to take this up in all its aspects. But what we don't see is these same groups taking up the issues that US workers here at home feel the most. The question of wages and working conditions. The cuts in social services. Privatization of public services and jobs. These issues are almost entirely ignored.

Another issue is language. These groups tend to talk in one of two ways: Either they talk in a very idealistic way - with a lot of talk about "justice" "freedom", etc. To a worker who is struggling to pay the rent, or worrying what will happen if they get sick, this doesn't mean very much. Another thing that many of them do is talk in Marxist rhetoric. This, of course, doesn't mean much either.

In other words, these groups clearly show through these sorts of approaches that no matter what they say, the are NOT orienting towards the working class. When they decide whhich issues to take up, when they think about what they want to say, they think about their fellow leftists and how they would respond, not the person working next to them or the clerk in the grocery store.

I just wanted to add this as far as the points John makes about orientation. Of course, I agree with his points, including the necessity of the leadership to try to replace itself, the necessity for a very open atmosphere, including discussing our internal differences with workers around us and in our written material, etc.

by Irving L. Janis Wed Aug 20, 2003 03:43

In order to test generalisation about the conditions that increase the chances of groupthink, we must operationalise the concept of groupthink by describing the symptoms to which it refers.

Eight main symptoms run through the case studies of historic fiascoes. Each symptom can be identified by a variety of indicators, derived from historical records, observer's accounts of conversations, and participants' memoirs.

The eight symptoms of groupthink are: 1. an illusion of invulnerability, shared by most or all the members, which creates excessive optimism and encourages taking extreme risks; 2. collective efforts to rationalise in order to discount warnings which might lead the members to reconsider their assumptions before they recommit themselves to their past policy decisions; 3. an unquestioned belief in the group's inherent morality, inclining the members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions; 4. stereotyped views of enemy leaders as too evil to warrant genuine attempts to negotiate, or as too weak and stupid to counter whatever risky attempts are made to defeat their purposes; 5. direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, making clear that this type of dissent is contrary to what is expected of all loyal members; 6. self-censorship of deviations from the apparent group consensus, reflecting each member's inclination to minimize to himself the importance of his doubts and counterarguments; 7. a shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgments conforming to the majority view (partly resulting from self-censorship of deviations, augmented by the false assumption that silence means consent); 8. the emergence of self-appointed mindguards - members who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions.

When a policy-making group displays most or all of these symptoms, the members perform their collective tasks ineffectively and are likely to fail to attain their collective objectives. Although concurrence-seeking may contribute to maintaining morale after a defeat and to muddling through a crisis when prospects for a successful outcome look bleak, these positive effects are generally outweighed by the poor quality of the group's decision-making. My assumption is that the more frequently a group displays the symptoms, the worse will be the quality of its decisions. Even when some symptoms are absent, the others may be so pronounced that we can predict all the unfortunate consequences of groupthink.

Psychological functions of the eight symptoms

Concurrence-seeking and the various symptoms of groupthink to which it gives rise can be best understood as a mutual effort among the members of a group to maintain self-esteem, especially when they share responsibility for making vital decisions that pose threats of social disapproval and self-disapproval. The eight symptoms of groupthink form a coherent pattern if viewed in the context of this explanatory hypothesis. The symptoms may function in somewhat different ways to produce the same result.

A shared illusion of invulnerability and shared rationalisations can counteract unnerving feelings of personal inadequacy and pessimism about finding an adequate solution during a crisis. Even during noncrisis periods, whenever the members foresee great gains from taking a socially disapproved or unethical course of action, they seek some way of disregarding the threat of being found out and welcome the optimistic views of the members who argue for the attractive but risky course of action. (4) At such times, as well as during distressing crises, if the threat of failure is salient, the members are likely to convey to each other the attitude that "we needn't worry, everything will go our way." By pooling their intellectual resources to develop rationalisations, the members build up each other's confidence and feel reassured about unfamiliar risks, which, if taken seriously, would be dealt with by applying standard operating procedures to obtain additional information and to carry out careful planning.

The member's firm belief in the inherent morality of their group and their use of undifferentiated negative stereotypes of opponents enable them to minimize decision conflicts between ethical values and expediency, especially when they are inclined to resort to violence. The shared belief that "we are a wise and good group" inclines them to use group concurrence as a major criterion to judge the morality as well as the efficacy of any policy under discussion. "Since our group's objectives are good," the members feel, "any means we decide to use must be good." This shared assumption helps the members avoid feelings of shame or guilt about decisions that may violate their personal code of ethical behavior. Negative stereotypes of the enemy enhance their sense of moral righteousness as well as their pride in the lofty mission of the in-group.

by Robert Young Wed Aug 20, 2003 06:58

A sect is one faction in a split. Psychoanalysis is the explanation of human behaviour according to unconscious motivation. The psychoanalysis of sectarianism is, therefore, the analysis of splits in unconscious terms. As it happens, the tendency within psychoanalysis which makes it its special concern to illuminate the deepest levels of the unconscious considers splitting and projection to be quite fundamental aspects of our humanity. Indeed, as I shall say in more technical language anon, this process, termed projective identification, was called by Melanie Klein ‘the prototype of an aggressive object-relation’ (Klein, 1946, p. 8).

This brings me to my first conclusion. Sectarianism is not, by nature, appalling. It is intrinsic to our humanity. Indeed, I shall argue that one becomes a member of a group by means of adopting its projective identifications. Groups define themselves significantly in terms of the Others with respect to whom they are in aggressive relationships. Mary Douglas’ classic, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (1966), comes to mind, in which she takes an anthropological look at the abominations of Leviticus, the complex and arcane dietary laws of the Old Testament Israelites.

They were not designed, as some believe, for the sensible dietary reasons that one could get trichinosis from pork and food poisoning from shellfish or ill from certain mixtures involving dairy products in a hot climate. They are full of intricacies and inconsistencies, with no apparent logic except the kind of complexity which makes it extremely unlikely that the gentiles can figure them out. The point of the dietary laws is to keep goyim out. I can tell you from personal experience that a gentile will always get it wrong sooner or later. As my erstwhile father-in-law once said to me, ‘That’s the point - the object of the exercise. You’ll never be one of us, no matter how hard you try’.

I think sectarianism is part of the wider tendency to gain identity by difference. This process occurs at a very primitive level in the inner world and has benign and virulent forms. I cannot remember when I did not know that Catholics, Jews, and to a lesser extent Baptists and Methodists, were bad news, though one could openly discriminate only against the Catholics. Blacks were inferior and the object of structural discrimination, while Mexicans were not even allowed to live in one’s servant quarters. They lived in a ghetto called ‘Little Mexico’. There was also a black ghetto then called (I apologise for these terms) ‘Niggertown’, but a maid and sometimes her family could live in a one-room space in the back yard, attached to the garage of a white family, usually without hot water or a bathtub.

These arrangements were learned and taken in as part of the order of things before one had names for them. Germans and Japanese were worse (I was born in 1935); they were diabolical and could be deprived of their property and civil rights, placed in camps and imprisoned, but this turned out to be temporary. They soon became esteemed customers again, though never ‘good people’ or ‘one of us’. There were other sorts of people who had no real location in what we took in as the natural classification of the social reality.

One knew they existed, but their status was never defined. I am thinking of Chinese people, Arabs, (East) Indians. American Indians or Native Americans had no existence outside movies. Latin Americans were chimeras. They were very like Mexicans - spoke like them, for example - but were also esteemed customers. I found this confusing. On a more local scale, all people - especially people of one’s own age who did not live in the same suburb - were inferior, unless they lived in a similar suburb of another city. People whom one met as supporters of the sports teams of other towns, cities or parts of cities were enemies in one sense but probably people of potential dignity in other senses. This is, after all, the point of the sublimation of aggression which we call sport..

The place where I took in these things - was socialised into them as a member of any tribe is socialised into tribal identity and its belief system - was the suburb of Dallas depicted in the television series starring JR, the local prototype for whom was a near-contemporary of mine and whose house I visited on occasion. I am sure that the psychosocial processes were the same as those operating in Belfast and Sarajevo, give or take an occupying army and armed paramilitarys whose use of terror greatly accelerates the learning process to the point that the learning theorist might call ‘one-trial learning’. ‘Learning’ is in some sense a relevant term but only in the most abstract, unemotive and insensitive sense. The process is more tacit, more visceral; introjection, acculturation and indoctrination get nearer to it. And, of course, I did not really hate any of the groups I have mentioned.

Although I say I did not hate them, I also say that web of forms of racism I took in as a boy are still deeply embedded in my mind, no matter how much I have overlaid them with different beliefs and decent behaviour. As a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (var. Presbyterian), I certainly had varying degrees of contempt for those peoples and would have killed Japanese, Germans or North Koreans if I had been just a little older, only a few months older in the case of the Koreans. If I have been a few years younger, I would have been very likely to have been sent to kill Vietnamese.

For what? Benedict Anderson shows conclusively in his succinct masterpiece, Imagined Communities (1983), that the groups for whom we kill and are killed have no natural basis. I most cases they did not exist a century and a half ago. In many cases they were truly arbitrarily imposed by colonial powers or by people who draw boundaries for a living, on behalf of resolutions of conflicts which led to bizarre borders. In one sense, the origins of these communities often make no historical or linguistic sense. In another sense, history is all, and this is certainly true of Northern Ireland. Let me say now, even though it will become abundantly clear in any case, that I am in no sense a specialist on sectarianism in Northern Ireland.

I suppose I can claim to have read about and followed the troubles more than most interested outsiders - partly for reasons of ancestry, partly for political reasons, partly because my preoccupation is the intersection of ideas about human nature and the historicity of our humanity.

The fact that I am not a close student of this conflict comes up against an important point in my argument. It is this. Psychoanalysis is a universalising theory about human uniqueness. It is not a lot of use when extrapolated to social and cultural levels, and its practitioners, beginning with Freud, have a terrible record of speaking ex cathedra and in reductionist terms about historical events without doing their homework.

I am thinking, for example, of Freud’s Totem and Taboo (1912-13) and his Civilization and Its Discontents (1930), which claim to describe the actual historical origin of civilisation when the brothers banded together to kill the polymorphously perverse, rapacious patriarch and erect the incest taboo, the basis for all other taboos, for law and for civilisation. I am also thinking of some of the embarrassing excesses of psychohistory and psychobiography, the former of which treats historical periods like bits of individual development, while psychobiography tends to read off historical movements, such as the Reformation, from the (largely imputed) story of someone’s unconscious, for example, Luther (Erikson, 1958). I am not saying that psychological accounts of historical movements and individuals cannot, in principle, be done well. In fact, I have the greatest admiration for Victor Wolfenstein’s account of the Black Muslims in his biography of Malcolm X (1981). Wolfenstein did his homework but is very unusual in being a professor of history and having a proper training as a psychoanalyst. I know a small number of people similarly qualified, but not many.

And yet, in spite of these caveats, I do believe that some things can be said by a non-specialist about sectarianism which may be of interest with respect to Northern Ireland. Even so - and this is my point for now - it is of the essence of certain psychoanalytically-related explanations that they only make sense when harnessed to the precise historical, cultural and economic contingencies of particular people in particular places at particular times. There are things to be said in general about human nature, things that go beyond asserting that human nature is an ensemble of social relations. But the mechanisms which constitute racism, virulent nationalism and sectarianism have, as part of their definitions, particularising features.

These mechanisms are splitting, projective identification, stereotyping and scapegoating. I will speak about each of these, but please note at the outset that stereotyping assumes that there is an identifiable group to scapegoat, and you can only do that inside the particularities of history. Psychoanalysts who universalise from psychoanalysis to historical phenomena - as they have recently done in London with respect to nuclear war and the Gulf War - are being omnipotent and inhabiting the paranoid-schizoid position (of which more anon), even though they are perhaps also trying to break out of the blinkered ahistorical professionalism which has characterised all but a few people writing in the field, e.g., Wilhelm Reich, Otto Fenichel, Herbert Marcuse, Russell Jacoby, Joel Kovel, Victor Wolfenstein, Paul Hoggett, Paul Gordon.

Ask me what comes to mind when I think of Northern Ireland, and two images emerge. The first is the parades of the Orange Orders. They look so odd that they must be about something important, like the anachronistic clothes worn by priests and nuns, by the Amish and Mennonites and by public schoolboys from Eton and Christ’s Hospital. There is something about these attires which I can only call brazen. I don’t think I am alone in finding some of them provacative. I suppose people in the Orange Orders dress up and march in those traditional, garrish uniforms and bang their drums so loudly because the Battle of the Boyne is that important, that memorable, that central to Protestant identity, so they want to proclaim it. Of course, it is so. It commemorates the foundation stone of Protestant hegemony.

As every schoolchild knows, the efforts of James II to re-Catholocise England led the supporters of Anglicanism to invite William and Mary to the throne, and they brought their army with them. This led to the Glorious Revolution, the curbing of royal prerogatives and the regular meeting of Parliament. James, aided by Louis XIV, led a revolt in Ireland but was defeated in 1690 at the Battle of Boyne. (It is ironic that the Pope was so keen to avoid Louis XIV having more power that he opposed the revolt and was very relieved when it failed.) This battle laid the foundations of effective British control of Ireland. In the same century the British quite deliberately indulged in plantation of Scottish and English settlers in the six counties, giving the area a Protestant character in contrast to the rest of the island.

Let us not forget that under British rule nearly a million (some accounts say more) died of starvation and disease in 1845-49, for what Cecil Woodham Smith rightly calls a principle: ‘the economic doctrine of laissez-faire, no interference by government, no meddling with the operation of natural causes. Adherence to laissez-faire was carried to such a length that in the midst of one of the major famines in history, the government was perpetually nervous of being too good to Ireland and of corrupting the Irish people by kindness, and so stifling the virtues of self reliance and industry’ (Woodham Smith, 1962, p. 408). In those same years grain and other foodstuffs were being exported in quantities which could easily have fed the hungry.

It is important to recall that Adam Smith’s doctrine of laissez-faire was seen as the will of God, as was the necessity to allow the Malthusian Law of Population to operate, lest population growth catastrophically outstrip food supply. What prevented this, as the natural theologians and political economists saw it, was what one quaintly called ‘the thinnings’ of God’s garden, otherwise known as poverty, hunger, starvation, famine, pestilence, war and death - the consequences of God-given natural laws. Charity was a mistake, against the Divine Order, and would yield to worse consequences. There are, of course, other names for this: inhuman tyrannical domination according to quite deliberate political decisions to keep another people under control: colonialism and imperialism. ‘In addition,’ Woodham Smith continues, ‘hearts were hardened by the antagonism then felt by the English towards the Irish, an antagonism rooted far back in religious and political history...’ (p. 408). It was in this context and period that the celebrated writer and wit Sydney Smith wrote, ‘The moment the very name of Ireland is mentioned, the English seem to bid adieu to common feeling, common prudence and common sense, and to act with the barbarity of tyrants and the fatuity of idiots’ (quoted in Woodham Smith, 1962, p. 409).

In addition to those who perished, another 1,600,000 emigrated to the United States between 1847 and 1854. They carried with them the bitterness and tradition of violent protest which led to the creation of the Molly Maguires, an Irish secret society operating in another immiserated and explioted community, the Pennsylvania anthracite coalfields in the 1860s and 1870s. The villain was the Reading Railroad, and the troops were detectives from the Pinkerton Agency, whom the miners experienced as a private army. This conflict led to twenty hangings (Broehl, 1964).

Looking at the overall conflict another way and making due allowance for expected population growth in Ireland, there were at least two and a half million less Irish people in 1851 than there would have been if the rate of population growth prevailing in 1841 had continued. I think the term genocide is no less relevant here than it was in the American context as applied to the Native Americans and to blacks.

The overall picture is of Ireland as a client state, with Ulster as its quintessence, before and after Home Rule came in 1920. The establishment of the Irish Free State in 1922 included an ongoing constitutional claim to the six counties which is now, of course, on the bargaining table. The continued protest of the Catholic minority in Ulster led, in 1969 to the British sending in troops, ostensibly to protect he minority but arguably to preserve the status quo. This was followed by suspension of the Ulster Parliament in 1972 and direct rule in 1973. There ensued the litany of Bloody Sunday, Enniskillen and the rest.

The second image, therefore, that comes to my mind is the killing and maiming of civilians, non-combatants. I do not know how to characterise them except as (relatively speaking) innocents. I suppose that people whom I will deliberately call innocent are killed because a point has been reached so that hatred goes beyond even the most leganistic doctrine of retribution - the law of talion: ‘An eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth’. It is important to note that the law of talion was meant to convey that one should not wreak retribution beyond what was done to the sufferer - no more than an eye for an eye, etc.

Even the ethics of the Old Testament - before charity and forgiveness became the essence of Christianity, as expressed in the New Testament to which all believers are supposed to adhere - is not enough to assuage the bitterness of this conflict.

Mentioning Christianity brings me to a point of particular poignancy. One of the roots of this conflict - the unity from which the sects divided - is, of course, the message of Christ. I have been struck by how much death has been dealt in the name of religion, especially a religion based on forgiveness. This is true throughout history but amazingly so in some of its most memorable activities - the Crusades, the Inquisition. But most remarkably of all it was done in the name of Christianising in the New World. With what effect? Twelve million prospective converts died in the first forty years of the Columbian era, followed by an estimated two hundred million in the slave trade, which ended with the American Civil War, which of all wars in history led to the deaths of the largest proportion of the populations on the respective sides, and this in the midst of a period when the native Americans were killed or put in reservations, a forerunner of concentration camps.

This brings us to the present when blacks and Native Americans have worse chances of surviving to a ripe old age than Bangladeshis, etc. All this was perpetrated by people who claimed to have a civilising, Christianising mission, to introduce people called ‘savages’ to the ‘Prince of Peace’.

I want to bring my two images together and say that the history I sketched and the quaint clothes and violent drumbeats of the bands of the Orange Orders mean that it is a travesty to say that sectarianism in Northern Ireland is one of ‘on the one hand and on the other’. I hate the killing. I think that the IRA are now so weak and desperate that what they are now doing is following a hopeless strategy, designed to make us so weary that we take the occupying army away and leave them to it. (I should acknowledge that I have been told I am mistaken about their putative weakness.) But that does not lead me to say that one side is as bad as the other. I don’t think the IRA hate ‘the Prots’ as a tribe in the way the Protestants hate the Catholics. I also do not think the minority population unite around Catholicism the way the majority do around their religion. So the situation is, in my opinion, only superficially symmetrical. Please do not hear this as claiming that the killing one group does is less morally reprehensible than what the other does.

I only want to stress that the history and larger structure make the indigenous Irish the long-term victims of oppression. The two sides in the conflict didn’t start out on equal terms and are not fighting each other with mirror image conceptions of one another. One group was and is historically aggrieved and remains so, while the other is heir to an occupying force, protected by another one and struts its stuff in those parades. I say again that this perspective is not designed to condone any killings - only to say that when innocents get killed by the crude and sometimes inept bombers of the IRA, the framework is not the same as when Catholics are killed merely because they are Catholics.

I said some time ago that historical contingency is important. That’s why I have gone into these facts. I now want to revert to psychoanalysis and talk about human nature and the psychodynamics of sectarianism. First, I want to get very technical, indeed, and describe the primitive origins of projective identification. In her classical paper, ‘Notes on Some Schizoid Mechanisms’ (1946), Klein concludes seven pages on the fine texture of early paranoid and schizoid mechanisms as follows: 'So far, in dealing with persecutory fear, I have singled out the oral element. However, while the oral libido still has the lead, libidinal and aggressive impulses and phantasies from other sources come to the fore and lead to a confluence or oral, urethral and anal desires, both libidinal and aggressive. Also the attacks on the mother's breast develop into attacks of a similar nature on her body, which comes to be felt as it were as an extension of the breast, even before the mother is conceived of as a complete person. The phantasied onslaughts on the mother follow two main lines: one is the predominantly oral impulse to suck dry, bite up, scoop out and rob the mother's body of its good contents... The other line of attack derives from the anal and urethral impulses and implies expelling dangerous substances (excrements) out of the self and into the mother. Together with these harmful excrements, expelled in hatred, split-off parts of the ego are also projected onto the mother or, as I would rather call it, into the mother. [Klein adds a footnote at this crucial point, to the effect that she is describing primitive, pre-verbal processes and that projecting 'into another person' seems to her 'the only way of conveying the unconscious process I am trying to describe'. Much misunderstanding and lampooning of Kleinianism could have been avoided if this point was more widely understood.] These excrements and bad parts of the self are meant not only to injure but also to control and to take possession of the object. In so far as the mother comes to contain the bad parts of the self, she is not felt to be a separate individual but is felt to be the bad self.

'Much of the hatred against parts of the self is now directed towards the mother. This leads to a particular form of identification which establishes the prototype of an aggressive object-relation' (Klein, 1946, pp. 7-8). Note carefully that we have here the model - the template, the fundamental experience - of all of the aggressive features of human relations. Six years later Klein adds the following sentence: 'I suggest for these processes the term "projective identification"' (ibid.).

She goes on to say that if the infant's impulse is to harm, the mother is experienced as persecuting, that in psychotic disorders the identification of the object with hated parts of the self 'contributes to the intensity of the hatred directed against other people', that this process weakens the ego, that good parts are also projected and that 'The processes of splitting off parts of the self and projecting them into objects are thus of vital importance for normal development as well as for normal object-relations' (pp. 8-9). In the course of all this, Klein makes it quite clear that the very same processes involve 'anxieties characteristic of psychosis' (p. 2). I am relating these matters in the way that I am in order to make it apparent that the very same mechanisms are at work in a wide range of internal processes, some benign, some virulent.

Projective identification involves splitting off a part of the self and putting it into another. The moment of identification occurs when the unconscious communication evokes in the other the projected response. That response is in one sense put into the other; in another sense it has to be in the repetoire of possible unconscious feelings for it to be evoked. In the psychotherapist this is experienced is countertransference and is the basis of interpretation. In sectarianism, racism and virulent nationalism, what is evoked in a reprojection, so that the Other to some extent lives up or down to the imputed level and retaliates.

The mechanism of projective identification impoverishes the projector, controls the Object to some extent and in the sorts of exchanges being considered here, creates a macabre symbiosis from which it is very difficult to disengage. In others - between mother and baby, pop star and fan, or between lovers - it can have more charming and admirable effects.

One consequence of the importance of the concept of projective identification in the deepest recesses of human nature, in my opinion, is that it begs all the important questions to say that the bombers and killers are psychopaths - a disorder in which the individual has no - or an infantile and brittle - conscience (Cleckley, 1941; Lindner, 1944; Meloy, 1988). As I’ll say more elaborately below, I don’t think there are that many psychopaths around in Northern Ireland, any more than there are enough in England or elsewhere to account for the number of people in the prisons who are labelled with this term. The killers are criminals and are certainly behaving psychopathically, but these alleged psychopaths are made by history just as surely as most of the recidivists in prison are made by class.

The other two mechanisms involved in sectarianism are not so esoteric or even particularly psychoanalytic. Stereotyping is lumping people together in ways which deny their individuality and usually their worth as subjects, not objects. There is often a feature or set of recognisable features, but this is not always so. There is a group of Japanese leather workers who are stereotyped and considered beneath contempt yet are indistinguishable from the rest of the population.

The Indian caste system includes some designations of this kind, thought most - as in most of the world - involve shades of differentiation. Treating all Jews or Irish or Ulster or Welsh or Scots or Australians as the same as Fagin, Mary O’Hara, Dr Paisley, Dylan Thomas, Billy Connelly or Crocodile Dundee is easy and sometimes funny but finally denigrating, which is obvious when the context is the Holocaust in Hitler Germany or ethnic cleansing in former Jugoslavia or Apartheid in South Africa.

Scapegoating is really not a separate mechanism. It is just a way of emphasising that in sectarianism, racism and virulent nationalism the form the projective identification takes is to denigrate the Other and use him or her as a toilet for getting rid of unwanted aspects of the self. Indians are savages, so we can slaughter them. IRA bombers are no better than animals, so let’s have a shoot to kill policy. Black women are sex-obsessed so we can rape them. Black men have larger penises, so they are a threat to our fair white women, so we had better lynch one of them from time to time to keep them in their place. (There were over five thousand incidents of lynching in the post-Civil War period in America, and this practice continued until well into the present century.) Vietnamese are little devils, so we can ‘bomb them back into the Stone Age’ and poison their gene pool, perhaps for all time.

Put these four together - splitting, projective identification, stereotyping and scapegoating, and you get sectarianism and the other virulent phenomena I have mentioned.

But that is not all we have to explain. The most serious question is why these things get acted out. What happens to the veneer of civilisation? Before attempting to answer this, I want to go back to Klein, because I want to make it even clearer that sectarians are not monsters. They are ordinary people decivilised by historical contingencies.

In this, the best psychoanalytic and the best historical writers agree. Klein makes it abundantly clear that we all harbour murderous impulses from our earliest relationship with our mothers. We continue to have an unconscious phantasy life which is filled with monstrous and otherwise outrageous thoughts, which we glimpse in our dreams and occasionally in our impulses.

As child psychotherapists have shown in the technique of play therapy, children have greater direct access to these impulses. Klein and her co-workers have helped us to see that the contents of unconscious phantasies are truly horrid at least as much as they are idyllic.

In my opinion, Hannah Arendt (1965) has been the most eloquent of those who have shown that people perceived as truly evil by those who have suffered under their actions, are not in themselves monsters but people from whom historical and group processes have stripped away the inhibitions from acing out ubiquitous primitive impulses on which civility depends.

This is the sobering outcome of her profound study into the character and circumstances of Adolf Eichmann, but the same conclusions can be found in many perceptive biographies, for example, those of Franco, Charles Manson, the Rev. Jones, Hitler, Stalin.

Recalling what I said about the incest taboo, people who have so much power that no one can gainsay their wishes and who are above the law, often revert to the rapacious polymorphous perversity which characterised Freud’s original patriarch. It has recently become clear that Brezhnev began the day with a bevy of young girls, one of whom had the job of giving him a blow job, while Mao liked to have four in bed with him and Ceausescu grabbed any young woman he wanted, and the heir apparent to the headship of state in North Korea is utterly preoccupied with pornography. A gargantual sexual appetite was a feature of the Bhagwan, while David Koresh, the leader of the Branch Davidians in Waco, had a harem and was the only person in the compound who was allowed to sire a child. Similar stories have been fictionalised in films like ‘Prime Cut’, where orphans were hand-reared to be sex slaves, and ‘Chinatown’, where the patriarch could sire a child by his daughter and have her for himself in spite of all Jack Nicholson could do.

While those things can be said of the fragility of the incest taboo, something equally distressing is true of conquering and occupying armies. I am sorry to say that there is an embarrassment of examples of this from which to choose. In the new biography of General Franco we are told that when he visited an outpost in North Africa, the way his soldiers showed that things were under control was to mount the head of a native tribesman on the bayonet of every soldier waiting to be inspected by the General. The example of this kind of barbarity which I have found most striking and affecting is an account of the behaviour of the Conquistadors in the New World in the period after 1492. The carnage which ensued in the Columbian era was chronicled by a contemporary observer, Bartolomé de Las Casas (1552), who observed that the Indians 'had a greater disposition towards civility than the European people', yet it was 'upon such people that the Spaniards fell as tigers, wolves and lions fall upon lambs and kids.

Forty years they ranged those lands, massacring the wretched Indians until in the land of Espanola, which in 1492 had a population estimated at three millions of people, scarcely three hundred Indians remained to be counted. The history of Espanola is the history of Cuba, San Juan [Puerto Rico], and Jamaica. Thirty islands in the neighbourhood of San Juan were entirely depopulated. On the side of the continent, kingdom after kingdom was desolated, tribe after tribe exterminated. Twelve millions of Indians in those continental lands perished under the barbarous handling of the Spaniards. Their property was no more secure than their lives. For greed of gold, ornaments were torn from neck and ear, and as the masked burglar threatens his victim until he reveals the hiding-place of this store, the Indians were subjected to the most cruel tortures to compel the disclosure of mines which never existed and the location of gold in streams and fields in which the Almighty has never planted it. Obedience secured no better treatment than sullenness, faithful service no better reward than that which followed treachery. The meanest Spaniard might violate the family of the most exalted chief, and home had no sanctity in the bestial eyes of the soldier. The courtiers rode proudly through the streets of the New Isabella, their horses terrifying the poor Indians while their riders shook their plumed heads and waved their glistening swords. As they rode along, their lances were passed into women and children, and no greater pastime was practised by them then wagering as to a cavalier's ability to completely cleave a man with one dextrous blow of his sword. A score would fall before one would drop in the divided parts essential to winning the wager. No card or dice afforded equal sport. Another knight from Spain must sever his victim's head from the shoulder at the first sweep of his sword. Fortunes were lost on the ability of a swordsman to run an Indian through the body at a designated spot. Children were snatched from their mother's arms and dashed against the rocks as they passed. Other children they threw into the water that the mothers might witness their drowning struggles. Babes were snatched from their mothers' breasts, and a brave Spaniard's strength was tested by his ability to tear an infant into two pieces by pulling apart its tiny legs. And the pieces of the babe were then given to the hounds that in their hunting they might be the more eager to catch their prey. The pedigree of a Spanish bloodhound had nothing prouder in its record than the credit of half a thousand dead or mangled Indians. Some natives they hung on gibbets, and it was their reverential custom to gather at a time sufficient victims to hang thirteen in a row, and thus piously to commemorate Christ and the Twelve Apostles. Moloch must have been in the skies... I have been an eye-witness of all these cruelties, and an infinite number of others which I pass over in silence' (quoted in Carew, 1988a, pp. 48-9).

The point I am illustrating with these distressing historical examples and anecdotes is that aggressive and destructive impulses are ubiquitous. They form an integral part of human nature, just as surely as generous, creative and loving impulses do. The question is what lets people act on the negative side of human nature. Freud’s answer lay in group psychology (1921) - the process whereby one surrenders one’s conscience to a leader or a cause, is relieved of individual responsibility and is then available - in a sense free - to torture, maim and kill for an ideal. In these circumstances, people become brutalised and act out horrid impulses which would be there but not acted upon in other circumstances. Otherwise, how can we explain all those German concentration camp and Japanese prison camp guards, all those conquistadors, all those Indian fighters, soldiers, Turks, Mongols, Muslims, torturers for the Spanish Inquisition, General Pinochet and the Argentinian generals, Serbs, Croats, American soldiers at Me Lai, Columbian drug barons, drug dealers in America, gang members in Los Angeles and New York, murderers of children in Brazil, murderers of Marsh Arabs, members of the UDA, UVF, and IRA? There are just not that many monsters in the world.

I am having to go on about this, once again, because it is so tempting to diabolise or diagnose as psychopaths all those sectarian murderers in Northern Ireland. My friend Arthur Hyatt Williams has devoted his life to studying the inner worlds of murderers and serial killers, and he has concluded that they are often, even usually, ‘nice chaps’ who have had experiences and been placed in circumstances which elicited and/or released murderous impulses. The problem is not the impulse. We have to face the fact that this is ubiquitous. The problem is the disinhibition. Group psychology takes the conscience away, while projective inhibition evokes the destructive behaviour.

Projective identification is characteristic of the thinking Klein describes as one of the two emotional positions which is basic to human nature: the paranoid-schizoid position. It involves splitting, experiencing others not as whole human beings but as alien, hostile, part-objects. ‘As a brief summary: in the paranoid-schizoid position anxieties of a primitive nature threaten the immature ego and lead to a mobilisation of primitive defences. Splitting, idealisation and projective identification operate to create rudimentary structures made up of idealised good objects kept far apart from persecuting bad ones. The individual’s own impulses are similarly split and he directs all his love towards the good object and all his hatred against the bad one. As a consequence of the projection, the leading anxiety is paranoid, and the preoccupation is with survival of the self. Thinking is concrete because of the confusion between self and object which is one of the consequences of projective identification (Segal, 1957)’ (Steiner, 1988, p. 325).

Klein’s other basic emotional position is called rather infelicitously, since it represents the best we get, the depressive position. ‘The depressive position represents an important developmental advance in which whole objects begin to be recognised and ambivalent impulses become directed towards the primary object. These changes result from an increased capacity to integrate experiences and lead to a shift in primary concern from the survival of the self to a concern for the object upon which the individual depends. Destructive impulses lead to feelings of loss and guilt which can be more fully experienced and which consequently enable mourning to take place.

The consequences include a development of symbolic function and the emergence of reparative capacities which become possible when thinking no longer has to remain concrete’ (ibid.). I believe that it is difficult to function as a sectarian or a racist or virulent nationalist in the depressive position, because one can experience the Other as a subject, not an object or devil or subhuman or life-threatening.

One gets from the paranoid-schizoid to the depressive position by wholesome development, by psychoanalysis or by alteration of group, social, cultural and historical forces so that one has the mental space to think in ways which are other than replete with splits and persecution and part-objects. We are always moving back and forth between these two emotional postures, but sectarians spend least time in the depressive position, while decent folks who are not living in a deprived, attacked and attacking environment spend much more. The conclusion I draw about sectarianism is that all people everywhere become members of groups by being socialised into their projective identifications.

They are deeply held, deeply sedimented, stubbornly adhered to - attached, as it were, by superglue. In a peaceful world this can be the basis for jolly loyalties and relatively harmless competition. In the world we live in, the chance of being a killer or a victim is not great in many places, but in others it is, and that is not going to change unless the political and economic contexts change. As things begin to shift, peace marches emerge and attract ever more people. We can illuminate the psychological, group and institutional mechanisms involved in these settings, but we do history and decency no favour by failing to integrate our notions of individual psychopathology with the historical contingencies which lead them to take the forms they do.

Sectarians are made, not found. They are not a natural kind.; that’s fairly obvious. The extreme, virulent version of projective identification which evokes terrorism is also historically contingent, and this means that the terrorist is also made, not found. This is not so obvious, but psychoanalysis and the study of group relations can make it more so.

I suppose you may be feeling that this essay is a damp squib. I have told you that sectarians are sectarian, that they are driven by unconscious forces, that people often behave badly in groups and that this is part of human nature, requiring a more benign context and the sanctions of conscience and law to keep in check.

Hunger and exploitation and being shot at make people nasty. But that’s the point about truisms, isn’t it? They tell you things you already knew but may have temporarily forgotten. I will add one point. The bases of morality are not to be found in interpretation, even the most powerful interpretive instrument I know - psychoanalysis.

Psychoanalysis does not generate morality; it helps us to get into a frame of mind in which we may have a better chance to be moral. As Bion put it - to think under fire is very hard, indeed. Similarly, psychoanalytic renderings of public phenomena like sectarianism do not tell the whole story, only a part. The rest, I say again, is history, morality and the vicissitudes of civilisation. Freud taught us that the veneer of civilisation is thin and under constant threat. Klein taught us that psychotic anxieties are normal, as are splitting and projective identification. Bion (1961), Jaques (1955) and Menzies Lyth (1959) taught us that groups will inevitably evoke psychotic anxieties and behave in mad and bad ways in a desperate attempt to make life bearable.

I want to add something from my clinical practice. For reasons of discretion I shall have to be rather abstract. I have seen at the closest quarters what sectarianism and vigilantism do to the human spirit - to self-esteem, to the ability to form and sustain relationships, to the ability to function sexually, to the ability to take satisfaction from work and leisure, to the ability to trust and believe that the future can sustain hope. To be on either end of virulent projective identification impoverishes the human spirit to a degree that makes life hardly worth living. History creates the constraints, but the most vulnerable parts of our infantile, dependent, creative and loving selves bear the scars.

I am not saying that evil is unimportant, only that it is ordinary, or as Arendt describes it, ‘the fearsome, word-and-thought-defying banality of evil’’ (Arendt, 1965, p. 252).


This is the text of a talk given to The British Psychological Society, Psychotherapy Section, Scientific Meeting on ‘Impasse in Political Conflict’ London, 20 November 1993. It has been published in The British Psycxhological Society, Psychotherapy Section Newsletter no. 15, 1994, pp. 2-15.



REFERENCES

(Place of Publication is London unless otherwise specified.)

Anderson, Benedict (1983) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Verso.
Arendt, Hannah (1965) Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, (1963) revised and enlarged ed. N.Y.: Viking Penguin; reprinted Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1977.
Bion, Wilfred R (1961) Experiences in Groups and Other Essays. Tavistock.
Broehl, Wayne G., Jr. (1964) The Molly Maguires. Harvard; reprinted Vintage/Chelsea House, 1968.
Carew, J. (1988) 'Columbus and the origins of racism in the Americas: part one', Race & Class 29(4): 1-20.
______ (1988a) 'Columbus and the origins of racism in the Americas: part two' Ibid. 30(1): 33-59.
Cleckley, Hervey (1941) The Mask of Sanity, 4th edition. St. Louis: Mosby, 1964.
Douglas, Mary (1966) Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo ; reprinted Penguin, 1970.
Eriksoin, Eric (1958) Young Man Luther. Faber & Faber.
Freud, Sigmund (1953-73) The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, 24 vols. Hogarth (S. E.).
______ (1912-13) Totem and Taboo. S. E. 13, pp. 1-161..
______ (1921) Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego. S. E. 18, pp. 67-143.
______ (1930) Civilization and Its Discontents. S. E. 21, pp. 59-145.
Jaques, E. (1955) 'Social Systems as a Defence against Persecutory and Depressive Anxiety', in Klein et al., eds., New Directions in Psycho-Analysis: The Significance of InfAnt Conflict in the Pattern of Adult Behaviour. Tavistock; reprinted Maresfield, pp. 478-98.
Klein, Melanie (1946) ‘Notes on Some Schizoid Mechanisms’, in Envy and Gratitude and Other Works 1946-1963. Hogarth; reprinted Virago, 1988, pp. 1-24.
Las Casas B. de (1552) The Devastation of the Indes: A Brief Account. Johns Hopkins, 1992.
Lindner, Robert (1944) Rebel without a Cause: The Hypnoanalysis of a Criminal Psychopath. N. Y.: Grune and Stratton.
Lyth, Isabel Menzies (1959) 'The Functions of Social Systems as a Defence Against Anxiety: A Report on a Study of the Nursing Service of a General Hospital', Human Relations 13:95-121; reprinted in Containing Anxiety in Institutions: Selected Essays, vol. 1. Free Association Books, pp. 43-88.
Meloy, J. Reid (1988) The Psychopathic Mind: Origins, Dynamics, and Treatment. Aronson.
Segal, Hanna (1957) ‘Notes on Symbol Formation’, Int. J. Psycho-Anal. 38:391-7; reprinted in The Work of Hanna Segal: A Kleinian Approach to Clinical Practice. Aronson, 1981; reprinted Free Association Books/ Maresfield Library, 1986, pp. 49-65.
Steiner, J. (1988) ‘The Interplay between Pathological Organizations and the Paranoid-Schizoid and `Depressive Positions’, in E. B. Spillius, ed., Melanie Klein Today. Routledge, vol. 1, pp. 324-42.
Woodham Smith, Cecil (1962) The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-9. Hamish Hamilton; reprinted New English Library, 1970.
Wolfenstein, E. V. (1977) 'Race, Racism and Racial Liberation', Western Pol. Quart. 30: 163-82.
______(1981) The Victims of Democracy: Malcolm X and the Black Revolution. California; reprinted Free Association Books, 1989.
Young, Robert M. (1987) 'Racist Society, Racist Science', in D. Gill and L. Levidow, eds., Anti-Racist Science Teaching. Free Association Books, pp. 16-42; reprinted in D. Gill et al., eds., Racism and Education: Structures and Strategies . Sage, 1992, pp. 303-19.
______ (1993) ‘Racism: Projective Identification and Cultural Processes’, paper presented to Sixth Annual Conference on Psychoanalysis and the Public Sphere, University of East London, and to Birkbeck College, London, Course on Racism.
______ (1994) Mental Space. Process Press, esp chs 5 and 9.

Address for correspondence: 26 Freegrove Road, London N79RQ
email: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk

by archivist Wed Aug 20, 2003 20:50

I ran across this contribution from Roger Silverman, written a couple of years ago, and although I wouldn't agree with all of it or where he is coming from it struck me as also offering a useful insight into much of this discussion.

What is happening to the CWI?
Roger Silverman

There has been a rash of disputes, splits and expulsions recently within the CWI/SP. These have particularly shaken the tendency, since in many cases they involve prominent members, sizable groups or traditional strongholds. In addition, a number of members who had previously played crucial roles on a regional, national or international level have resigned or been expelled.
These events mark a new stage in a protracted crisis. In the last few months, the Scottish section has carried through a merger into a common party with other left currents; the Merseyside regional committee has launched its own regional paper; the French section has fused with another tendency. (The branch in Berlin had already taken a similar decision.) All these steps were taken in the teeth of intense pressure from the centre, and all these bodies are at various stages of expulsion or separation from the CWI. A number of experienced leading comrades in the United States section have been expelled, and the Pakistani section has also been expelled outright.
These groups have in common either a certain independent political base or at least a considerable local tradition. Liverpool in the mid-'80s and Scotland in the early '90s were the outstanding strongholds of the tendency, the only areas where it has ever had a real mass base. The Pakistani section has a membership of hundreds and a high public profile, and the French section had an independent tradition of mass work long before joining the CWI.
In each case these groups have proceeded with an autonomous policy of their own, in flagrant defiance of the centre. Irrespective of the rights or wrongs of their positions, this represents a historic crash of the authority of the centre - an authority which was almost beyond challenge in the past.
These events give renewed urgency to a number of questions. What is the future of the SP and the CWI? Is the future of the international organisation necessarily tied directly to the fate of its British section? To what extent is this tendency still heir to the traditions of Militant in the past? Does it still represent the best hope for a future rebuilding of Trotskyism as a mass force? Can it become the nucleus of a future mass revolutionary party and International? Is it possible to reverse the negative traits of the last few years? Or has it degenerated beyond redemption?
First perhaps we should ask: what is the reason for the collapse in the influence of the leadership? Even if we concede for the sake of argument that the policies of some of the dissident groupings do represent a trend towards liquidationism, as argued by the centre, it is also necessary to ask why its own authority has diminished to such a point. Is it the inevitable consequence of an objective setback? Or is it a penalty for false perspectives and strategies?
Certainly, there has been a severe throwback in the consciousness of the working class internationally in the last decade or more. This is due to a combination of factors: the collapse of Stalinism, the ideological offensive of capitalism, the decline of former industrial strongholds, high unemployment, attacks on trade union rights, the crisis in the remaining Communist Parties, the tendency towards embourgeoisification of the reformist parties, etc.
Such historical reverses have always led to crisis within even the healthiest of revolutionary organisations. After all, the First International disintegrated after the defeat of the Paris Commune in 1871; it was nearly two decades before Marxism became rehabilitated as the dominant trend in the nascent Labour Movement. The Bolsheviks suffered a similar collapse after the defeat of the 1905 revolution; Lenin had to fight hard to uphold the fundamentals of Marxism against reactionary ideologies.

Some losses in membership and influence could only have been expected in such a situation. But it is precisely in difficult circumstances that a leadership is put to the test. Ted Grant made the point aptly with reference to what was left of the Fourth International's secretariat after 1945, who had likewise utterly failed to recognise the changed objective situation in which they found themselves: only bad generals know how to turn a defeat into a rout. Given a democratic regime, a free-ranging honest discussion, and a sober assessment of the new realities, the tendency could easily have retreated in good order. It could have saved a majority of its cadres and conserved the best of its traditions. After all, the setbacks of the last period are mild compared to the major defeats following 1871 and 1905. The flagging authority of the centre is not in itself necessarily a sure indication of degeneration. On the other hand, no leadership is insulated against the general pressures of society, or guaranteed immunity from mistakes which, if left uncorrected for long enough, become deviant tendencies. The issues have to be judged on their own merits.


One peculiarity of the situation in the CWI is that the general worldwide setback has nowhere been more pronounced than in the very country where the CWI centre has been based ever since its foundation 25 years ago. Britain in the 1970s was in the forefront of the world movement towards revolution. The capitalists were faced with the sharpest crisis of any developed country. But they had to contend with a powerful trade union movement which had secured major social gains and was ready to fight. Given the existence of a healthy Marxist nucleus, it was in this context that Militant built the strongest Trotskyist base in the Labour Movement since the Russian revolution. The forces for the new International were naturally built around this centre.
But the advent of Thatcherism in Britain led over years of bitter struggle to a succession of defeats in the mid-'80s, leaving the proletariat mutilated and scarred. There has been a deindustrialisation of society, and the erosion of most of the postwar social gains. All the converging processes which have led to a certain inertia internationally have been especially pronounced in Britain. As far as the CWI is concerned, the decline in the prestige, resources and membership of the tendency has been far sharper in Britain than elsewhere.

In general the formal perspectives of the CWI on the main trends of world events are still probably the clearest analyses around. This is the legacy of the traditions and skills learned over a period of decades. However, a leadership is built and maintained on the basis of more than just an overall appreciation of long-term trends. A general, and quite justified, prediction of impending catastrophe is not enough. The documents of the former minority, and even perhaps of some of the other sects, are also worthy of study. What distinguishes a revolutionary leadership is its ability to move from analysis to perspectives, strategy and tactics. The cutting edge of the revolutionary party is its programme.

The SP leadership has found it painfully hard to adjust to the tendency's relatively sudden fall from being a real objective factor in history to a condition of obscurity. It hopes by agitation to discover some route towards regaining its lost influence, in a constant quest to recapture the past glories of the poll tax campaign.
But the brilliant success of that campaign was rooted in special circumstances. It was the culmination of a generalised mood of revolt and hatred for Thatcherism. It cannot be artificially recreated with calls for mass boycotts from a source that no longer commands any support. The leadership of the SP has tried nevertheless to mount mass agitation for non- payment of VAT on fuel; non-payment of water charges; non-payment of tuition fees; etc. This represents a frenetic activity to galvanise the objective situation with mass campaigns that are utterly beyond the tendency's reach.

The relative paralysis of the trade unions and the demise of the Labour Party as a working-class forum have deprived Marxist cadres of a natural habitat within which to work. The SP leadership has tried to create bases outside of the Labour Movement, among victims of domestic violence, unjustly convicted prisoners, asylum seekers, gays, road protesters, animal rights activists, etc. A major current area of recruitment is among Cameroonian refugees.
Most of these issues are no doubt worthy causes, but they are peripheral to the central task of regaining a secure base in the trade unions. The expelled Merseyside regional committee justifiably complain that priority over trade union work has been given to the student campaign.

To some extent it is right to be responsive to whatever movements are developing, no matter how primitive or eccentric; but only with a view to linking them to the general programme and to the coming movement into action of the "heavy battalions". For this it is necessary to develop imaginative transitional demands which can raise the consciousness of people drawn into protest on narrow special issues to the overall tasks facing society. The SP has failed to do this. It concentrates big efforts into participation in all these movements, but with no special programme other than general propaganda for socialism.

The convoluted arguments put forward at the time of the name change debate seemed to centre on the idea that a future mass workers' party cannot be expected to adopt a socialist programme initially, and that the SP's role isto propagandise for socialism. This strategy appears to be based on the grossly false premise that the movement has been thrown back more than 100 years. That explains why the work of the SP is clearly divided into a minimum programme of agitation for payment boycotts, etc., and a maximum programme for socialism, with no proper transitional programme bridging the two. At the same time, the tendency retains its old rigid assertion of strict discipline. It has carried through expulsions with an arrogance and pomp that are disproportionate to its political stature.
There was a certain legitimacy in the past for an insistence upon unwavering compliance with centrally agreed policies. A revolutionary leadership has a responsibility to counter the pressures of a hostile social environment. In the past it had to arm its cadres to withstand the impact of decades of reformist and Stalinist hegemony; to turn their backs on the sectarian fragments; to turn towards the Labour Movement; to insist upon fundamental principles of Marxism throughout an era in which they appeared redundant. Even then there may at times have been some abuse in the tilting of internal debate. But then the centre had such overwhelming political authority that factions or splits, let alone expulsions, were almost unheard-of.

Militant supporters became identifiable by an implacable conviction, sometimes verging on arrogance. But for many years this style was excusable and even justifiable by the vindication of their ideas by events. These perspectives became almost a magic talisman which made every recruit an instant prophet. It was these fundamentally sound ideas which encouraged an attitude of confidence and audacity, brought out qualities of leadership, and attracted widespread support. As this world view became obsolete, the price was paid in an eventual split and a spiralling degeneration.
Today the existing leadership maintains a caricature of the past tone of "categorical" pronouncements, when in terms of perspectives, strategies, and tactics it is floundering. In this situation, "things fall apart, the centre cannot hold".
There is a pattern and a common feature in many of the recent centripetal breakaways: a straining away from isolation, towards unity with other left currents. This certainly could pose a danger of organisational liquidationism as well as political opportunism. The centre quite correctly upholds the principles of Bolshevik organisation and Trotskyism. But without a clear perspective or strategy, "Trotskyism" can become transformed from a living current in the life of the movement to a wooden totem. Isn't this a familiar characteristic of sectarianism?

Even if the EC's criticisms are correct, the indifference shown by these groups to its appeals represents a humiliation of the leadership. Formally correct arguments count for little unless they are backed up by the power of example. In 1964 the leadership of the Sri Lankan LSSP, which had a mass base, defied the formally correct arguments of the moribund clique calling itself the "Unified Secretariat of the Fourth International" against their proposal to join a Popular Front government. This debacle demonstrated a qualitative degeneration of the entire organisation. (It is of course not our intention to accuse any of the current dissident groups of popular frontism.)
The tradition described by Merseyside and Scotland as "ourselves alone" was in the past a legitimate feature of the tendency: first because it alone defended the fundamentals of Marxism, against the decay of the petty-bourgeois sects; and later because it alone had a healthy base in the Labour Movement. It became a recognised characteristic of the tendency that it made no concessions towards chic radical fashions or towards sectarians who had not earned their right to participate in the Labour Movement.

Today the SP cannot claim the same sharply distinct differentiation from "the sects", either in terms of perspectives, orientation or social composition. Events have eroded the tendency's past mass base. What justification is left for maintaining the old exclusivism?
The SP has a better educated and certainly a far more committed membership than, say, the SWP. But how do the SP leaders define their differences today with the SWP? That they used to work in the Labour Party when it was correct to do so, while the SWP did not? That when the USSR existed they had a clearer analysis than the SWP did of what it was? How can fresh recruits be attracted by what would appear to be hair-splitting pedantry on obsolete issues? What clear qualitative differences are there today in their strategy, tactics and programme? While most of the SP's activity remains on the level of agitation, doesn't it look like the SWP's poor relative?
The split in 1991 liberated the tendency from a hidebound repetition of stale formulae, but it also freed the majority leadership from the constraints of strict theoretical discipline. The welcome adoption of flexibility opened the way towards a dangerous eclecticism.

The SP is beginning to share the fate of all sects: substituting for political authority a bureaucratic command structure; exacting excessive levies on its dwindling membership; living in a fantasy realm in which it tries to act out with miniscule forces the functions of a mass party (albeit a "small mass party"). On this course it will end up like so many other shells of dead parties (e.g. the ILP and the Healyites), left with the remnants of huge assets built up by the sacrifice of generations of discarded supporters, and a ghost membership. The centre, which was bought at the cost of unbelievable personal sacrifice by thousands of supporters, has apparently been sold, and is now reduced to a liquid bank account, under the control of a small and increasingly fractious clique.

What is the future of the SP? It could possibly pick up support in conditions of a political reawakening of the youth and the working class. However, even in that case the haemorrhage of cadres over the years will leave it open to new dangers of dilution. Hundreds of educated and experienced Marxists have drifted out of the tendency. Now the departure of these latest relatively strong critical groupings suggests that the SP leadership's harsh and intimidating internal regime has in practice succeeded in suppressing democratic discussion. Whether future events will revive the membership and regenerate the best traditions of the past is increasingly doubtful.
What about the CWI? The prestige of the international centre is damaged. Control by this weakened centre over some of the other sections - working sometimes in far healthier objective conditions - may perhaps be not quite so monolithic as in Britain. The possibility remains that in future some of these sections could become revived by democratic discussion, and even perhaps won back to Bolshevik methods. More probably, the degeneration of the British leadership will irredeemably infect the other sections and undermine the CWI as a whole.

But there is another conceivable outcome: that the logic of the situation could lead to increasing scrutiny of the leadership of the IS and the British EC. The only hope for the survival of the CWI would be to call the leadership to account, elect an IEC which would resurrect the best democratic-centralist and Marxist traditions of the past, elect a new IS and move the centre elsewhere. (Marx temporarily moved the centre of the IWMA from Europe to New York to avoid the harmful pressures of reaction on the leadership.) Together with this it would be necessary to reinstate all those members who have been expelled or driven out of the tendency, and launch a free democratic debate on the full range of issues.

Those CWI members who are increasingly disturbed by the practice of the leadership would ultimately have to arrive at these conclusions and raise these demands as the logical culmination of their criticism.

Roger Silverman January 1999

by john throne - labors militant voice Thu Aug 21, 2003 02:46 loughfinn at aol dot com

For those who are not aware Roger Silverman was the international secretary of the CWI in its first decade and more. Roger has written more on this and many other issues. Some of this material is available on our web site at laborsmilitantvoice.com and on the web site movementsforsocialism.com which is the website of Roger and the group he works with in London, England. His critical and clearly expressed views on the work of all of us and the crisis of the CWI was not welcome in that organization once it went into crisis. Like the rest of us, and with the rest of us, he is now attempting to draw lessons and build something new. John Throne.

John Throne.

by Curious Thu Aug 21, 2003 16:15

Was talking to an SP member who said that the anon poster from SP who has been debating with Denis Tourish is Stephen Boyd I wonder what the rest of the Troika and the omnipotent IS think of his extra-curricular activity?

by Marc Mulholland Fri Aug 22, 2003 15:39 marc.mulholland at stcatz dot ox dot ac dot uk http://marcmulholland.tripod.com/homepage/index.html

For my memories of days in Militant in Northern Ireland, see my Blog at http://marcmulholland.tripod.com/histor/

Oh yes, & I have sold out etc, so no need to alert me or other unwary readers.

by Major Woody Fri Aug 22, 2003 16:48

Seems to confirm some of the Tourish claims
"Generally or 'perspectives' were based upon impending capitalist crisis (for which we chucked together the gloomiest predictions we could scour from the 'serious bourgeois press') and a radicalisation of the working class. As one document put it, 'The 1980s: Socialism or Barbarism'. Revolution was confidently predicted in 'five, ten or fifteen years time'. I was concerned when I joined (aged 15 I think) that I would be too young to be able to properly participate in the revolution. "

Mind he's obviously an 'enemy of the people' so I'm sure the SP faithful won't be too disturbed by his heresy.

by Martin Abern Fri Aug 22, 2003 22:19

It looks like a Mullholland, writes like a Mullholland, but definitely doesn't have politics like the Mullhollands. Hmmmmmmm, it's some kind of hybrid - a degenerated Mullholland!
I'm going off to write a book now on The Mullhollands Betrayed. Will be back in a couple of years, let's hope no deformed Mullhollands are brought into being by this degenerated Mullholland, Red Mullholland bayonets and all that! :)

by John Reimann - Labors Militant Voice Sat Aug 23, 2003 01:08 wildcat99 at earthlink dot net

I read Mulholland's memories of his days in Militant, and I must say that my memories are quite different. In the first place, he seems to dismiss as unimportant or even negative the fact that the old Militant had a real working class base. To me that said and says something very significant.

He also describes the branch meetings as being party getting the word from on high and part manipulation. Well, I don't know how things were in N. Ireland, but I don't think our branch meetings here were like that. I don't think that workers in general would tolerate such an atmosphere. Here in Oakland, California, our branch meetings were always lively affairs with some great discussions. Yes, we always had a "lead-off" and I think it was very positive. WE always used to say that the one who learns the most from the lead-off is the one who gives it, and I still think that this is true.

As far as the catastrophist view of perspectives, especially economic perspectives: yes, we definitely had that tendency. However, let's not forget what was happening in the early 90s, for insance. The entire world was becoming increasingly unstable, following the collapse of Stalinism. In additiion, the US economy was not going well. I remember reading one article after another in the Wall St. Journal and Business Week, as well as papers such as the L.A. times, with the gloomiest of predictions and analyses.

It wasn't only us who did not see the reserves that the capitalist system had; sections of the capitalist class also missed this. Of course, the difference is that the Militant/SP leadership refuses to learn from their mistakes, because they never make mistakes! So to this day, their analyses of and predictions for the US and world economy are the same as the ones they had in he 80s & 90s.

And like a broken clock, eventually they will be right.

My general point is, though, that there is such a thing as throwing out the baby with the bath water.

by john throne - labors militant voice Sat Aug 23, 2003 07:19 loughfinn at aol dot com

Lots of correct criticisms have been made against the CWI and the over centralized internal culture of this organization and the trotskyist movement in general. For those former members of such organizations who have drawn the conclusion that there is no need to organize a revolutionary group anymore then this is as far as they see the need to go. I on the other hand still think that the working class needs to build a revolutionary movement, a revolutionary organization. It would be very helpful if Comrades who shared this conclusion would also give their opinions on how this can be done in a way that tries to avoid the over centralized model.

I believe that correct perspectives and orientation and the ability to correct these and to do so openly and honestly are the most important requirements. But I also believe that the right to explain our differences outside the organization while working as part of the organization for the agreed position of the moment is a necessary change that has to be made. I also think that this view that only for Lenin in 1917 etc and therefore each group has to have a Lenin has to be openly challenged and the idea of a real collective leadership and steps to ensure this have to be worked out and fought for. I would be very interested in hearing opinions on this and other positive ideas for building an organization.

In relation to mistakes. It was I who wrote the CWI pamphlet "Socialism or Catastrophe". Actually the idea I think was and is correct. In fact more clearly correct now than then. The time scale and the events that would develop in the next five to ten to twenty years was where we where seriously wrong. One conclusion we have to draw is that on the time scale, we have to be much more conditional. But on the other hand few of the great socialist and revolutionary movements and voices did not make serious mistakes along these lines. Marx and Engels probably out by about a century. Connolly also. And Lenin who wrote in Febuary 1917 that he would probably not live to see the decisive battles.

On other mistakes: I wrote most of the Southern Irish perspectives for the Militant group for about ten to twelve years and the idea that we would have ever had the celtic tiger was never even considered by any of us in the CWI. This was a serious mistake. What conclusions do I draw. That we have to be much more conditional on perspectives is the main one. But I still think we need to try and have some sort of perspective of what is to happen because without this we are just working blind.

For example on the world economy at present and in the next few years. Are we in for a new period of growth like the 1990's or are we in for a new downswing in the next year or so. I think the latter because the excesses, especially the tendency to over production which now expresses itself mainly as over capacity and massive indebtedness have not been purged out of the system in the last small recession. This still needs to happen in my view to lay the basis for a new period of growth of any significance. But I am not sure on this. Then in the longer term. China. Can it develop a home market sufficient to sustain its growth for a time without being as dependent on exports as it is now and by doing so give an impetus to world capitalism. Or will it crash and lead to a massive social conflict of some kind as the hundreds of millions who have been drawn into the cities and work in the factories are thrown out of work. Perhaps leading to a situation where the type of fragmentation and chaos in Africa and which threatens in the Middle East and in fact throughout the muslim world including Indonesia would also engulf China. Such a development and the environmental crisis that is upon us would take us along the road towards barbarism.

There are a lot of contributions to these type of discussions which have a sharply critical view of the past but have little concrete to say about the way forward. I think this approach has limited value. It is easy to caricature the Militant group or any group in the most cynical fashion and then not try and deal with how we are to end this capitalist world that is destroying all in front of it. But this has limited value. I do not want the SP or any other socialist group to continue making the mistakes that we have been discussing here. I want the socialist movement and the anarchist movement and the new working class movement that is arising to draw lessons from the past and build a real effective movement to challenge capitalism. The willingness to criticize our own past positions and to openly discuss the pros and cons of the the old model has to be there. That they cannot do this is the great weakness of the CWI. But just to criticize the past and put forward no suggestions as to how to go forward in the stuggle against capitalism has limited value. And it can also strengthen the leaderships in such groups in the CWI as they can correctly say what they have a lot of criticisms but they have no alternative.

John Throne.

by Former Trotskyist Sat Aug 23, 2003 13:05

By way of background, I was a member of two different Trotskyist oriented groups (neither of them the CWI) for about ten years in Canada, but am no longer involved. I have been following this discussion of the CWI with much interest, since many of the issues touch on my own experience.

John Throne has written that criticism of the CWI is of limited value, unless those who criticise it then proceed to discuss how a new revolutionary group can be built. I suppose many have been avoiding this because it seems apart from the original thread, which was to look critically or otherwise at the past of the CWI, and therefore see whether it offered some indication of the way forward. But since that discussion seems to have run its course, I want to offer the following thoughts on John’s comments. I disagree with them on almost all points

1. Firstly, it seems to assume that capitalism is self-evidently the source of all the world’s problems. For example, I find that Trotskyist groups always blame capitalism for war. The desire for profit obviously lies behind some conflicts, most recently in Iraq. The US power elite is at present certainly driven by the spirit of imperial over-reach common to empires and all to do with wealth accumulation, power and privilege. But many wars are also propelled by other factors. Inter-group hatreds, ethnic rivalries and human prejudice are key factors explaining at least some of the disturbances in Northern Ireland, in India, in Africa and even in the Middle East. This issue of war is only one example. There is a tendency on the far left to assume a causal connection between all problems and capitalism; to assume that this conclusion is self-evident, and hence widely shared; and therefore to posit that the elimination of capitalism is central to any solution, for whatever the problem is. All these views can be contested. I do not believe that there has been any serious attempt, apart from rhetoric, to substantiate this type of analysis. Most working people don’t buy it, and merely asserting it will not convince them.
2. It is claimed that a nationalised, planned economy will solve the problems of poverty, war etc. Again, the case is never cogently made. For example, even Trotskyists do not say that they wish to nationalise the entire economy. Some small-scale private enterprise would still be permitted. But this is all left vague. Moreover, the details about how this planned economy would deliver the benefits claimed of it are never articulated. I do not see how you can plan things like the number of shoes to be manufactured, in what styles, with what materials and how they can be distributed – and the same applies for all commodities. I do not see how this can be rationally administered. It would be a terrible, bureaucratic nightmare. Nor do I buy the notion that democratic control by workers would solve these problems. Most workers are too busy working to sit on committees, planning shoe distribution. Inevitably, a bureaucratic power elite would superimpose itself on these structures, accumulate privileges, protect its own interests and ossify the economy. In any event, leftist groups do not make the case. It is assumed, again, that these issues are self evident, where in point of fact they are deeply contested. Thus, the remedy (planned economy) is both vague (how exactly would it be run?), while there is no empirical evidence that the benefits claimed for it would be obtained.
3. Not only is a socialist society required, but there must be a revolution to build it. This is perhaps the most contestable area of the lot. Much of this talk of revolution is idle chatter, and many of those who throw around the word ‘revolution’ have it seems to me never actually studied real revolutions, never mind drawn any lessons from them. In particular, the October Revolution in Russia was an authoritarian nightmare from the beginning. The Constituent Assembly was overthrown in short order; dissident opinion was suppressed; a brutal civil war ensued; workers organisations were suppressed (e.g. Kronstadt!). The Bolsheviks promised peace, bread and land. They delivered civil war, famine and forced collectivisation. There is no honest accounting for this by Trotskyist groups, who hold to the view that up until 1924 we had a relatively healthy workers democracy (without dissent or freedom of expression????). I do not wish any such thing to ever happen again, and unless Trotskyist groups propose something very different by the word revolution, clearly explain what it is, and disassociate themselves from Lenin’s putsch and its catastrophic aftermath they will not be able to sell their vision to significant numbers of people.
4. John’s idea that a revolutionary group is required to lead this revolution is also it seems to me gravely in error. Why precisely is it required? It implies something separate from whatever movements develop to challenge the status quo and change society. It implies that the future will be a rerun of the past, and that a revolutionary elite with special wisdom drawn from the Bolshevik experience is required to bring enlightenment to those struggling for change. But the point is that something different is now required, to avoid the terrible mistakes of the past. Marxism does not hold the key to human progress. It alone does not have a special wisdom to impart. All sorts of movements will emerge on issues like the environment, defending trade union rights, extending democracy, controlling corporate power etc. They will pool their experiences, their insights and their programmes. People will learn from each other. Ideas will emerge about entirely new forms of society, some of which we can barely begin to comprehend at present. A new wisdom will be found, capable of doing better than Lenin and Trotsky in 1917. I am not arguing that social change will be spontaneous. I am arguing that whatever form it takes will proceed from living mass movements, riddled with internal debate, and some process to build alliances from many different currents. They will fashion new programmes and develop different ideas about what type of society is required. In this, there is no need for a self-appointed ‘revolutionary’ group maintaining traditions that have spectacularly failed. History confounds us all, and most historical predictions are bereft of any value. For revolutionary groups who have been wrong for decades (about everything) to think that they know how the new society will develop and what shape it will take represents a special kind of arrogance that is mocked by their actual record. (It is also, and connected with this thread, mocked by the internal regimes that they create for their own members).
5. Finally, therefore, what sort of society is needed? I do not know. I don’t think anyone does. Events will have to answer that question for us. I do not think it will be one where capitalism has been eliminated, and a mighty central state tries to direct production and the economic relations between people. Just think what this would look like – it would be nightmare. But nor do I think it will be one of untrammelled capitalism, in which giant monopolies rule the world and sideline such issues as wealth redistribution, democracy, justice, workers’ rights and the environment. It will be one in which the state plays an important economic role, but in which there will be significant private enterprise. Some societies actually need more capitalism rather than less, and some societies need less capitalism rather than more. It will be one in which democracy becomes much more important, and in which even private sector organisations must pay greater attention to the voices of employees and the wider society. It will be one in which justice is important, and in which environmental issues will take centre stage. But it will also be one in which neither my opinions, nor those of any of the Trotskyist currents will matter a jot, because it will be one created by the masses of people engaged in struggle, debate and organisation by and for themselves.

by Archivist Sat Aug 23, 2003 13:15

This is a lengthy document, but some might find it of interest. It was written by Peter Camejo, in discussion with some people in the Australian DSP. Camejo was once active in the US SWP, and I think more recently ran for governor of California as a green candidate. I find it stimulating.....

Return to Materialism

By Peter Camejo

Introduction
As we reach half way through the 1990s certain errors which characterized much of the left in the radicalization of the 1960s and 70s are now some what clearer. In this article I want to focus on the sectarianism and dogmatism which dominated much of the left for a period. Specifically I want to try to make an evaluation of the strength and weakness of the movement that based itself on Leon Trotsky’s interpretation of the rise. of Stalinism (and therefore decline of Marxism.)
The reason I am returning to this topic is because I believe it is still an issue today in various organizations. some which are hopelessly sectarian I do not wish to deal with concretely because there is no immediate hope to see them become part of the living struggles for social progress in the world.
In most cases those sectarian organizations are a negative factor in the development of an effective and viable movement. But, specifically, I see the Democratic Socialist Party of Australia as an organization with important potential but which is still holding on to many sectarian and leftist misconceptions from the past. It has one foot in Marxism and one foot in its own dogmatic past. The following discussion is presented with the hope that it will be considered over time by those who disagree with it.
Ideologically I believe the sectarian errors referred to above stem from the adoption of idealist rather then materialist views. Therefore I have titled this article a return to materialism.
Roots of our Movement
In the beginning there arose a mass social movement calling for working people to fight for their rights as capitalism developed in the nineteenth century. This movement had an on going debate over what its ultimate goals should be. Its immediate objectives were some what obvious. It fought for better pay, less hours of work, better working conditions .and in many cases against various forms of ethnic, racial or social discrimination. But also, fundamental to the immediate struggles, was the struggle for political rights for working people, the right to vote being one obvious and important issue.
The conception of a future society in which there would be no rich or poor, where society would be run democratically both politically and economically, where the economy would be rationally planned and production would be based on human needs not profits for individuals gradually became accepted by millions throughout the world. That future society was generally referred to as socialism.

Karl Marx
Marx tried to put the ideological footing of this movement on a scientific basis. He sought a materialist explanation for the existing class conflicts and tried to make an analysis of the nature of the existing society which he labeled Capitalism. He also raised the concept that to change the nature of capitalism to a society responsive to the needs of the majority, the working people, a change of who rules would be needed something that the present ruling circles would resist by any and all means.
Thus Marx made a differentiation between struggles for reforms within a capitalist society and a struggle to fundamentally change society, that is to revolutionize society,.

Before 1917
Up until 1917 there had only been one clear case where working people favoring such a social order had actually been in power, the Paris Commune. The social explosion which brought socialists to power in 1917 completely changed the course of the history of the world’s workers movement and its political corollary known as the socialist movement.
Prior to 1917 there no question in any ones mind that the socialist movement fought for an extension of democracy. The idea that a was government calling itself socialist could shoot workers for trying to organize a union or imprison workers for attempting to organize politically wasn't debatable. It was simply considered impossible.
When the socialists lost control in the USSR and the stalinist mafia came to power in the mid 1920s it did so in the name of socialism and with the support of most people in the world who considered themselves socialists.

Rise of Stalinism
It is my opinion that the distortion that the rise of Stalinism brought about for the world's socialist movement is not yet and will not be fully appreciated for years. For the world ruling capitalist class it brought about a temporary respite, a golden opportunity to fight what had been a movement that seemed to grow and spread at an ever increasing rate.
With the rise of Stalinism the bourgeoisie could posture before the world as more democratic and more supportive of civil liberties than what was being passed off as "socialist." The bourgeois press gave its full support to the equation of socialism and Stalinism.
Opportunists within the labor movement in capitalist countries who wanted nothing better then to sell out the interests of working people for personal benefits found this situation extremely favorable since they could confuse the revolutionary movements with Stalinism. These right opportunist who also called themselves "socialist" now found it easier to openly support capitalism including imperialist wars against third world people by arguing against "communism".

Cold War
The politics of the world became rapidly completely dominated by the East-West conflict as it was called. People calling themselves socialist could openly support the mass genocide against the Vietnamese people by the United States carpet bombing because they opposed "communism." While in the USSR unspeakable crimes were being committed in the name of "socialism" reinforcing the state of utter confusion in the world.
The truth regarding socialism and Marxism on a world scale went into free fall. Any kind of serious historical honesty was eliminated. Bourgeois education on the issues of the 19th century, the rise of the workers movement, and socialism was reduced to crude propaganda made plausible by Stalinism. For the followers of Stalin, the majority of the movement claiming to advocate socialism, the scientific philosophy of'Marx was turned into a religion where anything, regardless of how obviously it contradicted everything Marx had written was passed of as Marxism.

Terminological Confusion
From the 1930s up today in the mid 1990s the confusion in the minds of working people on a world scale is immense regarding the word "socialism". For most it is an economic project which inevitably will end up in a totalitarian government and/or economic paralysis. For some it may mean "Sweden" or simply lots of safety nets but there is doubt this really "works".
Prior to 1917 the terms used by the socialist movement were generally understood by people. They knew that terms like social progress meant progress for the poor, for the majority of working people including small farmers. They knew that socialism meant re-organizing the government and economy so workers would have the decisive say and society would be run in the benefit of the majority. It meant more rational planning and equality. It meant more democracy not only politically, but socially. That translated into the concepts of free education for all, free medical care, full employment, unemployment insurance, retirement insurance etc.
Only right wing demagogues could argue that socialism would lead to less democratic rights, inequality and fascist like repressive regimes. Pre-1917 most workers would have dismissed such accusation as ridiculous and exaggerated propaganda. Not so today. The example of Russia, China, North Korea and many others is clearly in the consciousness of people.

Leon Trotsky
Leon Trotsky’s efforts to argue that the Russian revolution of 1917 was betrayed and that one should not associate Stalinism with socialism was supported by only a small part of those considering themselves socialist.
Among those calling themselves socialist some who agreed with Trotsky that something terrible was happening in Russia came to the conclusion that what happened in 1917, the very revolution Trotsky and Lenin had led was in the end responsible for the rise ' of Stalinism. While such a position had some principled advocates, social democratic currents, which were busy selling out the working people they influenced also could not stand Trotsky precisely because he remained loyal to the original ideas of the socialist movement.
Millions influenced by Stalinism lived in denial believing the USSR was a democratic workers paradise. They hated Trotsky and cheered when he was assassinated just as they cheered as the whole leadership of the revolution of 1917 was murdered. Looking back it seems so bizarre that people in every country of the world could on one hand claim to be for socialism and at the same time be so easily fooled.
The fact that millions believing in a more just society and in democracy could be fooled into supporting the opposite of their believes is something that we should give a lot of consideration to. We should give this some thought for a couple of reasons. One important one is that these people were generally materialist in their philosophical views, that is they were not superstitious but favored science. Yet they could believe in things for which there was little if any factual evidence.

Democracy and Materialism
What this fact does is reinforce the materialist conception that truth can only be ascertained through the conflict of ideas. without differences, debate and a really open democratic culture a movement can easily adopt positions disconnected from reality. In the end our movement is based on the truth, a correct understanding of the world and the spread of factual information. Capitalism rests on falsehoods. Its mass media is forever distorting facts and history, teaching racism, sexism, ageism and every possible prejudice to keep people divided.
That Stalinism could act like capitalism and yet be believed by millions is now an historical fact. There are many factors which help explain this phenomena. For one the Stalinist betrayal was carried out without a clear strong split within the movement and the Stalinist framed all their anti-working class policies as being for socialism and for working people. When the Stalinist framed and murdered socialist this was done by calling people who defended socialist ideas traitors to socialism. The resulting confusion and thus political support for the Stalinist rulers was essential to their consolidation of power and ability to remain in power.
Stalinism was an unstable social order that could exist only because it appeared to be something it wasn't. Like a trade union bureaucracy that can only survive in a balancing act between getting removed by its rank and file or by the destruction of the union by the bosses, Stalinism can only have a limited life span in any country. It can only appear after major struggles and victories of working people. It is a parasite that feeds of such victories until it kills the host.
The regimes in china and North Korea are of this nature. They will inevitable go back to capitalism (most likely variant at this point) or be removed by a new rise in the socialist movement. As the capitalist world has come to understand Stalinism more clearly they have become far more friendly to these remaining stalinist regimes. Today China is not seen as a challenge to capitalism but an opportunity.
In the USSR the enormous support the "communist" regime had from its "Lenin" days gradually eroded under the Stalinist regimes. Eventually the parasitic social order unable to maintain support among its own people and unable to compete with capitalism collapsed.
These developments are not understood by people in general. The political culture of our day still has a totally distorted view of the events around the history of the USSR. Over ime this will begin to change. It has begun to change a little inside the USSR as the mass of people begin to experience capitalism and a discussion of what was wrong before and what may have been right in the revolution of 1917 slowly begins to be considered.

A Profound Confusion on the Left
Nevertheless the confusion within the left is still there. After events like the Moscow trails in the mid 30s one would think that anyone with half a brain could see through those frame ups. But millions didn't. And it is not just years ago even today after the utter collapse and exposure of the true nature of Stalinist regimes some people who consider themselves pro-socialist still admire Stalin or claiming to now be against Stalinism base their politics on Stalinist platforms.
One example is the concept of popular frontism, which was aimed to subordinate the workers movement to any wing of the ruling class that would make deals with the USSR's regime. This strategy of betrayal was projected by Stalin precisely at the moment, 1935, he was organizing to have every member of Lenin's original central committee executed.
The Popular Front line eventually made the Stalinist organizations able to support anyone by its logic. The final extreme culmination was the Norwegian "Communist" Party welcoming Hitler's invading troops, or the Communist Party of Cuba joining Batista’s cabinet and so on.

Leninism
In the ideological struggle around the rise of Stalinism two opposite currents began to re-enforce a sectarian conception of what Lenin had advocated and done.
First the Stalinists turned Lenin into a cult/idol. Lenin was always right on everything. They took his body and put him on display. They called their philosophy Marxism-Leninism. A term which never had any scientific meaning. Marxism is the term given to dialectical materialism or historical materialism. Leninism is, at best, contributions made on organizational questions and the nature of imperialism and so on. That is various analysis of social issues or strategic questions within the class struggle but philosophical within the confines of Marxism. Of course, terms gradually develop their own meanings over time and we have no choice but to recognize that. In most cases Marxism-Leninism came to be another name for Stalinism.
All so-called "Communist Parties" became ideological promoters of idealist philosophies, of course, in the name of Marxism and materialism. They ritualized their new antimaterialist anti-scientific philosophy precisely to obscure truth and reality in order to justify and maintain popular support for their organizations in spite of their vicious abuse of power, and oppression of the people they ruled over. Stalin became their cult leader world wide. But in each Communist Party there was a local cult leader that received standing ovations until removed some times by a telephone call from Stalin at which time another "leader" was picked and received the standing ovations.
The litany of utterly false ideas attributed to Lenin grew through the years. These included such concepts as only one party can represent the interest of working people, (meaning, of course, your local stalinist organization) or, for instance, socialism can be achieved in one country, a concept obviously in contradiction to everything Marx and Engels wrote. These Stalinist conceptions became quite popularized. Bourgeois educational systems and the mass media turned these Stalinist concepts into the very meaning of the words in popular usage. To this day much of the left uses these terms not with their original content or meaning but with the Stalinist distortion.

Democratic Centralism
For instance, the term democratic-centralism now means to most people a bureaucratic, undemocratic if not utterly dictatorial organizational structure because that is what most organizations calling themselves democratic centralist were like.
When a local city council in any United States town passes a law to put up a stop sign everyone has to stop there'. The decision is made democratically or at least by elected officials. But it is carried out by centralism. Even people who disagreed with the decision have to follow it. Loosely speaking that is democratic centralism. The fact is that all societies, certainly capitalist societies, advocate democratic centralist conceptions as a basic frame work for the existence of society.
The idea that a voluntary organization could apply democratic centralism as a premise of how it functions is totally benign. Most organizations to one extent or other do that. Some do not apply it. For instance the Democratic and Republican Parties in the United States vote platforms and then the candidate is free to violate that platform all they want.
Obviously these two parties are not democratic centralist. People advocating fascism are members and run as Democrats in the United States so do others who call themselves socialist. But most organizations in general have policies and rules which if you do not accept you are expelled.
Lenin's concept of democratic centralism was developed because Lenin was concerned over the effectiveness of an organization fighting for power. His idea starts with the right of majority rule. To be effective Lenin argued that a serious socialist organization should function under the premise that once decisions are made everyone should help implement the policy. one can argue about Lenin's organizational concept, when it is appropriate or how it should be applied.
But try and use the words democratic centralism today in broad circles. Many people who actually favor democratic centralism in one form or other respond in negative shock when the term is mentioned.
I noticed at the founding conference in Berkeley, California of the Committee of Correspondence how one key note speaker made fun of the term "democratic centralism" to immense applause. I wondered just what people thought it meant that they should feel it was such a terrible thing. It is clear that the words now mean a stalinist like bureaucratic top down structure. The term’s popular meaning has nothing in common with Lenin's views.
While this distortion of socialist and Lenin's ideas was developing in Stalinist organizations an interesting parallel development took ' place in the Trotskyist movement which opposed and denounced the Stalinist for what they were.
The factual information on the crimes of Stalinism and truth about the internal regime in the USSR put out by the Trotskyist movement in the 1920s, 30s and 40s is now accepted by most everyone. In fact all research has confirmed that the factual description of the internal reality of Stalinist society by Leon Trotsky was completely accurate. in judging Leon Trotsky historically this is quite important. Trotsky defended telling the truth to the world. He fought his whole life for what he saw as in the interest of working people world wide regardless of the consequences to him personally.

Trotskyist Movement
In the struggle against Stalinism the Trotskyist movement (by Trotskyist I mean supporters of Trotsky’s views) focused its arguments on the difference between what Lenin had said and done and what the Stalinist were doing. Not to be confused with social democrats who denounced Stalinism but also Lenin, the Trotskyists emphasized heavily their support of Lenin.
The Trotskyist of the late 20s and 30s could be characterized first of all by their heroic resistance with little resources to tell the full truth about Soviet "socialism" while still defending the original socialist ideal. The other characteristic they had was there essential isolation from mass movements and often little relevance in their countries political life outside of issues involving the factional struggle stemming out of the USSR's history.

Myth of the "Correct Program"
Slowly a myth developed within the Trotskyist movement which to this day still has some support. That myth is that what Lenin did was gather a cadre around a "correct" program, build a hard centralized organization and when the masses radicalized they were won over. Having won the masses Lenin's party was then able to take "power." A whole series of corollaries followed from this erroneous concept and, over time, became part of the Trotskyist dogma.
One example of these corollaries was the believe that without a party like Lenin's working people could not take power. of course a party “like Lenin's” meant a party with a "correct program" well centralized, with internally disciplined cadre. The Trotskyists argued that only the Fourth International (Trotskyist movement) had a correct program. Therefore in their eyes success for the workers movement long term was directly depended on the growth of the Fourth International - any other possible development was essentially ruled out. During the 1940s, for example, almost every article written in the ISR (International Socialist Review a monthly magazine of the North American followers of Trotsky) ended with the words "Only the Fourth International etc. etc."
Parties associated with the Fourth International, (in time there were a few Fourth Internationals) all referred to themselves as Leninist and each affiliated organization a Leninist Party.
The conception which gradually became accepted within the Trotskyist movement of Lenin's party had very little to do with what Lenin had actually advocated in Russia and nothing whatsoever to do with what actually happened in pre 1917 Russia.
It is crucial to review the ideological error that appeared within the Trotskyist movement around this issue and which consolidated the isolated (sectarian) existence and politics of these organizations into a culture and dogmatic set of political principles.

Lenin and the Mass Working Class Movement
To fully discuss these concepts it is best to go back and outline what Lenin advocated and did. Lenin was a member of the broad workers movement in Europe called at the time the Second or Socialist International. That mass movement found some expression in Russia and eventually was quite influential among working people and the intelligentsia since they advocated an end to the Czarist dictatorship and the establishment of democracy, the end of feudal relations on the land, a land reform and an eight hour day.
In Lenin's day all organizations associated with socialism were rife with debate. All kinds of views permeated the movement and various newspapers advocated one or other point of view. one wing of the movement was concerned that the power of the movement had made it possible for leaders to benefit personally. For instance trade union leaders or elected members of parliament by working out deals or compromises with representatives of capital could betray the interests of workers in return for privileges for themselves.
This was referred to as "reformist" meaning they sought only to gain some reforms within the frame work of capitalism rather then fight for a new socialist society. Lenin began arguing that in order to fight against such a disorientation of the socialist movement and in order to challenge capital it was necessary to have a more solid movement both organizationally and ideologically.
He noted that natural leaders arise in the day to day struggles of working people and that the role of the socialist party was to organize these leaders into an organization to act as a poll of attraction, a class struggle alternative. The goal was to help mobilize the whole working class, to unite the class in action.
The starting point of Lenin's conception was the existing mass movement. That was just taken for granted in his days. Everyone was talking about what a movement or organization clearly competing for the support of the masses of workers should do. Lenin's concept of a "Party" has no meaning without a mass base.
Certainly small groups could appear in a country to begin work to establish the ideas of socialism among their working people but such groups to Lenin were simply propaganda groups such as had existed in Russia in the 19th century. Lenin's attitude towards such groups, how they should be structured, how they should organize, always depended on their specific circumstances. In the world Lenin functioned in that was prehistory. He was arguing about what to do once the working class as a whole had its own independent movement both economically (unions) and politically speaking (Party (s)).
Lenin fought for a clear class struggle program. What Lenin argued for was that the platform of the organization be for the workers and against their oppressors, that it had to fight for their long term political interest including their taking power. This meant always fighting for clarity on what the political maneuvers of the ruling class were and how best to respond to them, what were the most realistic initiatives to take and how to best promote the struggle of working people.
The concept of a "correct program" abstracted from the actual process of a living mass struggles is the opposite of Lenin's method which saw the program as something that evolves, itself a process, defined by not only a mass movement but in Lenin's situation a mass movement involved in revolutionary struggles.
Lenin and all those around him generally had a materialist view of ideas and recognized that they reflected material events. In the period of revolutionary upsurge in Russia from 1903 to 1918 in which Lenin's ideas of organization and party building were formed there was no such thing as an abstract "correct program". The party's program clearly evolved. It was a process. It was repeatedly changed and modified.
Looking back to that period you can see how fast positions taken by Lenin's Party changed. How the organization was in continuous debate. Differences were the norm not the exception. Major mistakes could be over come because the power of the developing mass movement helped Lenin's organization readjust.

Lenin Opposes Soviets
To mention one example was Lenin's opposition to the Soviets, (workers councils). With hind sight we can see that Lenin was sectarian in counter posing building a Party to the councils. This position had serious negative effects in the struggles of the 1905 revolutionary explosion and its after math. Leaders in Lenin's party opposed him, positions were taken and carried out against his positions, ideas were publicly debated about these differences when legally possible.
Lenin's error was compounded when the revolutionary up swing of 1905 went into decline and he insisted the movement was not yet in decline. Quickly as reality indicated otherwise Lenin reversed his positions including the Soviets which he claimed should be supported after 1906.
Lenin's Party having tens of thousands of followers, deeply rooted in the mass movement rose and declined in active membership rather sharply depending on events. For instance, in 1912, after the defeat of the 1905 revolution not a single unit of Lenin's party was still in existence or at least holding meetings in Moscow the largest city of Russia. Of course, that did not mean that thousands did not continue to agree with Lenin's Party but the repression made it difficult for its supporters to meet.
The party that Lenin the individual participated in which became known in history as the Bolshevik Party meaning the Majority Party in Russian had little if any similarity to what is often today called a Leninist Party.
The idea that a group of a few hundred people who are not in the leadership of any mass movement much less integrally involved in leading the working class as a social force can be referred to as a Leninist Party and having a "correct program" would never have crossed Lenin's mind. In 1918 Lenin will refer to such an idea as clowning.

Idealist Error
By the 1940s, however, within the Trotskyist movement a conception had taken root that no matter how small or disconnected from the workers movement a group might be if it had the "correct" program and a cadre it was a Leninist Party and would eventually "win". This was the "proven" Leninist way.
What the Trotskyist movement did as a whole is drop the direct involvement with the living mass movement as a prerequisite for the development of a party. Thus the "program" was separated from its social roots. In effect program was separated from practice. Ideas were separated from their material basis.
In doing this an idealist error philosophically was introduced. The first point of any program that has any meaning and certainly one in which the word "correct" could in anyway be used is one that has shown that a leadership link has been made with the working masses. Other wise correct program begins to simply mean comments about the world, passed history, predictions of events for the future, and so on. The actual mass link is its self part of the premise of a program.
For instance, recognizing in ones head what really happened in the history of the USSR is a good and useful thing. But it is not a program. Stating general outlines of the realities of capitalist society is useful. It is not a program. A program is a living complex process relating to the on going struggle which permeates our class divided society. A struggle which is occurring now at this moment in a million different forms and at a whole spectrum of levels.

The Rise of Splits
But in this frame work what then happens when two leaders disagree ? once you are functioning in this sectarian frame work there is no way to resolve differences and given that the very existence of the organizations and its future success is believed to be tied to this ever important "correct program" differences become very threatening. Within the Trotskyist organizations a culture developed which formally claimed to allow differences to exist but in reality crushed any dissent. While the roots were very different the forms in which dissent was crushed in Trotskyist groups had many similarities to how Stalinist groups crushed dissent. Of course in Trotskyist groups you were expelled not shot.
Differences in sectarian groups inevitably led to splits. After a split two organizations each with its own "correct program" often confronted each other. The logic of this process was the proliferation of sects and cults.
That process exploded within the Trotskyist movement. The evolution of some of the groups became quite bizarre. Splits occurred in ever growing numbers as groups became less and less involved in the living movements of their own countries. In fact all social movements and mass struggles were more and more seen simply as recruiting arenas to the cult/sect with the correct program. Cadres became the defenders of the Holy Grail. And usually there was in each group just one "Lenin of today" who could interpret and adjust the "program." If the "correct program" was maintained the masses would some day come. A sort of religious "our day will come" corollary developed to the correct program.

Posadas, Moreno, Healy, Barnes
One such cult was that of Juan Posadas. I had the opportunity to meet Posadas in 1960 in Havana, Cuba. This, man was clearly certifiable. He believed he could communicate with his dog. When the dog died the Posadista Central Committee sang the internationals at his grave. Posadas also believed he could communicate the situation in Vietnam to his 6 month old grand child. In later years when the child was five he was added to Posadas political bureau for his enlightening views.
Posadas advocated nuclear war and other utterly insane views. His origins was out of the Trotskyist movement and he had hundreds of followers primarily in Latin America. I understand there are still a few Posadistas in the world although Posadas passed away some time ago.
Moreno in Argentina was another quite colorful but a bit more rational cultist with thousands of supporters. In England you had Healy a man clearly deranged who believed anyone who disagreed with him had to be an FBI agent. Yet he also had thousands of devoted followers including the movie actress Vanessa Redgrave.
While the three mentioned above may have been some what extreme expressions of this phenomena in general all groups calling themselves Trotskyist had elements of sectarian and cult like existence by the 1960s. Also amazing as it might seem while these organizations produced endless written materials on all kinds of political phenomena almost nothing can be found seeking to explain this astounding phenomena of the cultification of Trotskyist organizations.
If you look closely you will see some of the same process at work, although in less of an extreme form in other sect/cults like that of the Lambertist in France or the ISO out of England.
The one group that I had an opportunity to actually experience personally was the development of the Barnes cult in the United States SWP.
The SWP today is completely disconnected from reality. Its cult leader holds a series of bizarre political positions evolving in a manner quite similar to Moreno or Posadas.
The question is why did groups, whose origins are in the struggle against Stalinism, evolve in this direction? This includes every group in the world influenced by James Cannon with the exception of the DSP in Australia. What are the material roots of this phenomenon?
Since the DSP was originally formed in association with the North American SWP it is of value for the DSP to look clearly At the origins of the sectification of the North American SWP.
The SWP did not become a sect because of Barnes the individual. Barnes himself is a product of what was wrong in the SWP. In my opinion the problem goes back to the isolation of the SWP from roots in the mass movement and involvement in living struggles. The idealist error I have mentioned above become codified in the outlook of the SWP beginning in the thirties. Its sect like nature was already evident in the late 30s and early 40s but became more pronounced as time went on.

Crises of the US SWP
With the recruitment of a new generation in the 1960s the SWP faced a crisis. Its participation in the Anti-War movement around Vietnam brought it some what closer to involvement in a living struggle, an important encounter with reality and the political tempo of the nation, something it had not really experienced since the labor struggles of the 30s of which the SWP did have some important participation.
The impact and conflict of its sectarian idealism and its materialist involvement in a struggle created an interesting reaction in the culture of the SWP. Its older leadership. especially that of Farrell Dobbs, but also others such as Tom Kerry, felt threatened. Others such as Joe Hansen and George Breitman had mixed feelings. I believe some were starting to understand the sectarian nature of the SWP, especially Joseph Hansen.
Barnes was the hand picked youth "leader" to fight against the introduction of reality and potential de-dogmatization of the SWP's sect like existence. In the 1970s Barnes began a conscious campaign to rid the SWP of its infection of people not molded into sect like thinking. In private discussion Barnes spoke openly of the need to drive out over 50% of the membership of the SWP.
The political cover for this campaign was an ultra-left workerist campaign consciously aimed to drive out those not willing to accept a cult like existence. This campaign was, of course, believed in the minds of people like Barnes and Dobbs to be defending the "correct program" protecting the "proletarian" SWP from the petty bourgeois infection resulting from the rapid recruitment of members from university campuses.
This campaign had an ultraleft side politically since it had to promise the remaining members that all this was necessary to get ready for huge new opportunities which the petty bourgeois members of student origin would only be in the way. The fact was, of course, that the remaining members had the same background as those driven out. But by 1978 the SWP was passing resolutions talking about the coming "battles for power" and other projections totally disconnected from reality.
The growth of ultraleft positions spread to international issues like the rather famous article which the SWP printed accusing the FSLN as being the main block to success in the struggle against Somoza in Nicaragua. The SWP even held public forums titled "Why the FSLN Failed" just months before Somoza was overthrown by the FSLN. After the FSLN victory the SWP shifted its position towards the FSLN.
In the end all of this had nothing to do with real events in the United States politically or within the working class. It was a clash of reality with a sectarian methodology deeply entrenched in the SWP. While this process was going on one exceptional leader within the sphere of influence of the US SWP, who had his origins in the mass struggle against the war in Vietnam, stood up to Barnes. That was Jim Percy of Australia. He sensed something was deeply wrong.
The SWP veered for a short period of time away from its sectarian existence in the late 1960s and early 70s but only to come back in spades to consolidate its sect idealist political frame work.

Leftist Politics
The appearance of the "correct program", "we are a Leninist Party" ideology has tended to always require a "leftist" view of reality and prognostications that cataclysmic events will soon catapult the sect into importance. This phenomena is also to be found in all cults. Posadas was more clear and extreme since he projected two events that would make his cult the center of all world events. He projected nuclear world war or the landing of extra terrestrials as the catalyst for his groups ascendency.
The "leftist" side is necessary because the sect members have to be more radical then any living movement. The attraction of association with a living process has to be broken to maintain the sect. This requires for ever knocking any positive development in social movements. Analyses have to be made continuously showing the failings of all movements and there inevitable collapse and failure. This is done by looking at mass social movements primarily in a formalistic programmatic frame work. Since all mass movement by definition have only a partially formulated program it is easy enough to show their "failure to understand".
The history of the SWP is full of such examples. I will list a few here to help show concretely how, in effect, the policies of the SWP have always been politically leftist or dogmatic and sectarian. This is true not just for the period that the fully developed Barnes cult appeared but almost from its origins in the struggle against Stalinism in the early 30s.
One could argue that this was inevitable because of objective conditions. Whenever a group like the SWP attempted to engage in mass work it ran into the complete dominance of the left by the Stalinist Communist party. That tact is helpful in understanding what happened but it does not change the fact of the SWPs dogmatic positions.
In the mid 1930s the SWP opposed the formation of a Labor Party in the United States. Nothing could have be more incorrect since the rise of the CIO unions in the 30s created the potential and a great deal of interest in launching a political party of labor. The failure objectively in United States history of such a party forming is one of the limiting factors on the labor movement today. The blame for this failure falls primarily on the communist Party and their "popular front" line which was projected by Stalin to back the Democrats and on the social democrats who also backed the Democrats.
The SWP justified its anti-labor party policy be counter posing a mass revolutionary socialist party to a labor party. This confuses program with mass struggle in an idealist manner. The error is sectarian and similar to Lenin's error of opposing the Soviets. (Or of the DSP saying it does not advocate an Alliance like that of New Zealand but instead a more "politically correct" formation.)
Once the potential of a rise of a Labor Party passed the SWP shifted to a position of advocating a Labor Party.
In the early 30s the SWP called Sandino a "traitor" to his people. This was explained with ultra-left arguments regarding Sandino’s lack of a correct program and so on. By the 40s the SWP was opposing the proposal to vote an equal rights amendment (ERA) for women’s rights to the US constitution. This was argued against as a petty bourgeois proposal that working women were not interested in. In the late 40s when the African American nationalist movement began to grow seeking to develop pride in its own community and culture the SWP opposed it as a reactionary movement.
In the late 40s when Farrell Dobbs had the first opportunity to speak on national radio to a large audience of the North American populace he brought them "greetings" from the Fourth International. In case anyone has any doubts led me assure them nothing could be a more utterly sectarian approach to politics then to give a talk in such a manner which had nothing to do with the realities of the North American people. What this shows is how deeply imbedded sectarianism was in the culture of the SWP.
In more recent times I could give a whole long list of positions which most DSPers would quickly recognize as leftist or sectarian errors since I lived the experience. For instance when the civil rights movement exploded in the south of the United States in the late 1950s and early 60s the SWP opposed its young members from joining that living struggle. The explanation was made that we had the "correct program" and we needed to concentrate recruitment to our program rather then involvement in a struggle where we had no branches.
When the Vietnam war was coming to an end the Vietnamese asked for world support in its effort to force the United States to the negotiating table. The SWP opposed the demonstrations that then ensued demanding the United States accept a negotiated peace settlement.
When radicals in California launched an effort to establish a radical electoral formation called the Peace and Freedom Party (PFP) the SWP opposed it denouncing the PFP as a liberal bourgeois party. The utter absurdity of that position was, of course, explained by looking at its platform rather then seeing the meaning and direction of the effort to launch candidates that would oppose the war in Vietnam and fight for social justice at home.
All of the above points occurred while James P. Cannon was alive. Cannon will go down in history as a giant for standing up to Stalinism and trying to keep alive the ideals of the early socialist movement. But Cannonism is not what the SWP literature claims, the Americanization of Leninism. The SWP is not nor has ever been a Leninist Party. It is absurd to think so because it was always isolated from the working people as a social layer and has a movement.
At best it was a propaganda group that advocated the formation of a Leninist Party. But its advocacy took on a sect like existence and ultra-leftist or sectarian political positions.

Differences
The culture that develops inside organizations with the we-have-the-correct-program as mentioned never really allows differences although in the formal statutes it always claims to accept the right to minority views.
The SWP never had a culture permitting differences. Every group that ever raised any questions regarding any of its policies was eventually driven out. In this sense it had no resemblance to the party Lenin led that was continuously alive with debate and differences.
Lenin's party had various newspapers that would debate each other publicly. In fact in the 1908 period when Lenin was arguing against one grouping in his organization he accused them of hiding their minority views and not publishing them in their public organ. I do not think most DSP members would think it Leninist for a minority to start up its own public organ and publish its differences with the majority. Well that was the reality of Lenin's Party.
In that specific case Lenin even argued that the minority should not use the excuse that the party was not in a preconvention discussion period to not publicly publish their minority views.
Lenin wrote letters to friends all the time expressing his personal views. He thought it quite normal for there to be private discussions and correspondence between members of his organization. He saw that as a right. In fact in one letter he began by saying that if anyone read this letter when it wasn't addressed to them that person was violating his right to private correspondence.
Cannon tried to set up norms of functioning. Some are undoubtedly of great value but others were completely opposed to the reality of Lenin’s Party. But they were always presented as "Leninism."
Cannon introduced the idea that members of a Leninist Party are violating norms if they express their differences within the organization to anyone outside the organization or engage in private correspondence even within the organization.
At the time I joined the SWP in the late 50s there was a lose grouping in the SWP which the Dobbs leadership referred to as "petty bourgeois" and which were eventually driven out called the Weissites named after Murry Wiess a leader of the SWP. One of their horrendous crimes was that they had circulated letters to each other about the internal situation in the SWP.
In saying all of this my point is not to say that responsible people should not think out how they act and the consequences of their actions in terms of how best to carry on a discussion within an organization. Nor do 1 mean that we should not have rules and norms and try to function in an organized manner. I am trying to get people to think through these issue and to realize that the norms the US SWP taught the Australian DSP were a misrepresentation of what Lenin's movement had been like and not necessarily at all a "proven" organizational method.
My point is the norms Cannon developed, had little to do with the reality of Lenin's party. The underlying difference has its roots in that Lenin's party was an organization directly leading the masses in a powerful radicalization and the SWP was an isolated ideological propaganda grouping. Even if the SWP had really reflected Lenin's organizational forms they might very well not be at all applicable to its specific circumstances. The idea of a generalized organizational method of organizing is about as correct as the idea of an abstract "correct political program."

Talking Tough
It is for the above reasons that in my opinion the DSP is not and should not refer to itself as a Leninist Party. The new preamble of the DSP in my opinion is an attempt to codify some of these incorrrect concepts of organization. Its language is that of an organization that is not dealing with the reality of mass struggles. When an organization is isolated it can talk in tough terms about “overthrow”(ing) and "revolutionary action" and so on.
Organizations that actually lead the masses like the FPL in El Salvador or the Alliance in New Zealand would pay an immense negative price for that kind of needless and easily misunderstood language. What that language does is give those wanting to block our movement a weapon to attack us and help isolate us. It is posturing which serves no purpose and mis-educates the membership on how to handle themselves.
Deep down it reflects a method which lacks seriousness. It is ultra-left in that sense.
Such language is completely unnecessary to maintain our principles. It is revealing when people believe that they have to use language easily misunderstood in order to maintain their principles. It shows a great fear of selling out.
It is true the DSP lives today in a world that has seen so much betrayal of our ideals for a democratic and just world that it fears the same shift away from socialist ideals could affect it. While this is definitely part of our reality the use of such terms and the acting tough and passing tough sounding phrases is no real protection. on the contrary it reveals a developing leftist error.
The preamble also makes a prediction of total demise unless the kind of structure referred to as Leninist (incorrectly) is adopted and followed. The preamble says the DSP would degenerate and no longer be a coherent organization. we should give this some careful thought.
Causa R in Venezuela does not follow any of this. They act precisely in the manner criticized by the DSP. Yet Causa R has not degenerated or collapsed. Instead they have gone from 20 members to tens of thousands directly in the leadership of major industrial unions, have the support of millions, precisely among the poorest Venezuelans and its industrial working class.
Does that mean Causa R and what they advocate is right for Australia or even Venezuela ? That is not necessarily the case. Will they be able to go beyond their present gains with the organizational methods they have used up to now is a difficult questions to answer. But my point is we should drop this arrogance about the "proven Leninist principles of organization" meaning the structure that Cannon developed in the United States. We need to maintain an open mind. To learn from not only the Russian experience but that of others who have succeeded in winning the masses to a break with bourgeois politics and for the independence of the class.
The Causa R example is an extreme one but nevertheless useful. The original group of 20 members led by Alfredo Maniero decided this course some 23 years ago. Maniero was driven by the need to root themselves once again among the masses. To now look at Causa R and not recognize its success and potential would be blindness.

Never say Never
It is wrong to make statements like, "Any attempt to start with a politically heterogeneous, loosely organized group, to try and win a mass base, and then try to turn it into a tight Bolshevik-type party, would end in disaster. It wouldn't have revolutionary politics." Or, "But there's never been a case of a loose organization without trained cadres ever being able to lead a socialist revolution."
First of all, Lenin's party did begin with a politically heterogeneous, loosely organized group, which did win the masses, the Second International. And then Lenin did succeed in building within such an organization a more cohesive formation. Yet John Percy’s report quoted above refers to exactly what Lenin did as something that would end "in disaster" something that's impossible.
The point John Percy is defending is the concept that one starts with a small but hardened cadre formation with a fully develop "revolutionary socialist" program and then you win the masses and become a big cadre formation. Any other vision is dead wrong. History says John is wrong. What we have never seen yet but we probably will see some day is what John advocates. Everything is possible over time and in rapidly changing circumstances.
Secondly the FSLN is a perfect example of an organization that was completely heterogeneous politically and deliberately so. Yet it did succeed in winning the masses and carrying out armed struggle to bring down the Somoza dictatorship. So was the July 26th Movement.
In general statements about the "only" way that things will happen or could "never" happen are generally wrong.
Will Causa R continue to evolve in its class struggle orientation cannot be ruled out in the manner which John Percy does in his report to the DSP. In the recent military uprisings against the government in Venezuela the masses poured into the streets to support the soldiers trying to end the Mafia like corrupt rule of the bourgeois political parties. The media immediately started a campaign against
Causa R accusing it of intrigue with the rebel military officers and of hiding arms etc. In the recent elections the military threatened a coup if Causa R won.
What will happen in the next period is unclear. This is a living struggle. There is no question Causa R is standing up for the working class and promoting its interests. It does not fit the schema of the DSP so undoubtedly the DSP will expect it to 'lend in disaster" focusing its attention on the limitations of Causa Rls stated platform. 1
If the DSP leadership believes views like those of Steve Robson will mean disaster one can only imagine what they think of Causa R. After all what Causa R advocates and practices would make Steve Robson look like a raving centralist. Causa R like the Greens tries not to vote at meetings. Anyone can join or leave, they are publicly against democratic centralism and so on. They didn't fall apart, they did not lose their effectiveness if by that we mean leading the class struggle, fighting for the rights of workers, winning masses to a class break with the parties of the bourgeoisie etc.
In criticizing Robson a method was used which has been characteristic of all sectarian Trotskyist groups. once anyone challenges the leadership you make a class characterization of that person.
Barnes did that to Jim Percy. Jim was great as long as he agreed. Once he differed it was discovered he had been a petty bourgeois' type all along. He was a student hippy type with a beard who owned a house. Ipso facto petty bourgeois, wrong politically. Percy would inevitably lead to the liquidation of the Party since he was adapting to the petty bourgeoisie milieu.
The method goes like this. Some one raises a criticism but insists they agree with socialism, and the over all program, Leninism, Marxism etc. The leadership then claims there is a "logic of the line". The logic of the line is always to capitulate to pressures. Pressures from whom? Why, naturally, the petty bourgeoisie, usually the radical petty bourgeoisie. In DSP language the "left-liberal" mileu. What this method does is end the discussion. It is a way of refusing to consider criticisms. It is a culture that crushes democracy and debate. The message that such a methods sends out to the rank and file is differ and you will be driven out.
Here is the exact quote used by a DSP leader against Robson, "While Comrade Robson has not consistently thought through where the line and orientation he has begun to develop will lead (hence his denials that he is not for building a Leninist cadre party), nevertheless, it represents an adaptation to the pressures of this left-liberal milieu. The logic of the line he has begun to develop is to dissolve the party into this milieu . . . It is a liquidationist line . . .” In one form or another I have read that quote a hundred times. Its role is to end debate and to silence others.

The New Zealand Alliance
In general in recent DSP documents there is a tendency to rigidity. And in the analysis of other currents the main focus is on program. When looking at the marvelous mass break in New Zealand from the two parties of the rich the DSP documents refers to the Alliance as left-liberal. This is utterly wrong. It misses ' the entire point of the process which is occurring and the potential made possible by the appearance of the Alliance.
The Alliance is a definitive break by working people from the two parties of the bourgeoisie. It is the starting point in the frame work of New Zealand to develop a mass movement for social change and democracy. It can lead to a struggle in the unions for democracy and a class struggle orientation and may lead to the development of massive increased class consciousness and a culture of struggle.
To look at the Alliance from a programmatic frame work and not see that the mass break is its most important underlying programmatic statement is an idealist approach to politics. The DSP reports see the Alliance as "a break with Laborism" or as a break to the "left". But stating it this way can miss the whole point. It is a break with class collaborationist politics, it is a class break. And like all mass developments it has only a partial platform with a lot of areas left unstated.
To say that in Australia this is not a "model that weld want to copy politically" because, "They will have activists but not revolutionary cadres, with revolutionary socialist politics" is utter leftist confusion. What has happened in New Zealand, politically speaking is the number one goal. that we need in every industrialized nation. It is the beginning of a mass conscious break with class collaborationist politics. The key to politics in New Zealand today is to have this break survive, grow and expand.
The key to the evolution of the Alliance in New Zealand is rooted in international events. The main victory of the New Zealand development for the working class is its example internationally. And like wise the present international relationship of forces limits the immediate possibilities in New Zealand.
The leadership of the Alliance is proving itself remarkably. First to have succeeded in forming the Alliance, an extremely difficult achievement, and thus begin to break the monopoly grip of capital over politics in New Zealand and secondly to begin building up a membership organization that begins to consolidate without losing its mass influence.
After the next elections it might become more possible for the Alliance to begin consolidating support in the union movement and building support among students and other youth. That is to go a bit more beyond the electoral frame work under which it began. But we must keep in mind that New Zealand at this moment is not under the impact of a deep radicalization with mass actions and political fervor among its youth.
The New Zealand Alliance has received next to no support from all the "correct program" sectarians. On the contrary all they can think about is raiding the Alliance in order to add another member to their sect. All they focus on is the formal stated platform of the Alliance. The key to the Alliances program is its break. Its leadership is completely independent of the ruling class in New Zealand and internationally and it is totally committed to defend the working people, the poor, to fight for defense of the environment and promote solidarity with other working people internationally. This is an historic first in the post Cold War period.
The Alliance, in part because it is close to Australia, becomes an excellent opportunity to promote class struggle politics by calling for a break in Australia like in New Zealand. The DSP focuses not on the living class struggle and the leadership being formed in that process but on whether "cadres" with an ideologically "correct program" are being formed. Since after 4 years it doesn't see something happening that fits its preconceived conceptions of forms it, now feels uncomfortable with the Alliance.
The DSP's international report states "And in this framework we also note the problems with there not having developed an organized revolutionary socialist current. Such a current, which can provide a principled position of how to advance forward, is even more urgently required in the period ahead." The fixation on program blinds the DSP to understand a form of development different from their own experience. To make the above statement is factually wrong. A process is now underway in New Zealand which is developing a leadership but it is happening in a manner much more like what happened in Nicaragua. It is very different from how groups like the DSP have been formed.
In the same manner the DSP document on the environment looks at Green groups not as part of a process in motion of which we not only must ally ourselves but of which we are a part. Instead the resolution focuses on programmatic issues.
Statements like, "Greens, like everyone else, must choose where they stand on all social issues," is a ridiculous formal logic oxymoron. By Greens we mean exactly those people who are in motion around one aspect of problems being created by the world capitalist system. By definition “greens” is an expression of motion, of rebellion, on a specific issue not "all social issues." By this logic of they "must chose" all struggles and all real movements that appear can be criticized since they always appear with incomplete platforms otherwise they would not have their mass character. That is in the real world.
The opposite of what the DSP resolution argues for is the direction we should pursue. We want there to be a Green movement that does not take up "all social issues" in order to bring about the largest possible unity in exposing and opposing the destruction of the environment. How that movement then inter-links, inter-relates and develops with other social movements is a complex process.
Thus what Greenpeace is doing with its dramatic actions to expose the corporate polluters should be cheered by us not denounced. To refer to these actions as-"stunts" is insulting and arrogant to the committed activist who often, risking their lives, have sought to force the world media to reveal what is happening to the environment. Such an attitude blocks the ability of the DSP to work with others. It is sectarian posturing.
The idea that lobbying is some how reformist or incorrect is also promoted in this resolution. It is referred to as the politics of "liberal reformism." Lobbying is just one kind of activity. Its nature is determined by its interrelationship with other events and movements. It has no specific characteristic in itself, it is like a tactic such as demonstrations, strikes, elections etc.
Once again the resolution is not written with an eye on our objectives, our relation to living movements and struggles but a sect like declaration of our ideological superiority.
Finally I should mention a comment which was quoted in one contribution from the NC report on IIDSP Interventions in Australian Politics." This is referred to as being "based on the Leninist strategy of building a revolutionary Marxist vanguard party." Before doing so we should note the use of terms like "a revolutionary Marxist vanguard party." Sounds really radical. Its not just a Marxist party but a "revolutionary" one meaning obviously that there are Marxist parties that aren't revolutionary. And its not just a revolutionary Marxist party but a "vanguard" at that. This kind of language reveals an underlying ultra-leftism of posturing. That is something we need to consciously rid ourselves of because it comes out of the culture and tradition that has led to the self-isolation and destruction of organizations like the SWP in the United States.
In the quote that follows there is a reference to a category of people referred to as the "revolutionary vanguard" as against the "social vanguard." An explanation of how class consciousness is developed follows with these words. "Through the intervention of the revolutionary vanguard in the broader social vanguard (the "natural leaders" of the class) and winning them to a revolutionary Marxist perspective and commitment to socialism. The tactical essence of the method is to turn the more conscious elements of the vanguard against the less conscious and to try to draw the vanguard as a whole towards a socialist perspective through ever higher forms of organization and unity in struggle. The highest form of unity is, of course, that of the revolutionary party itself."
This paragraph is confusing on several levels but I want to focus on just one aspect. The idea that unity is achieved by setting the more conscious worke

by archivist Sat Aug 23, 2003 13:18

Here is the rest of the previous document.....


This paragraph is confusing on several levels but I want to focus on just one aspect. The idea that unity is achieved by setting the more conscious workers against the less conscious workers seems rather odd. While there might be some explanation for this formulation the way it is presented seems rather ultra-left. Our goal is try to unify the class in action. The more conscious workers try to draw in the less conscious workers in concrete actions of a class struggle character.
In John Percy’s report while accepting that the DSP may have made mistakes he states, "But at each major struggle, at each step, we did the right thing." Of course, that is exactly what all vanguardist organizations believe and it is exactly the kind of statement that organizations leading the masses, like the FPL, the FSLN, etc. never make.

Summation
In the last analysis if we are correct and capitalism will be surpassed by a more rational social order in which class divisions as we have known then will end then this has to have very deep objective roots. And if our concept of the origins of ideas is the material world then the ideas of class struggle and of a socialist vision are being generated continuously.
The experiences of people in this society, the exploitation, oppression, and abuses always generates struggles, organizing and the development of social movements. Ideas about these movements and how to change society are always in flux. To believe that a few decades and a small list of individuals discovered the magic wand is not materialist.
our movement is still developing ideas on how to organize and how to change society. A lot of people around the world are thinking about these issues. Their experiences are helping them to find a way forward to end the way capitalism is destroying the planet and its human population. our movement has existed only a moment in history. The future will hold all kinds of surprises especially regarding forms.
The DSP itself is a very unusual formation. In many ways it is the only one of its kind. It arose out of the student movement of the 1960s survived exposure to the sectarianism of the US SWP and survived the 80s when most left organizations for whatever reason were collapsing. Its leadership has been very astute in having the courage to think for themselves, try experiments, pull back from things that did not appear to work and continue to look for openings.
It appears to me that in the recent period there has been a shift to the left and sectarianism. It first hit me at the Green Left conference when in a panel on what we should do next the DSP representative did not focus on what the Australian people or its working class needed, the challenges before Australia for justice, democracy and saving the environment but instead on the need for a Leninist Party. Thus the i ' ssue of what the nation needs was reduced to a focus on the discussion on how best to organize the DSP.
Over coming this shift will be a new challenge to the DSP and its leadership in my opinion. In general I have come to the conclusion over the years as many people do as the get older to be more cautious of one's views recognizing how often in the past one has believed in things that turned out to be wrong. Thus I make these criticism of the DSP's present approach as the way I see my helping the DSP. I am not optimistic as to how it will be,received by the DSP given its internal culture. Only time will tell its effect. I remain supportive of the DSP as one of the healthiest expressions of the radicalization of the 60s and an organization that certainly can continue to play, as it has up to now, an important role not only in Australia but in helping the international movement.

What Should We Do
Recognizing past errors can help us to understand how best to proceed today. The fact that organizations like Solidarity in the United States and the DSP in Australia exist with committed members but without mass roots is simply a fact of life. It is also an accomplishment. It is far better that such organizations exist then if they didn't.
The question is how to over come the isolation? The problem is not organizational although it has an organizational side. Meeting less often or lower levels of participation or commitment will not necessarily increase the size and influence of an organization like the DSP. Experiments in this direction in the mid-80s resulted in the opposite.
The level of activity inevitably is driven more by political developments outside of our control then any internal decisions. Sensitivity to this issue within the frame work of maintaining an activist organization is important. But we must avoid developing an internal culture which is alien and in conflict with the existing mass culture of our respective countries and especially among working people.
The problem of reaching out is political. One step that came out of the thinking around this question in the DSP was the change of the newspaper from Direct Action, as a strictly "Party" paper, to Green Left with its more open political content. This step was a success.
What is needed to begin to over come the isolation is a political shift away from sectarian traditions, language, internal culture and methods of intervention in the direction of the kind of thinking behind establishing Green Left.
The question of language is not a tactical question. It reflects the real political content of our movement. If we are serious about becoming effective and actually changing society then we must stop playing "revolution." For us to succeed, especially in the "Third Wave" world we now live in, our movement must be more internationalist then ever and must be deeply rooted to succeed.
Rather then start from what happened in history it is better to start from what is needed in the world to create a peaceful, just, ecologically sound, prosperous society for all and how that translates for one's own country including the immediate steps that need to be taken, objectively.
The development of independent mass politics, independent of those in power, and posing the question of who should rule are essential to make all the work around specific demands and reforms really meaningful. The failure of the rise of the trade unions in the 1930s developing into a mass political party in the United States was tragic for the entire development of social struggles since then. The defeat in the USSR set the framework for the defeat in the United States, since the left dominated by the Communist Party was able to betray the workers’ movement and keep it tied to the two-party system.
But because of the change in objective circumstances, these subjective factors are now changed. The possibility of a revival of our movement is now on the agenda over the next historic period. The Alliance, like the Workers Party of Brazil, are signs of the change. Neither is a finished product, something that is impossible, just like a new-born baby cannot be instantly an adult.
The existence of an organisation like the DSP on a much lesser level is also a start, even if it is isolated because it carries certain elements of what a successful mass movement will need. But the key is for the DSP or its equivalents in other countries to help develop the mass movement, to root itself, or it can end up as an impediment to progress, as almost all organisations calling themselves Leninist today are.
The future changes in society will only come about after our movement has literally become the culture of working people, precisely in the manner in which the Sandinistas became in Nicaragua or Cuase R is now achieving in Venezuela, or the July 26 Movement did in the late 1950s in Cuba. Those old enough to have lived during the height of the anti-Vietnam-War movement will remember what it was like when large layers of the population, especially the youth, had a culture of struggle.
For us to “win” this must occur on a more massive scale than ever, and it must be international more than ever.
For the few groups which have survived the last 30 years, and still maintain a commitment to socialism, but are isolated, it is imperative to make these changes. The “turn” of the United States SWP in the late 1970s was a farcical ultraleft expression of this underlying problem. After the massive explosion of the antiwar movement and the SWP’s participation in it, its sectarian isolation stood out more clearly. The organisation had to choose which way to go, and in the name of going to root itself and end its isolation, the SWP codified its sectarian existence even more profoundly.
We need to do exactly the opposite.
In this sense the fear of selling out, the fear of not sufficiently ideologically separating ourselves from other currents, of not continuously “exposing” the limitations of protest movement, has to be confronted. Deep down, the fear of selling out is a lack of self-confidence, something any organisation which is isolated inevitably develops.
Objective Versus Subjective
In preparing this criticism it was, of course, necessary to focus and thus to be one-sided, to bend the stick. The process of internal education of the membership of any organisation committed to socialism is critical. That is, the subjective factor is itself an important part of the equation. While this article is clearly focused against one-sided vanguardism or subjective errors, I want to make it clear that the question is not choosing between the two but the correct interrelationship between objective and subjective factors.

Cannon
While recognising there was a sectarian side to Cannonism, we should also recognise that many of Cannon’s organisational ideas are simply good organising techniques. Many of his ideas on how executive committees should function, the relationship between elected leaders, how to express ideas and how to organise discussions are certainly of value.
Lenin was terribly wrong when he suggested that the International should not only set the line but determine tactics for each country. The need for leaderships to arise in each country, even within each area of struggle, is imperative for the kind of movement we need to build.
Leaderships make mistakes, by definition. That is normal. The movement internationally will include various currents; that is normal. In fact, we may discover over time that it is really essential, given the diversity of issues with the working people of the world.
Imitating others is a dead end. But one can learn from almost any experiences, especially successful ones. For a period, large numbers set out to imitate the Cubans in Latin America. This was a mistake. So were the attempts to imitate the Russians after 1917. People who can think for themselves have the best chance of success.

by Caitlin Sat Aug 23, 2003 16:06

John Throne writes: "On other mistakes: I wrote most of the Southern Irish perspectives for the Militant group for about ten to twelve years and the idea that we would have ever had the celtic tiger was never even considered by any of us in the CWI. This was a serious mistake. What conclusions do I draw. That we have to be much more conditional on perspectives is the main one. But I still think we need to try and have some sort of perspective of what is to happen because without this we are just working blind."

John why does this tell me that you still just don't get it? How can a small bunch of people possibly know or even contemplate trying to guess which way the world will turn? Isn't it a wee bit silly to pontificate in this way about the desirabilty of churning out even more resolutions drawing on the extraordinary body of private knowledge you say Marxists have which despite much evidence to the contrary, enables them to map and predict the future?

Moreover, isn't it no more than a time wasting distraction from the most important task facing any serious activist: the simple goal of doing the modest, obvious, pressing political work that is there to be done around opposition to and defence against the imposition of injustice, tyranny, exploitation, the terror of war etc,?

Why are you so compelled ad nauseum to name this in advance as requiring a goddamn revolution? Do you see many people world wide sitting up and seriously listening to that sort of talk any more? Why do you think the message might just not be getting through? Since it patently isn't getting through wouldn't it be a good idea to file that one in the archives and develop a different language; one that doesn't frighten the horses or cause people to regard you and your erstwhile comrades as unreal eccentrics.

Former Trotskyist member: Haven't the few socialist revolutions that exist to choose from shown that planned economies can eliminate poverty and provide for at least the material needs of all? Why has it only been those societies as opposed to capitalist or other forms of class society that have historically been able to do so?

Has there ever been any social revolution in history where one class has replaced the other as the dominant class which has not required the armed force of the new state to be maintained and used when necessary to protect its existence? Do you think it is impossible to eschew all violence in a situation of class war? Could it ever be so easy and pristine and uncomplicated?

by John Reimann - Labors Militant Voice Sat Aug 23, 2003 21:00 wildcat99 at earthlink dot net

I think that Caitlin makes a lot of assumptions. How does she know that John Throne and his comrades (myself included) are considered "eccentrics"? Well, maybe she considers us as such, but how about others? Does she know that my fellow carpenters consider me an eccentric? Does she know that the young people - from young anarchists to trade union activists - who know John consider him an eccentric?

She seems to be saying that as a "small group of people" we sit alone in a room and "churn out resolutions" about "which way the world will turn." How does she know that this is how we function?

One of the biggest weaknesses in the present movement (at least over here in the US) is its near total lack of a sense of history and a sense of perspectives. It simply jumps blindly from one issue to another. When one issue fades, then the movement fades until another comes along. Then the exact same approach is applied. The result is that the same mistakes are made over and over - the main mistake being that there is no base built in any section of the working class population at all.

Caitlin objects to saying that different problems "need a goddam revolution" to be resolved. Of course, there are those groups who mechanically paste that onto every issue. In the first place, this does not mean that this is what we necessarily do. In the second place, it doesn't make the fact that a socialist revolution is necessary untrue, just because some bring it up in an incorrect way.

The fact that our tiny group of "eccentrics" has led workers' strikes and tenants campaigns among other things I think is proof that this is not our approach. However, on the other hand, I have noticed a general approach of almost the entire left here:

In private, they almost all would tell you that they are against capitalism, that they are socialists or anarchists or some such. However, in public they never, never speak of this. They never even mention the word "capitalism." Even in speeches at different rallies and protests, this word never crosses their lips.

I think this is a serious mistake. It leaves the movement here open to all sorts of diversions, including right into the Democratic Party. Of course, there are many within the left who would not go there. But what they'd even more abhor is any sort of serious, open debate with those who are all to willing to do so.

For the life of me, I cannot see how we can operate successfully without some sort of general idea of what is happening in the world and a general program and strategy to deal with it. After all, the capitalist class has this. The union leaders have this. But we don't. This may be helpful in avoiding any sort of serious debate within the movement, but it doesn't help if we are to seriously try to build a base within sections of working class people.

by Caitlin Sat Aug 23, 2003 22:59

John I did assume that you and John Throne don't consider yourselves the only revolutionary leftists around. I did assume that you see yourselves as part of a revolutionary Leninist vanguardist tradition which has some 90+ years now of history and experience to draw and reflect upon. So why do you assume that my words were a reference only to your group?

Do you seriously challenge my assertion that most people certainly in the West today and for very good reason do not desire or believe we need a socialist revolution in order to sort out the problems humanity faces let alone achieve more modest objectives, like affordable housing for all? Whether you or I believe one would be needed or not is in this sense immaterial. What is it again that the classic Marxist texts say about "voluntarism"? If some left groups in the US are toning down the anti-capitalist bring-on-the-revolution rhetoric then hallelujah. It's sensible tactics. Sounds like they might be tipping their hat to history particularly the history of the last decade or so internationally. Is this so very strange?

Ever thought why the Greens in US and Australia for example with quite decent and in each national context radical political programs are surging in support and membership and all without members or political representatives having to bless themselves each time they speak by referring to need for revolutionary overthrow?

You complain that movements/campaigns rise and fall, ebb and flow. Well that's life mate right now, no matter how unappetising or demoralising. As far as longterm implantation in the working class goes my sources tell me that Trotskyist groups largely have themselves to blame for the absence of this. They never been able to match the former pro-Soviet communist parties on this for example Why not? Part of the way Trotskyist groups have always controlled their members and in a way which explicitly reflects their real priorities involves constantly ripping people out of communities, industries, workplaces, campaigns etc often at the point where they are just beginning to build credibility and presence and send them off round the country or o/s to a new posting.

Well like it or not you're all reaping the results of that particular whirlwind today too now.

by Joel Kovel Sun Aug 24, 2003 00:22

Joel Kovel is a US Marxist. He has written about ten books. His most recent is Enemy of Nature. He rang for the Greens Party for the US Senate in 1998 and against Ralph Nader as Presidential candidate for the Greens. This speech was delivered on the 150th anniversary of the Communist Manifesto.

THE SPECTRE REDEFINED

The 150th anniversary of the Communist Manifesto challenges us to rethink the possibilities for socialist revolution. I speak of the possibilities and not the necessity; frankly, I lack the patience to argue this latter point and must state it dogmatically: whether or not it occurs, the necessity for socialist revolution remains absolute, given the hopelessly crisis-ridden character of the capital system, its destructiveness toward nature, and its inability to meet the needs of humanity.

No credit need be given to Marx for this set of tendencies; capital functions as it will irrespective of who says anything about it. But Marx did give us the method and insight to make intelligible the inhuman workings of capital, and for this his name is widely honored.

It is also said that Marx did not give adequate guidance for overcoming capital, and for this his name is now widely disparaged. For quite some time the project enunciated in the Manifesto seemed to offer such guidance. The Manifesto was composed at a time of rising proletarian activity, which it both thematized and helped organize. More than a century of agitation and revolutionary agitation lay ahead, during which Marx's formula seemed accurate. Yes, there were wrinkles: the breakup of capital was taking too long; the most active sites of revolution were taking place in the "periphery," rather than, as had been expected and held necessary, the most highly developed center. But the essential point could not, seemingly, be denied. Capital was creating its own gravediggers. The further it went, therefore, the more imminent its final collapse.

But it was the socialist movements which collapsed, failing to realize their emancipatory promises, wearing out internally, succumbing to irresistible counterrevolutionary pressure, finally breaking up like so many sand castles subjected to an incoming tide. Equally troubling, the revolutionizing ardor that had attended this phase in the history of socialism began a process of involution toward the close of the last century, from which, despite numerous particular exceptions, it has never recovered. The retreat into Bernsteinian social democracy might have been a betrayal of the proletarian cause. But it was also grounded in the real perception of a stagnating class consciousness.

It is no doubt true that Marx failed to anticipate much of this. I suppose that for those who seek to either deify or diabolize him this is important information. For the rest of us, however, it merely constitutes evidence that the founder of revolutionary socialism was human and could err in particulars. I would argue, however, that in fundamentals, Marx still tells us something essential about the possibilities of socialist revolution. This emerges from the most basic quality with which Marx was endowed, that of being a fully and consistently critical and dialectical thinker, possessed of, as he put it early in his life, that fearlessness, or "ruthlessness" of criticism which is turned toward its own assumptions no less than the powers that be. The critical faculty in this respect is more than a pointing out of what is wrong. It is also--and this is what makes it fully dialectical--the engagement in a process of transformation-through-negation. Hence the "pointing out of what is wrong" is only a moment in the negation of a pre-existing state of being and its emergence into a more fully realized state of being. Thus what makes Marx "marxist" is the capacity to be self-transcending. And since Marx is consistently dialectical, it follows that that the other features of Marxism are internally consistent with this self-transcendant quality. In particular, an entire vision of human nature is embedded in this dynamic of negation and self-transcendance. Humans are the self-transcending beings. And human nature consists of the capacities and powers essential for self-formation and self-realization--along, to be sure, with the weaknesses, at times tragic, at times comic, imposed upon a creature by such a demand.

From this standpoint the revolutionary process is not given in any particular historical configuration such as the encounter between capital and labor in the first epoch of socialism now recently ended. A revolution is rather an instance of self-transcendance on a collective and, at its fullest, civilizational scale. Revolution is the realization of human nature in history. First-epoch socialism was an instantiation of revolution in the conditions of early capitalism, and the Manifesto was a call to realize human being under those circumstances. As thought cannot be divorced from reality, Marx's thinking and his praxis were different sides of one entity. The thought embodied in the Manifesto expresses that unity even as it records and mobilizes those workers' movements in the development of which he played an important role. At the same time, Marx, through his superb grasp of abstraction, was able to draw from the workers' movements the general transformative principles of history and society.

In the view of human nature developed by Marx, the self which is formed and transformed is a never-completed project. Nor can it be a project that lives within itself. The self is social, but more than social, it is in continuous metabolic interaction with the entirety of the universe from which it emerges and to which it will return. The self, in other words, is formed and transformed in relation to other humans and nature. Humanity, as nature made self-conscious, represents a peculiarly active moment of transformation in the general flux of the universe, a transformation carried out through production, that is, the conscious objectification of nature. The self-transforming of nature is given in the central categories of labor--as the transformative activity--and production--as the entire process of transformation. If we look at this from the vantage of the self outward, we arrive at political economy, as the aggregate of labor-transformed nature in relation to human needs. If, however, we look at it from the outside in, we arrive at the effects upon the self in a given stage of history. From this the prospects of revolutionary transformation can be developed.

But what is the effective organ of a revolution; where does this take place in the collective self? Let us call this the revolutionary subject, that is to say, a collectively, class-organized set of dispositions in which the transformative powers of humanity are conjoined and concentrated on a revolutionary goal. Absent a revolutionary subject; there can be no revolution; if it is present, a revolution is possible, although it must be emphasized that the possibility by no means guarantees a worthwhile outcome. Thus the presence of a revolutionary subject is a necessary but not sufficient condition for socialism.

We find here an undertheorized dimension in Marxism. For between the objective social conditions and the transformation of those conditions lies a domain of the collective self, configured according to class. Marxism has tended to overlook this domain or to treat it reductively, as a mere internal reflex of economic processes. However, the self, or as we would say here, the subject, cannot be collapsed into the object, but has certain intrinsic properties. The dialectical nature of things insists upon the distinction between subjective or objective worlds within human being. For either to be collapsed into the other, the principle of negation would no longer hold, and human being would lose its specificity.

Bearing this in mind, let us look more closely at the failures of socialism, which can be appreciated as a twofold contradiction:

¥ the more "advanced" the capitalist society, the less likely is the emergence of a revolutionary subject; and

¥ those "backward" situations in which revolutionary subjects have tended to appear do not provide the proper conditions for socialist development.

Any revival of revolutionary socialism must confront and overcome this twofold dilemma, though needless to say, we can make no more than a fragmentary contribution here.

It does appear as if Marx erred in ascribing revolutionizing powers to the industrial experience. He thereby overlooked the potency of a contradiction to which he himself had called attention, namely, the alienation of labor. First addressed in the Manuscripts, then concretely laid out in brilliant detail in Capital, Marx was able to show how the rationalized production of capitalism deadens the mind, no less than it exploits the body and disrupts human association. Yet in the face of this, Marx asserted that capitalist production also evoked radical potential because it brought large numbers of workers together and educated them in the use of machinery.

He thus defined a contradiction without giving sufficient reflection into the balance of forces between its moments. However, history has shown which moment of this contradiction has been decisive in the development of a revolutionary Subject. The further developed capitalist production becomes, the less inclined are workers to revolt, or even to think collectively. The issue is not one of simple exploitation, or the development of a "labor aristocracy." More basic is the induced rationalization of the workplace, an internalization, not of critical or transformative reason, but of the instrumentality and the suppression of spirit inherent to capitalist production. Along side this is the systemic fear built into those who have signed onto the system, have no coherent vision of an alternative, and face its endemic insecurities

When, in addition to this, we take into account the fragmentation of personal and communal life, the disappearance of public space, the occupation of where that space had been by the intellectual and cultural ruin of the industries of the mass media, and, overall, by that gigantic operation known as consumerism, we find small mystery in the withering of a revolutionizing subject in contemporary society, nor in its replacement by a general narcissism and submission to the logic of commodity fetishism. This loss of disposition is crucial; for it occurs anterior to any specific state-sponsored repression, and often renders overt repression unnecessary, or potentiates its effectiveness.

To summarize: workers under capital are rather more shaped by the mode of production than by resistance to that mode. If not the full-fledged personnifications of capital such as have become the bourgeoisie in its various manifestations, workers still exhibit a definite attenuation of radical potential as a result of the action of capitalist economy and society. Everyone in capitalist society is a victim of the system; and few escape its ravages of possessive individualism, bureaucratic instrumentalism and cynical despair. This is not to depreciate the powers of resistance now manifesting themselves, nor, certainly, to foreclose the possibility of their becoming fully risen in the period ahead. It is only to restate the obvious, that these powers are today still in a dormant state. They flicker as best they can against the nihilism and moral despair of "advanced" capitalism.

It follows that capital must be fought and overcome, not simply at the macro level but as it inhabits and infests everyday life through the structures of bureaucratic rationalization and consumerist desire. And capital cannot be overcome unless it is replaced, at the level of the subject, with an alternative notion. It was this power of envisioning alternatives that created the possibilities for the instances of successful revolt against capital, from the workers Marx and Engels addressed in the Manifesto to the many actual revolutions that have taken place since. We know that these revolts have by and large failed. In terms of the standard critique, they did so because the societies in which they took place were "insufficiently developed." From Tsarist Russia, to China, to Vietnam, to Cuba, and to Nicaragua, the story repeats itself. Somehow, the revolution has jumped the gun, occurring before the full development of the productive forces and of civil society. Authoritarian measures on the part of the revolutionary regime were required because of this (and also, it must never be forgotten, because of relentless counterrevolutionary pressure), and these became fetters upon the further development of productive forces and the democratic institutions necessary for sustaining the revolutionary process. The common failing of all previous socialism has been its inability to build democracy into itself; and no revolutionary movement can be considered worthy of success unless democratic structures are built into its foundation and given the potential to reproduce themselves on an expanding scale.

Notwithstanding, we can understand the reason for the revolutionizing potential of "underdeveloped" peoples: what was underdeveloped in them included that totalizing inroad of capital we come to take for normal in the so-called advanced societies. Less weighted with rationalization and consumerism, they could more readily see beyond the imposed order.

Let us rephrase this in terms familiar to everyday life but strange to the language of Marxist socialism: what is underdeveloped in those people as yet relatively outside the clutches of capital is rationalization. What remains developed in them--and becomes attenuated under capitalist conditions--is their spirituality. It is this force that enables the revolutionary subject.

Spirit is a transhistorical potential of humanity. It is, one might argue, the dialectic as an inwardly lived power, not in thought or as a principle of logic, but in the concrete and collective life of the self. Spirit pertains to that faculty of the self to negate itself (hence its dialectical character) and go beyond its boundaries (which from the standpoint of psychology may be called the limits of the ego). It is that motion in human being that appears when the given is dissolved and the self is reconstituted in relation to a larger entity. Religion, by contrast, is the historically situated binding of the spiritual life of a people into a coherent social project. At the same time religion constitutes a setting for the production of spiritual life. The world religions relate the self to the larger entity of Godhead, or to some divine principle in the universe, or, as in the case of Buddhism, to a relentless dissolution of the socially constituted self as illusory. Thus religion is one, but not the only possible spiritual project open to humanity.

It follows that the revolutionary subject is also a spiritual project, one in which the expanded self is attached not to a church or to any godhead, but to a universalizing circle that moves, like the ripples on a pond, from isolated, alienated being, to the productive collectivity, and, through "solidarity," to the class-for-itself and so toward societal transformation through the motion of socialism, eventually locating its realization in communism, the society in which class is overcome. This was the specific meaning of the the revolutionary subject posited by Marx in the Manifesto, whose narrative of the spirit was situated at that moment when capital had set into motion the industrial apparatus and the classes corresponding to it. The Manifesto is about the spiritual-revolutionary overcoming of that entire conjuncture and not merely its economic or technical components. The very endurance of the Manifesto as an inspirational call occurring across many different political and economic conditions is proof of this.

In these situations, the presence of coherent and powerful religious traditions should be seen, then, as a much more complex influence than as merely the hostile antagonist of socialism. The enmity toward socialism of established churches is a major historical fact, and the internalization of submissive attitudes by the faithful could and often has become a major bulwark of ruling classes. But powerful religions also signified a relatively organic society which could generate active spiritual existence, a spirit which inherently possessed subversive as well as conformist potential. A world organized about religion was geared to the production of spiritually inclined individuals at home with the idea that life could have a larger meaning than that dished out by the authorities, and who, at least in the case of Christianity, adopted as their ideal a savior whose message overturned the class system and brought good news to those cast into darkness and poverty. Marx's subtle and dialectical view of religion, as the "heart of a heartless world" as well as the "opium of the people," along with other writings, especially Engels' The Peasant War in Germany, make clear that the founders of modern socialism were cognizant of the spiritual power necessary for socialist revolution. It is accurately said that Marx was steeped in German philosophy, French political theory and British political economy. To this, however, should be added a fourth dimension, stemming from the radical Reformation, which eventuated in the modern revolutionary tradition. Communism was the secularization of the radical Reformation, and the Manifesto can be regarded as a version of the Book of Revelation, where the passage of spirit moves through the proletariat instead of Christ.

As capital becomes installed, the direction is reversed. Because it must generalize the commodity, and because it cannot live unless labor power is converted into a commodity, capital necessarily delimits the self as it turns an organic society into one of atomized, self-maximizing individuals. The individual under capitalism clings to the self and puts its up for sale. There is not enough enthusiasm, compassion and, ultimately, faith extant in such circumstances to permit the radical risking and supercession of the ego required for the emergence of a revolutionary subject. The previously mentioned manifestations of the failure of this subject, namely, the adherence to bureaucratic rationalization, possessive individualism, and consumerist desire, are fundamentally mediations through which this anti-spiritual process is played out.

The argument so far is one of loss--the dissolution of the older spiritual order and its replacement by the instruments of capital, with sad consequences for the possibility of proletarian revolution. But this itself is only a partial view of things; and there are two major reasons why the transformations outlined here can augur favorably for another socialist epoch.

First, bad things as well as good have been lost. The fact that precapitalist sources of spirituality entered into the formation of a revolutionary subject in the first phase of socialism was by no means an unalloyed boon. No doubt spiritual ardor contributed to the success of these movements. But the kinds of spirituality inherent to traditional socialism also contributed substantially to what led to its downfall and made it unworthy of emulation. The dogmatism and persecutory impulses that have beset the history of traditional socialism were carry-overs from its religious matrices. In the extreme instances of Stalin and Mao the forms of traditional spirituality extended to frank deification and the installation of a new religious system, more repressive and less sublime than the old. More generally, the spiritual orders transferred into traditional socialism were ambivalently hierarchical--in that they were tied to the notion of a redeemer who brings freedom to the masses--as well as being unequivocally sexist and patriarchal in character. These elements set severe limits against the emergence of democracy within traditional socialism, and consequently played a prime role in its downfall. Obviously they are still very much at play in the contemporary world, and remain to be contended with by any future socialism. In doing so, however, socialism will no longer be burdened with their installation at the center of its spiritual dynamic.

The second addendum is more speculative and complex, and its complete discussion would greatly exceed the limits of this presentation. In capsule form it runs as follows:

The spirituality of traditional socialism was produced out of the contradictions of its world, one in which capital alienated labor in the early industrial period. Today we can say that chances are slim for proletarian revolution because there is no organized proletariat in the sense described in classical marxism. But there still is capital, along with its particular, historically generated negations. These now include, along with exploited labor, the structurally unemployed and the paupers all across the world, another source, scarcely present in 1848 but looming today as one of the supreme issues of the present and future. Broadly speaking, this is represented by the annihilation of the natural conditions of production by capital, essentially because of its insatiable need to expand and its inexorable tendency to degrade the natural conditions of production in the maximization of profit (James O'Connor).

Most people refer to what is happening as an "environmental" crisis, which is fair enough when one considers the ravaging of eocsystems including forests, soils, rivers, oceans and the atmosphere, the destruction of innumerable species, and the immeasurably complex effects wrought by the introduction of pollutants of all sorts. But the notion of an environment connotes what is outside ourselves, which is much too narrow a view of the crisis now unfolding. For this affects the built human world as much as it does external nature, affects also, as part of nature, the human body in all its aspects, and, finally, affects our spiritual existence in a profound way. The extent to which the spiritual reaction to this environmental--or as it would be more accurately called, ecological--crisis can enter into the emergence of a new socialist subject is the question before us, and of this, only the following fragmentary suggestions can be offered.

We have observed that the self emerges in relation to nature as well as to other selves, or beings. From the latter source arises the fellow-feeling which is the foundation of the drive to overcome injustice and one of the pillars of the socialist ethos. It may be said that one becomes socialist to the degree that compassionate fellow feeling for those mutilated by capital is combined with appreciation of the necessity of overturning the class relations of the capitalist system in order to return human beings to dignity. The individualizing, rationalizing nihilism of capitalist society has to date succeeded in checking this impulse. However, the ecological crisis, acting through the natural ground of the self, may succeed in altering the pattern, for at least two reasons.

First, the ground of compassionate outrage is now widened to the extent that degraded humanity is joined by all those other creatures--and natural formations--degraded, made extinct and pulverised by the ongoing order of accumulation and its class system.

And second, the basis of rationalization is being inexorably eroded. The foundations of reason lie in its capacity to regulate the human relationship with nature. As the truth becomes inescapable that the normalized processes of production upon which established reason is grounded are annihilating the basis of civilization, the legitimacy of this reason suffers an irreparable blow. This may potentially restore the spiritual power to look beyond the established system, and give heart to take the risks of doing so.

I mean for these possibilities to be stated tenuously to emphasize that their realization depends upon protracted struggle. For the truth to become "inescapable," tremendous work will have to be done. The powers that be, who are quite clear about the dangers ahead for their hegemony, have constructed tremendous ramparts of ideological justification. They have, in a word, "greenwashed" their system, so that scarce any awareness exists in the general public of the absolute enmity between capital and nature. Finally, tremendous work will have to be done within the left, and even a portion of the socialist left, to overcome a substantial degree of hostility which has arisen between those who identify with labor and those who speak for nature. I am unable to explore this "red-green" dilemma here, beyond saying that its resolution depends upon realizing the true gravity of the current juncture of forces. This time around there is indeed more than chains to be lost: a truly new world, grounded in a radically transformed and ecologically rational mode of production, remains to be won.

Principle reference, J. Kovel, History and Spirit (Boston: Beacon Press, 1991), to be reissued 1998.

* Alger Hiss Professor of Social Studies, Bard College

by John Reimann - Labors Militant Voice Sun Aug 24, 2003 02:32 wildcat99 at earthlink dot net

I did not assume that Caitlin was referring only tous; this in no way means that she does not make certain assumptions about what we do, how we relate to people, etc. She seems to think it's good that the "peace" and "solidarity" movements here devote themselves to campaigning for "justice" and "democracy" with never a word said about the system that prevents this. She seems to think it's good that this movement stubbornly refuses to consider why it is that it still has not built any sort of roots among working class people. She seems to think it's positive that this movement has not even attempted to develop any sort of sense of direction or to learn from its past mistakes and defeats.

As I wrote before, this approach is highly successful in avoiding any sort of serious political debate within the movement, thus preventing any hurt feelings, but I'm not sure this is the real purpose in political activity.

As for the Greens here, they have resources, channels to money and press connections, etc. But they are a horrible liberal bunch. In the last elections here in California, I started to vote for them (out of a lack of alternative) but then I noticed that every single one of their candidates was a stock broker, investment manager, etc. They did get one person elected to the state legislature a few years ago. She promptly started to make all sorts of principled compromises with mass polluters and the like. Since that time, this individual has left the Greens and is attacking the local liberal Democrat from the right, denouncing this Democrat for having opposed the Patriot Act.

Quite a fine record the Greens have.

In the meantime, I continue to believe that a sense of direction and a sense of history is not only helpful, it's vital for the left.

by Rose McCann Sun Aug 24, 2003 03:53

In response to last comments by John (to Caitlin) I refer interested people to long discussion on Marxmail list this year. I have clipped some of the most relevant in relation to John's comments(as representative of wearyingly familiar sectarian "Leninist" party or would-be-party) comments about the implied primary significance of the employment status of some Green candidates, such as Peter Camejo, as well as John's anti-materialist focus on the sins of individual Green candidates, rather than the growing grassroots support for the very good and wide ranging policies of the Greens and the nature of their base and support in the US.

Lippmann:

"What has been said by many is that Peter Camejo's Green Party run for governor of California last year demonstrated some movement away from two-party politics on the part of the masses of voters in California, and that we need to take note of this, support it, be a part of it, and mix it up with the people who are turning away from the Democrats, because the old ideas of demanding programmatic agreement from electoral formations as a condition of support has just led to vain attempts to grow various parties (like the SWP, but by no means just the SWP) into mass organizations, and we think another road to a mass revolutionary party must be found.

I am not judging the Green Party of California in any other way; I am not accepting > its program; I am noting that others, up to 5-10% of the voting population of California, were moved by Camejo's campaign to abandon the Democratic Party at least for that election, and I am trying to figure out how to help that phenomenon move forward, become larger, and so forth. Many have noted that Camejo's exceptional skills as a speaker play an important part in this. Anyone who has seen Camejo hold an audience in the palm of his hand for an hour, ought to rejoice that such a popularizer of socialist ideas has the chance to speak to millions. That is, anyone with a pulse.

Peter Camejo wrote August 3, 2003

"Our long-term goal is to build the Green Party into a mass party really representing the people. That is, a party that is a coalition of sectors of the population around a platform as defined in our Ten Key Values. In the framework of this election we can raise the proposal of an independent coalition candidate that represents environmentalists, labor, Latinos, feminists, African Americans, small business, the LGBT community, etc. Such a candidate by definition must be totally independent of the Democratic and Republican machine and be opposed to corporate domination of our electoral system. This candidate must fight for renewable energy, free elections, against war, for a living wage, protecting public education, etc. " By championing such a concept the Green Party not only points the way to what kind of party we want to be in the future, but lays out a winning strategy for today>'

Jose Perez, former US SWP July 2003 wrote:

Here, in the U.S., I see none beside the Greens (I may be totally incorrect). This is the only "movement"/coalition that has *some* motion and has a relatively large audience, that can raise some money, a loose organization that can be used by personalities (Nader, Camejo...). Should we stay on the sidelines because it does not represent all of our theoretical aspirations?

David Walters wrote, about Peter's campaign:

"he doesn't place the working class in the proper political center of
his campaign, something he did do when running as an SWPer in 1976. So,
the issue of unions being tied to the Democrats; to break free, build a
working class alternative, was simply missing unless someone asked him
specifically.

I guess it was probably confusing for me to call Peter's campaign
"socialist" given that people associate the idea with doing abstract
propaganda for socialism, which he didn't do, I don't think, although he
certainly was quite open about his being a socialist.

As for placing the working class, the unions and so on at the center of
his campaign, this is probably going to sound heretical to many on this
list, but I don't think that sort of propaganda culminating with the
labor party idea has much validity in the United States right now. In
fact I don't believe it has had much validity during my entire political
life.

One thing I know for sure: the idea leaves the kind of young rebels who
were the sparkplugs of the recent antiwar protests completely baffled.
It is an incomprehensible abstraction, something like imaginary numbers
are to high school students when they first encounter them. Just like it
was for my generation of young antiwar fighters 35 years ago.

To your average worker, calling for a labor party based on the unions is
to call for a labor party run by Hoffa. It is bad enough that he runs
the Teamsters, why would you *also* want him to run a political party?
And never mind that 90% of the workers don't even *have* a union. In my
part of the country, the big majority have never even *been* in a union;
nor do they know anyone who ever has.

In talking to workers about unions, the discussion is much more about
whether they should be for unions, not about whether the unions should
form a labor party.

Of course, comrades don't mean a labor party run by *these* unions, but
a labor party run by reformed, transformed, expanded, class-struggle
unions, in other words, unions which don't exist.

So the propaganda slogan about the nonexistent labor party becomes that
nonexistent unions that are quite the opposite of the unions that do
exist AND much bigger to boot should form it. How this is going to
strike a young rebel as a superior strategy to praying to God that he
strike Bush dead is beyond me.

There is another variant. You can always point to the example of other
countries. We should have a labor party just like the one in Britain.
Instead of Bush we should have Blair. THAT makes perfect sense, doesn't
it? That's really going to attract the militant young Black worker or
the immigrant from Mexico or from Asia. Tony Blair. Just what the doctor
ordered.

Or you can combine the two approaches: we should have a labor party
formed by the unions we don't have that would be quite like the labor
party they have in Britain if it were entirely different from what it
really is.

I think the old Peace and Freedom party, and today the Greens, are much
closer to the real original spirit of the labor party slogan and of the
kind of strategic and tactical approach outlined in the Manifesto, so
well explained by Engels in his 1884 article on Marx and the Neue
Rheinische Zeitung, and reiterated by Lenin in ultraleftism.

I have a friend here in town who I work with closely in Jobs with
Justice. He's a young Black, very militant, very class conscious, with
--AFAIK-- no ties or history of association with left wing groups. He
was a staff organizer for a local union for a while, and made a real
mark. Everybody in this town in left/progressive/union/civil rights
politics want him on their team, so to speak.

The ones who have him on their team are the Greens. This young militant
has gone over to the Greens, and with very interesting reasoning. He
does not want the "really existing" labor movement to transform the
political arena, he wants the greens intervening in the political arena
to help change the unions. Eventually he has a vision of a grand
alliance, with labor playing an essential role as a solid, well
organized, relatively stable backbone of the green party, which would
become a real "third party" of working people, in which a revitalized
Black movement would also play a decisive role.

What's inspired this vision is the local green party in DeKalb County.
It is not a grouping dominated by well meaning white liberal
professionals, but one in which the leading role is played by Black
militants, gays, women, and people who have been working to change the
unions. It is a political expression of these social movements, not
necessarily in a conjunctural sense, for there is no big active
independent women's movement or gay movement in Atlanta right now. So it
is a funny thing, it expresses motion and brings up issues collected
really from many years of social struggles. Or put another way, it is in
embryo the party of the 1960's, in the sense that Cuban leader Ricardo
Alarcón spoke of the 60's in his tribute to John Lennon a couple of
years ago.

So, no, I don't think the sectoralism of Peter's campaign was a
weakness, on the contrary. The starting point has to be *what is* not
what one wishes or understands there *should be.* What there is in the
United States, within the historical memory of working people, is "the
60's," these social movements. Even if quiescent for the moment, they
are a living presence, as shown by the extraordinary series of mass
antiwar mobilizations of a few months ago.

Peter accepting the nomination and saying that the first thing he would
do as a candidate was to take part in the Martin Luther King march was
exactly, precisely, completely and utterly l10% right. On the redness
scale, he achieved extreme fire truck.

And his drawing history and the present together, and the popular way he
projected into the simple thing of a Dr. King commemoration the
counterposition of a party of working people like the Greens and the
parties of the rich, was masterful. When I spoke about Peter explaining
socialist ideas, that's what I had in mind, being able to demonstrate
and make real the political implication of something as simple as
honoring a guy who has been dead for 35 years now. He understands what
such gesture signifies politically, he is able to draw it out so that
others get it, too.

I think that's what a real proletarian, revolutionary, communist,
Marxist campaign should do.

If you ask me, how does a Lenin campaign, today, in the USA, I would say
he campaigns in the way Peter did, setting out on day ONE, in the first
minute of his first speech, by concretely identifying with the most
advanced expression of the struggle of our class in the living memory of
the working people of our country, the Black civil rights struggle, and
drawing out in an ultra-accessible way the political lessons of that
struggle, that working people need to break from the Democrat and
Republican parties, that we have our own interests to defend, which are
not those that are being upheld by those two parties.

But it appears comrades have big issues with this. He didn't talk about
class! He didn't speak about socialism! He didn't come out for
revolution! He didn't even mention working people as such! And he's a
fucking millionaire, just like Nader!

Let's say it's all true. Nevertheless, what Peter showed with his
campaign is that the most conscious elements of our class, the advanced
workers, the *real* left, as distinct from the subjective left, is
yearning to find its voice, to express itself. Five percent plus of the
vote, including coming in second (ahead of the Republicans) in three or
four cities in northern California show this is a *mass* phenomenon
among advanced workers in at least parts of the country. And that he can
wage a campaign in such a way for that existing sentiment to begin
transforming itself into motion and organization.

And I believe the voting results tremendously *understate* the real
sentiment and potential ALL OVER the country.

If you don't believe it, dig up the exit polls from the last few
elections and primaries and study them in detail. Three years ago, on
Super Tuesday in North Carolina, with the presidential race open in both
parties, and it all being decided that day, Black folk massively
boycotted. North Carolina is 70% white, but the turnout was 98% white.
And the turnout was less than 20% of the Voting Age Population. In the
general election, nationwide, the turnout was less that 50% of the
voting age population, whereas in Kennedy's time, when Blacks weren't
allowed to vote in places like North Carolina, turnout was two-thirds.

The way I read this is, like, well, helloooo... Is anybody home on the
Left in the United States? Wake up and smell the coffee!!! This is a
class independent political movement waiting to be born.

If THAT is true, then the task is quite simply to let the working people
hear themselves speak in the electoral arena. This can only start at
*their* level of consciousness, not at ours. If the California
gubernatorial vote is symptomatic of an inchoate, instinctive but at
bottom *class* yearning to find independent political expression, and I
do not believe any other explanation makes sense, THEN the campaigns
Peter has been running which some folks consider "low level" are exactly
right, *just as* the Moncada program projected by Fidel was exactly
right, *just as* Marx and Engels were exactly right to take to the field
in the political battles of the revolution of 1848 as *democrats*, not
as communists or proletarians.

And something else flows from that. IF there is such feeling, an as-yet
inchoate sentiment towards an independent working class political
movement waiting to be born, THEN all these ultra-pure, hyper-Communist,
extremely proletarian and super-r-r-r-revolutionary propaganda campaigns
that various groups carry out are DEAD WRONG. It is *exactly* what
Engels described in his article on Marx and the Neue Rheinische Zeitung
as the alternative to the course they chose, to take the field as
democrats:

"If we did not want to do that, if we did not want to take up the
movement, adhere to its already existing, most advanced, actually
proletarian side and to advance it further, then there was nothing left
for us to do but to preach communism in a little provincial sheet and to
found a tiny sect instead of a great party of action. But we had already
been spoilt for the role of preachers in the wilderness; we had studied
the utopians too well for that, nor was it for that we had drafted our
programme."

IF the results Camejo got in a place like Oakland, where he came in
second, indicate this bottled-up motion towards political independence
that is trying to find expression, then the really *proletarian*
campaign is the one that makes itself the vehicle for this sentiment to
find expression; and the campaign that goes around preaching to the
workers about socialism and the decisive role of the proletariat as a
class and a lot of other things 99% of working people do not yet
understand is not a proletarian but a petty-bourgeois sectarian campaign
and an *obstacle* to the real development of a real class political
movement.

by John Reimann - Labors Militant Voice Sun Aug 24, 2003 17:15 wildcat99 at earthlink dot net

I think that those writing on this thread are on a very different wave length from mine. I always find it interesting and useful to hear what the checker at my grocery store thinks, or the young apprentice in my union's hiring hall, or my ex-con neighbor. I can assure you, none of them is thinking about "peace" and "justice" and being "progressive."

Rose mentions the ex-union staffer who is so progressive. Well, I've met scores of these staffers. Yes, they are oh-so-progressive on issues such as Mumia Abu Jamal, the US invasion of Iraq, etc. etc. However, let's not forget that these staffers work for unions. These were formed by workers first and foremost to fight for better wages and working conditions. And the main policy of the entire leadership of the AFL-CIO is to accept that we must go backwards in this regards. If a union leadership doesn't mobilize a fight on these grounds, then everything else is bull____. There is a wing of the union hierarchy that tries to obscure its abysmal failure in this regard by being front and center on the social issues. Their membership knows different, though. This wing of the leadership is just as hated as that wing that is more mainstream.

The key think to me is how can the left break out of its partially self-imposed isolation from at least some section of ordinary workers and start to build a base there. Please, don't tell me about the Greens, and not the Greens in Oakland. I live here. I voted Green (mainly) in the last election. But those who make up the Green party here have no more interest in trying to build a base in neighborhoods like mine, or work places like mine, than the man in the moon.

There's another issue that goes along with this: Direct action. I'm involved in a group called the Campaign for Renters' Rights. We help tenants organize themselves to take their complaints against abusive landlords to the streets, rathern than confining themselves to the courts. We are a tiny group with almost no resources, but I venture to guess that we have more of a base among ordinary people than the Green Party does. (I'm picking on the Greens because Rose talks so much about them. You can substitute any other "left" group you like for "Greens".)

Another problem with the Greens is that they have no orientation towards helping workers organize themselves to fight to solve their own problems. That is, to take direct action. As I say, I usually vote Green (for lack of any alternative), but I don't believe that voting is the be-all and end-all.

Finally, on the unions and the left, including the anti-war movement: I have noticed that many young people are very interested in the unions. In fact, many of them have some real illusions in the unions. If a union official ever comes to one of their meetings, this is viewed with great enthusiasm. The fact that these officials are betraying their own members on a daily basis is not really considered.

Anyway, these are some fundamental differences. Rose chooses to make a caracature of what I was writing in order to support types like ex-staffers of the AFL-CIO. (I've met several of these staffers and ex-staffers who will privately be very critical of their bosses. Of course, they never, ever struggle to organize the membership to transform the unions, especially around the issue of wages and working conditions. So I don't have a whole lot of confidence in these types.)

To sum it up: It seems to me that a few basics are sorely needed. One is to struggle to break out of the partially self-imposed isolation of different sorts of radicals, progressives, etc. and start to build a base amongst ordinary working class people. We need to start taking up the issues that really hit ordinary workers where they live - high rents, cuts in public services, layoffs, abusive landlords, etc. I think that the approach we have to take is for direct action. I'm not against electoral politics; many workers pay attention to elections. But I think that any serious candidate who really wants to build something of more substance has to take the position that as an elected official they cannot solve workers' problems for them; what they can do is use their office to help workers and young people organize and mobilize to fight in their own interests. I don't see the Greens, or any other electoral group, taking this course in any serious way. (Incidentally, several years ago we ran someone for city council based on this approach. We didn't get much support from the "progressives" - including those who were union staffers - but we did get a great response out in the streets of Oakland.)

This is where I am putting my efforts. I don't get the impression that those who have written recently on this thread have any serious interest in this directlon.

So, good-bye... It's been real, as they say.

by john throne - labors militant voice Mon Aug 25, 2003 00:29 loughfinn at aol dot com

There is no doubt that many ultra left groups act in the ways that people like Caitlin and Rose say. That is sneering at and condemning everybody but their own members and some idealized and non existent worker. But it is also the case that people like Rose and Caitlin tend to indulge in this approach. People like John R and myself are "pontificating" or being too "rrevolutionary" or ignoring mass struggles etc., only wanting to build small sectarian groups etc. And people like Caitlin and Rose can feel quite justified in doing this when they know next to nothing about us.

John R was elected the leader of the largest wildcat strike (1999) in construction in California in the past 30 years. Another Comrade of our small group won 6% in the city wide Oakland election a few years ago. In a number of areas our Comrades are at the center of struggles which use direct action to get people decent houses, paid the wages that are owed them, prevent them from being deported etc etc. This thread has been discussing among other things the need for an atmosphere of open and democratic debate and how trotskyism has been over centralised etc. and how this atmosphere has tended not to exist and one of the things that prevents this are condemnations of people and character assasination of people by labelling them incorrectly when they disagree.

Here in Chicago my main focus over the past weeks is to try and convince all the activist and community groups and union locals in the city to come together to discuss how we can take on the great gas robbery. The gas company in the winter of 2000 to 2001 stole 236 million from the people of the city. I am suggesting that we come together to organize to get the money refunded and in the process to identify the top 30 or so people who run the gas company and making all people in their social, personal and economic circles know they are criminals and that their crime is in the pursuit of profit and try and organize a boycott of them etc etc . I believe in building such wide spread movements to take up the day to day concrete issues and to do so in a direct action manner.

The problem I have with the Green Party strategy that people like Rose propose is that I do not see it as dealing with the day to day concrete issues in a direct action manner, that is in a way that helps those who are the victims of the corporations and their system to take action themselves to correct things. I see the strategy as basically an electoral strategy and one which is so bereft of clear general principles in relation to capitalism that it makes all things possible. And this therefore means that the pressures of capitalism and the capitalist class which are the most powerful at this time given the class balance of forces and mass consciousness, can quite easily penetrate these movements. Look at the evolution of the German Greens with Fischer now a top representative of German capitalism on the world stage.

I will not go into a discussion of should we be against capitalism as has been raised in some of the more recent posts. For me it is not a way I feel I should use my resources on this thread.

My main issues are two.

1. That the present offensive of capitalism has to be halted and thrown back. For this I am fighting for a movement that takes part on the ground with direct action fight to win struggles against this offensive and tries to develop this approach internationally. That is that does not try to lobby capitalism but tries to help the working class and rural poor to organize in such a way as to stop capitalism's offensive in its tracks and throw it back. In this way I believe that a new confident working class international movement can develop and in this way the new international movement that is seeking to break through can be most effective. I also believe in fighting to convince this movement to be explicitly anti capitalist. I am for an anti capitalist mass international based on the working class which uses a direct action approach to confront the capitalist offensive.

2. As part of this I am for trying to build an organization based on the general body of ideas know as marxism which as part of this mass movement will put forward and argue for these ideas and attempt to convince the movement of these. And that this organization would draw lessons from the past in relation to an internal life that does not squeeze the life out of its members and become stagnant and sectarian.

John Throne.

by Rose McCann Mon Aug 25, 2003 09:06

Dear John T and John R

I do only know about both of you from what I have read on Indymedia. And from what you have each described, the work you are both doing at a grassroots level in the workplace and in the community is to be commended. I'm sorry if my post or Caitlin's meant you thought we were completely denigrating that. The party particular comments were directed more generally at what we see as similar, repeated problems existing in Trotskyist organisation and practice. I think the debate is a valid and absolutely necessary one and will continue in other arenas. But I agree that ideally, language should be kept temperate and respectful, though sometimes our emotions do get the better of us. I'd expect Caitlin feels the same. We have a similar history and like you have both been active trade union members and shopfloor representatives in industrial jobs, former Trotskyists (me 12 years, her five) and now members of the Australian Greens.

It is a common misconception that the Greens are merely electoralist and is an argument used continually by the Trotskyist parties here such as the DSP. But this is quite wrong. They are by no means perfect. Could such a beast exist? But the Greens, particularly in the most populous states here, i.e. New South Wales and Victoria, are based on many hundreds of autonomous local groups (based on the four principles of grassroots democracy, social justice, environmental sustainability and peace and non-violence), such as the one my partner Steve and I are involved in. The membership is mainly working class. We do run candidates in local, state and federal elections. However, we use these election campaigns and work in between elections, not merely or indeed primarily to gather votes and get more people into public office, but as a way of building grassroots community campaigns around issues such as overdevelopment by greedy developers and big corporations in tandem with corrupt local and state government politicians; democratic community control; support for decent, affordable housing;fully funded, quality public education, health and transport; anti-racist work with local ethnic communities (our area has a very large Middle Eastern and Asian population) --to name the main issues we have taken up in our area of Sydney in the last year.

I think it would be counter-productive to declare in Greens publications, media work etc that our goal is socialist revolution or that some of us in the Greens are Marxists. I think the work we are doing is objectively anti-capitalist, though many wouldn't see it that way or agree for it be posed like that. I strongly believe it would be wrong to alienate members or supporters who have a view of socialism that is not necessarily correct, but which is the legacy of "actually existing socialism". Given the very sorry state of the ALP, which is providing little opposition to the vicious, corrupt and deeply reactionary Howard Liberal government, the Greens are standing very tall today in Australia and their membership and general community support is growing very strongly indeed, and deservedly so. It is actually the only bright spark of political hope existing in very dark times indeed, given what is going on here, including the inhuman, indefinite imprisonment of asylum seekers, many of whom are children, attacks on the unions, privatisation of public services, attacks on civil liberties, the growing racial intolerance and bigotry in the community deliberately fuelled by Howard, the abandonment of any real attempt politically to deal with the horrific problems endured by the Aboriginal population and the growing imperialist role of Australia in the region and elsewhere, as we saw most distressingly in Iraq.

John & John I think we do share in common a firm belief that the emancipation of the working class, women, minorities, the unemployed etc, not to mention the protection from total destruction of nature, of which we are a part and on which humanity depends for its very survival, requires the end of class society, as defined by Marx & Engels. I'm not so sure about the agency of that now. All I know is that it will have to incorporate and represent those most oppressed by the system, including but not limited to the working class organised as a class. The history of the socialist, environmental, feminist, civil liberties, etc movements is that of an ongoing project and undertaking, by the most conscious and committed, to figure out how best to do that. And no we haven't done so well to date. But that should be viewed mainly with the eye of pity and compassion I think, not total scorn or repudiation. I hardly think we will find the full answer in our lifetimes. Probably there is no one right answer applicable everywhere or for all time. Look at Cuba which managed a socialist revolution without a Marxist party. Despite its problems and deficiences, Cuba's record on health care, public education, alleviation of grinding poverty and hunger, ending of illiteracy, etc is commendable and would have been impossible if it had remained capitalist and has been unachievable in any other country in the region.

But to come back to today. I think fundamentally John & John our differences are tactical. And let me say again and the main reason for this post: I completely respect the grassroots community and union work you are both doing and the length of time you seem to have been doing it as well. You most both be very tenacious fighters, as well as good souls, and I can't but admire you for that.

by PSer Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:52

Come back Marc, all is forgiven, political activity is a duller place since you depareted and took your razor sharp wit & cyncial humour with you! :-) (really!)

by wolf cub Mon Aug 25, 2003 13:15

Come back anyone who can make me laugh let alone think which I would marginally prefer. It is all too sad. The socialsts on this list seem to be a rather inept lot even in harmless discussion. Maybe they are repressed. Have you nothign more to say for posterity? Or is this all that the record will show. Remember, you never know who is watching you or treating you as a role model.

by Trotsky's Tool Wed Aug 27, 2003 03:06

You're not serious are you? 136 comments most of them dealing with the minutiae of an organization that has around that number of members in sickening detail and you're not laughing? Go get a sense of humour boyo.

by john throne - labors militant voice Thu Aug 28, 2003 17:00 loughfinn at aol dot com

Rose thank you for the tone of your last reply. I would like to correct just one detail where I think there is a musunderstanding .

You write:
"I think it qould be counter-productive to declare in Greens publications, media work etc that our goal is socialist revolution or that some of us in the Greens are Marxists. I think the work we are doing is objectively anti-capitalist, though many wouldn't see it that way or agree for it be posed like that. "

Rose I am arguing that we should try and work towards anti capitalist fronts as a step towards an anti capitalist international. This international I do not see as some highly organized outfit agreeing on every detail. But rather as arising out of the mass movement , as actually being the mass movement which has been continually breaking through internationally over the past few years. Seattle, Genoa, last Febuary etc etc. What do these events represent but a new international struggling to be born. I am arguing that we should struggle for this new international movement to adopt the following points of unity.

#Direct action fight to win tactics to confront and throw back the offensive of the corporations both by taking on and stopping the local manifestations of this offensive, job losses, pay cuts, environmental destruction, homelessness etc and by opposing and stopping it on a mass basis internationally .

#a recognition and an orientation to the international working class as the force that has the power to change the world and the power around which this new movement should be built.

#Explicitly identifying the problems we face as flowing from the decisions and the offensive of the corporations corrupt capitalist system and opposing that system.

Nowhere do we argue for the new mass movement to adopt the aim of "socialist revolution" as I seem to have given you the impression. We believe that to do so would be to hold back the process of this movement taking a more coherent and effective form. However not to mention that what we are facing is capitalism and its offensive we believe would not help this movement become more formed and conscious and directed at the real source of the problem.

Within this movement then the different opinions can all express themselves and work. This includes those who do not believe in socialist revolution and those who do. But in doing so we believe that the interests of building the new international mass movement should not be secondary and we should be conscious of the danger of sectarianism as we would be about opportunism.

Easier said than done I know but just to correct any misunderstanding there might be.

John Throne

by archivist Thu Aug 28, 2003 17:54

May I for a moment go back to the original point of this thread? Marc Mulholland posted a link on his contribution to some of his stuff, and I am reproducing his latest piece below, detailing what internal discussion in the CWI is really like. It reinforces the points originally made by Dennis Tourish, and then by others, about how dissent is actually handled, and seems to me to have some VERY cult like traits about it. Those still interested in that issue, among the others, might find it useful.

My Life as a Revolutionist - Part Seven
Mostly my objections to Militant, as they developed, were political rather than organisational. I did, however, once run into some flak over finance.

We were at a peak of numbers - about 100 - when I joined in the mid-eighties. By the early 1990s membership had declined considerably, yet our 'full-time apparatus' was much the same size. The idea was that this precious cadre was an investment to be maintained for the next up-turn in class struggle.

The result was an increasingly frantic search for money, and enormous pressure on members to contribute. This caused much grumbling. At a CC I proposed that, rather than chase endlessly after money that was not there, we should bite the bullet and ‘sack’ full-timers.

Peter Hadden's response in such crises was always to put his opponent on the spot. 'Who would you sack, Marc? You have to be specific.' So I was, and I named a full-timer widely considered to be dead weight.

That was the end of it. Hadden acted outraged, enumerated the full-timer's manifold qualities and, as ever, won the subsequent vote with everyone against me. No-one wished to be seen as personally attacking the full-timer in question (who, of course, was present at the meeting).

Afterwards another full-timer berated me. I was right, he said, but I should have refused to specify a full-timer to be sacked. This was a task for the executive 'Political Committee'. He was correct that I had been caught out by Peter’s ploy, but I was annoyed at the trap, and frustrated with the timidity of other CC members who I knew agreed with me, but who wouldn't stand up to the Hadden storm.

Of course, the inexorable logic of money cannot be denied. Full-timers drifted away anyway, with my nominee for redundancy amongst the first to go.

But, as I say, politics was my main concern. Peter Hadden had written a book in the early 1980s, of canonical status, called 'Divide and Rule'. This dealt with the history of partition, more or less blaming it on British machinations to split an Irish working class otherwise coalescing around socialism.

Quite clearly to me, this was a travesty of history. I decided, in 1993 I think, to write an article, for circulation in the Organisation, attacking Hadden's thesis. Partition happened, I thought, primarily because Ulster protestants were irreconcilably opposed to forced inclusion in an 'Irish Ireland'.

I went on to argue that there was no 'One Nation' in Ireland. Socialists had no obligation to jolly protestants into a united Ireland. I argued, as a response to the 'National Question', that we should propose a form of Joint Authority in Northern Ireland to reflect the two conflicting and equally legitimate identities. (I'm not altogether sure whether I developed all of these points in this draft, though they were certainly in my second draft mentioned below. I do not have copies anymore).

I handed the piece of work in to the Centre, where it was ignored. The document was not circulated. It was dismissed as unworthy of consideration. One did not wish to appear vain, and I accepted this.

Many months later, Peter Hadden produced a new pamphlet called 'Beyond the Troubles' [you can read it at http://www.beyondthetroubles.cjb.net/ ]. I was astonished, on reading this, to find a hefty section clearly directed against my article (though it was not referred to directly). I was gob-smacked. My article had been buried and I had been effectively told to get off my pompous ego-trip and shut-up; in the meantime Hadden had busied himself moulding a counter-blast. This was typical of Peter's tactic of dealing with opposition by only entering debates after he had controlled the run-up (preparatory discussion or, in this instance, suppression) and had readied an annihilating counter-blast for the final 'open debate'.

I immediately re-fashioned my article, and this was circulated. A conference was held. The night before the debate I got pissed and had a huge argument with my girlfriend (the fault was all mine). I was in some state the next day! This did nothing to improve my already crappy debating technique. I was duly hammered.

Comrade after comrade got up to assault my thesis (I was most irked by one comrade who agreed with the standard 'socialist united Ireland in federation with Britain' line, but then said that after the Revolution we would encourage citizens to identify with Britain or Ireland as they liked, with institutions to express these identities. This was close to my argument and not at all what the leadership were actually arguing, but he, of course, was not corrected on the point by the leadership. If incoherent, he was speaking against me, and that was all that mattered. The point was not to have a free-ranging debate; it was to stamp out opposition).

I think no one else voted with me. We had democratically approved not definite agreed aims or demands, but an entire pamphlet, complete with historical analysis. This was the point, I think, where, in open propaganda, Militant effectively abandoned ‘united Ireland’ rhetoric. More than ever the solution was ‘workers’ unity’ and ‘socialism’; largely meaningless but best calculated, in Labourist fashion, to avoid confronting the totalising claims of either nationalism or unionism.

(Rubber-stamping multi-thousand word theses as ‘the line’ was standard in Militant - 'Perspectives Documents' would be approved as an indivisible whole. It appears ridiculous to me now, to approve every word, dot and comma. And this is literally how it worked. In another document, for example, I disagreed with Peter's characterisation of an anti-Red Hand Commando backlash in loyalist areas after they beat a protestant woman to death with snooker cues. He argued that this meant that loyalist communities were becoming less sectarian.

I believed it meant no such thing, sadly. A few months before snooker-cue wielding loyalists had beaten catholic women to death, and there had been no important negative reaction in the loyalist ghettoes. When I argued this in the pub, Peter worked up into a storm of righteous indignation. If the paragraph was amended in any way he would (Lenin style) resign from the CC and take his opposition to the rank and file. Little wonder that document was stamped with customary unanimous approval. It was now what we had to publicly defend).

To have a party line on 'what happened in history' was a nonsense, inhibiting of normal intellectual freedom (imagine if Labour had a party line on, say, whether Harold Wilson had been a good or bad PM, that all members had to sign up to).

From here on in, I was regularly, and with varying foundation, opposed to the leadership. A later controversy had me arguing that an IRA ceasefire was most unlikely without a covert or overt British offer of Joint Authority at least. This, it seemed to me, was the watered down IRA price. I thought it would lead to a huge protestant backlash. Peter argued, on the contrary, that the IRA, in a cul de sac, were moving away from armed struggle even in the absence of very radical British concessions. There is no doubt that Peter was right in this controversy, and I was wrong.

On this and other issues, I was roundly defeated every time. I felt I was little more than a cipher, proof proffered by the leadership of healthy internal debate. I was the token loose cannon (in so far as I was noticed – I had not the authority or charisma to command any great amount of respect).

In fact, real debate was always met with a phalanx of leadership unanimity. The leading bodies would, in sequence, agree a line. If you then argued otherwise outside the meeting where the line was agreed, you ‘put yourself outside’ that body. (There was one extraordinary occurrence when Peter Hadden heckled a dissident, Finn Geany perhaps, who had just lost a vote on the CC. He could either swear to keep his opinions to himself outside the CC, or he could resign immediately. He was forced to do the latter, in front of the slightly shocked meeting. It was a grotesque sight, open bullying, which, to my shame, I do not recall objecting to). The line was always agreed from above and transmitted with regimental efficiency downwards. As far as I can tell, Peter Hadden was the real originator of all important positions, unless they came from the ‘International Centre’.

More generally, I knew I was drifting from Militant's 'Revolutionary Socialism' philosophically. The leadership was increasingly correct to suspect me of being a renegade from Marxists tenets. More on this tomorrow.

by ex-cwi Wed Sep 03, 2003 03:06

I have just been keeping up on the many issues around the Throne expulsions. I was in the CWI at the time Throne was expelled. We were told many things, all of which through my own experience, I learned to be lies. We were told that the US CWI section was conservative under his leadership and that the party rank and file had to be more involved. Some US CWI comrades, when I asked them, told me that afterwards, that all of the changes that had happened in the US group, had been revoked. One hardliner in the split, even told me that he questioned “all of the splits” that had happened (and there are too many to say). He is still a member of the US CWI. I started noticing things when CWI positions started to change daily. The US Labor Party is an issue. At European schools, we were told that the Throne Minority, had an ultra left position on the Labor Party. Wanting to avoid the pitfalls of ultra leftism, i gave the CWI IS a significant hearing. But as a party militant who keeps up with events, i learned that the US CWI was changing positions, left, right and centre. Literally. They went from saying we had to be in the LP at all costs. Then they attacked their New York members for being in to far, for carrying through CWI policy. What New York was instructed to do from London was precisely what the Scots implemented; the New Yorkers, fighters for the working class, the Scots traitors. Since then, there has apparently been a whole series of splits in the CWI. I could not have imagined, nor can I keep up with them but I know I have too, if socialists who want to seriously change society are able to build the necessary links internationally.
I never heard of Brian Cahill but i would like to ask him where he got the idea Lyn Walsh was declaring a faction. I hope this is true. Like almost all who joined the CWI, Lyn was a victim of methods he learned in the leadership. He has been mislead and if he awakens, I hope he can draw a successful fight around him. The CWI is going right. It is emptying out and it has become a sect. This from the Party of Liverpool and the Poll tax. Like we used to say to the Labour Party leaders, the party is being robbed from us, but it is still our party, if not in name, in tradition and in continuity. Don’t let Taaffe steel the party from you. It’s your party too.

by Rod - ex-member of Trotskyist Group and Social Psychologist Wed Oct 01, 2003 17:39

Whilst the debate between current and former members of the CWI (and other Trotskyist Groups) is interesting I am fearful that one of the central messages of Dennis Tourish's book and chapter, along with a lot of work in the field of cultic studies (see www.csj.org) is becoming lost in a political discussion. This is that it is the way that certain groups operate, their modus operandi and practices towards their own members that can lead them to be placed on the cultic continuum. The way this is summed up for religious groups is that the problem is "the deed not the creed" - this enshrines the principle that people should be able to believe what they want to believe however crazy it may sound to other people. This maxim is Ok until you are dealing with fascists or paedophiles - but - and this is the central point - it is the practice of these groups that means that their beliefs (which lead to the practices) are abhorrent - this in many ways connects with the Marxist concept of theory and practice. However this theory has also been thought to hold as a constant whatever the nature of the group - it is perhaps time to consider whether the connection between theory and practice is more direct when groups represent positions that are more polarised within the wider social context. And this brings me back to Trotskyist Groups - the concepts of democratic centralism can be criticised in terms of their control and exploitation of members - the potential for psychological (and sometimes physical) harm is well documented in all groups who operate in this way (where for non-left groups the practice of democratic centralism does not apply). This can only be defended if one considers that the ends justify the means and of course that depends on whether you believe that the notion of the combat party is appropriate as a vehicle for raising political class consciousness at this historical juncture.
Therefore whilst it is deeds that can harm - and some cults harm only some people some of the time (to paraphrase Langone 1999)- on occasions the deeds are hard to admit to for organisations whose beliefs dictate their practice - and this is perhaps more likely for groups who occupy a polarised position where theory and practice are most closely aligned. Treating one's members better therefore does involve challenging some of the key beliefs of the group and as such needs to be approached with honesty and openness - not with defensiveness and not with a root and branch polemic in favour of particular leaders, traditions or writers.
I hope I am still enough of a Marxist to still recognise the importance of both historical materialism and dialectical materialism - we are much of what we experience but there is also an important subjective factor. Maybe it is time for the Trotskyist groups to use this subjective factor themselves in order to reflect on their beliefs and practices - to ensure that in the future "life is beautiful" for all their members all of the time - a vision for a socialist future perhaps that could prove quite attractive.

by Rosa Lichtenstein Tue Oct 10, 2006 20:22

Having read the above thread several times over the last couple of years, and largely but not completely agreeing with Denis Tourish's analysis of left wing political cultism and its attendant substitutionism, I note the lack of discussion of their ideological roots.

Religious cults have their holy books and mystical dogmas to divide the faithful. Marxism has something analogous: dialectical materialism -- a doctrine based on the terminally obscure jargon found in Hegel's 'Logic', a book redolent with Hermetic thought.

Comrades might like to know that at my site I systematically take this 'theory' apart, exposing the not insignificant role it has played in the long-term failure of Marxism, and revealing how it has formed the ideology of substitutionist elements in our movement.