Jimmy Kelly, former Socialist Party Member

by Constructive dismissal Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:08

Meehan you do have a strange interpretation of the idea of constructive dismissal. If a worker did not turn up for work for nearly 15 years and was sacked would that person have been a "victim" of constructive dismissal?
Jimmy Kelly has not been an active member of the SP for nearly 15 years and has not paid his "dues" in most of that time. In most trade unions if you do not pay your membership fees for 6 months your membership lapses. If you tried to claim membership of a union when you had up to 15 years of dues arrears you would be laughed at - get real Meehan.

by Davy Carlin Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:23

Should not let to be brushed under the carpet - more questions here still than answers.

I was told this was completely untrue by SP at the time, both here and elsewhere - and I think the story was pulled also.

Is it still untrue?

If not

then I had thought the SP where moving away from this nonsense, seemingly not - another wee section for my diary methinks, and of course linked to past such instances also as to show the continuance. {it is a great asset debating and writting all such instances at the immediate time, as so they cannot be revised. And of course one can link to them many years later to show such continuance, and therefore showing if things have changed or are the same as so new activists and members alike can make up their own minds. - This within all such organisations and various campaigns and movements. Indeed the reason as stated at the time as to why I wrote and write at the immediate time


Maybe, John has got it all wrong?, therefore if possible can an SP member come online for a few question and answering sessions and a bit of a debate as I have a bit of time and am in the mood to engage with such - more especially as it seems the plot thickens?,

Therefere the SP should of course put their position on this unfolding 'drama'.. And I know from personal experience that -

- youse can be such wee fibbers at times - was it the case also here ? If so, well little change, and of course will be recorded - but firstly and hopefully debated first here

On the forum - well it sounds good from the vibes I have been getting and hope to make to the next one

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:27

Dear John,

Perhaps the next time you feel the urge to post some ill-informed nonsense about the Socialist Party on the internet you will do us the honour of actually checking the truth of your allegations before doing so. Given that you are someone who (rightly) complains about the anonymous trolls on the newswire here, I find it surprising and a little exasperating that you would post such obvious troll-bait - does anyone want to start a sweepstakes on how many malicious anonymous comments this thread will attract over the next few days?

For anyone who for some bizarre reason is actually interested in the story "man drifts away from small political party", the facts of the matter are as follows:

Jimmy Kelly is a fine trade union activist who was involved with the Socialist Party and its predecessors for a long time. Particularly in the early years of the organisation he made a significant contribution to our activities. However in recent years he has not been involved in the Socialist Party in any way. He hasn't come to meetings, he hasn't taken part in activities or done any of the things which Socialist Party membership entails. To put this in context, I've been a member of the Socialist Party for a number of years and I've never once met Jimmy.

The Socialist Party periodically goes through our membership books removing people who are not involved in our organisation. This normally means people who joined but never really got active or who joined and then drifted away quickly but it also means people who were longer standing members who have stopped their involvement. If we didn't do that, no doubt the same anonymous critics here would be complaining that we artificially inflate our membership figures by counting people who are clearly not members.

Jimmy was never removed in that way previously for a number of reasons. He was a founding member of the organisation, he seemed to still regard himself as a member, at some stages he had good personal reasons for inactivity and so on. However the situation had gone beyond a joke at this stage. Even so, he wasn't simply removed from our books as someone who had been a member for a short time might have been. Instead, as a courtesy, he was written a letter explaining to him that he didn't meet membership requirements and inviting him to meet up to discuss rectifying that. It was also pointed out that he wouldn't be removed from the books for a month so as to give him plenty of opportunity to get involved again. He didn't respond within the month (or since!) and was subsequently removed from our membership books.

Jimmy has not been expelled from the Socialist Party and it remains open to him to rejoin any time he likes, providing he agrees to pay membership dues and take part in party activities, discussions and collective decision making like any other member.

John Meehan's original post contains a lot of speculation about "constructive dismissals" and the like. Now I realise that many on the left are in awe of the amazing abilities of the Socialist Party, but I have to admit that I fail to see how we can "make life uncomfortable" for someone we have had no contact with for years. I'm aware that these kind of smears arise almost any time somebody wants to claim that someone was "forced out" of an organisation, but I would have presumed that for the issue to even arise that person would have to be involved in the organisation in the first place! Perhaps John thinks we use our psychic powers or some member sits in an office somewhere chanting and sticking pins in voodoo dolls?

Now, I have no intention of responding to anonymous trolling. If anyone really has a genuine question however I will try to answer it.

by Davy Carlin Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:02

John would you elaborate on the below, also it would be helpful to get Jimmy's point on this

Mark points to it all being technical, but as below it seems to be political also

Quote - 'He says that political disagreements about the Trade Union Activists’ Forum –

were a factor leading to a worsening of relations between him and the party leadership.

He also disagreed with the approach taken by the Socialist Party leadership towards another former member, John Throne'.

Mark states

Quote 'I'm aware that these kind of smears arise almost any time somebody wants to claim that someone was "forced out" of an organisation'

On that I can state that

I am aware that these kind of smears can arise almost any time that an organisation wants to claim that somebody was not forced out of an organisation'

Of course I am not saying that this is the situation here but many many activists {including key activists} have raised this before - and in reality many organisations do use this tactic as I am fully aware.

It though, to an outsider reading in, seems to be more than just a technical issue as Mark suggests - it seems to go deeper than that -

Indeed after so many years of inactivity etc - one may be correct in thinking in a deeper sense, why now, and at this precise time?

As stated John can you elaborate and Jimmy have you any points to make so we can get to the core of this.

Good to see Mark replying - and of course we can just ignore the anon’s and trolls if we so wish. D

PS - Mark, I take that as being sarcasm -
Quote - 'Now I realise that many on the left are in awe of the amazing abilities of the Socialist Party'.,

by Deja Vu Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:40

You'll break the party.

Or rather.

Not.

2005 will not be remembered as the year when Comrade Jimmy Kelly was written a nice letter inviting himself to clarify his position in the SP.

It will be remembered for GAMA, Rossport 5, EU Constitution defeats and the Irish Ferries demo.

Good luck to the splitters, at least the middle class princes (of which I am glad to count myself) orientate towards the class and struggle rather than vacillate on Indymedia over imagined scandals.

by Yezhev Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:51

Glad to see that you treat internal democracy with the arrogance that it deserves. Care to name what position your fellow student prince held that wrote the letter to Jimmy? Presuming of course that it wasn't yourself?

by A Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:52

While it is true that Jimmy has not played an active role nor paid dues for a number of years he has always been held in high regard by SP members who know him.

Anyone who comes on to this thread and implies anything different is either ignorant of the facts or is deliberately attempting to troll

by SP member - Socialist Party/CWI Tue Dec 20, 2005 13:13

I have known Jimmy Kelly for many years, he is a longstanding and trusted comrade and a friend.

Like many members Jimmy has not been as active as he would have liked over many years, something that is completely understandable.

The SP would have liked Jimmy to be more active and when these situations arise attempt to engage in discussions with inactive members to see if something can be done to facilitate their involvement in the SP. This is what has happened in this case.

Jimmy is a close friend of Johne Throne and has been for decades. It is not surprising that he would not and has not been happy with how things developed with John Throne in the mid-1990's. This caused a lot of difficulties for him which is hardly a surprise. But unfortunately revolutionary politics has no place for sentimentality.

In relation to Dermot, unfortunately the situation with John Throne affected their relationship so the comment from observer has no foundation.

In relation to Trade Union activists forum unfortunatley Jimmy was not involved in any real discussions with the SP about this issue which if they did happen potentially could have sort out difficulties.

I am saddened by this development. Jimmy Kelly played a hugely important role in the development of the CWI in Ireland over decades and he deserves our thanks. I will continue to regard him as a comrade and a friend despite this and the fact that I have not had contact with him for some time now. I wish him well and hope at some time in the future he can see his way to re-joining. Unfortunately time moves on and as I said earlier there is no space for sentimentality in revolutionary politics

by Davy Carlin Tue Dec 20, 2005 13:27

Fair enough points.

And on a personal note fair play to you for not bottling out of a debate, and as importantly the way in which you have actually responded.

-Respect.

I still think though that some of the fundemental issues have not been addressed, such as why the denial in the first place?

by De Nile. Tue Dec 20, 2005 13:36

What's to deny?

Jimmy Kelly was never expelled.

Does anybody here actually read the replies or just what they want to see?

It is of absolute zero importance what position anybody had who actually sent the letter to Comrade Jimmy Kelly.

Unless of course people are holding out for an autograph of somebody special? Looking for that special Xmas gift???

by Mark P Tue Dec 20, 2005 13:45

I said I would answer any genuine questions so here's one for Davy:

I think you may be getting confused over something. What was "denied" is that Jimmy Kelly has been expelled from the Socialist Party - it was denied because it isn't true. Apart from anything else if he had been expelled, he wouldn't be able to rejoin. It has never been denied that Jimmy let his membership of the Socialist Party lapse and is therefore no longer a member. It's not a secret and was explained in some detail on the editorial list at the time.

by Stephen Boyd Tue Dec 20, 2005 13:52

Mark P and others have clearly answered the nonsense from John Meehan about Jimmy Kelly. He was not expelled, therefore Carlin, there was no denial as you put it because there was nothing to deny!
To Meehan, the self appointed conscience of the "Irish Left" - who was spat out of the USFI and that mass Marxist party the Socialist Democracy I refer you to Comrade Lenin.
“A member of the Party is one who accepts its programme and who supports the Party both financially and by personal participation in one of the Party organisations" Lenin, from One Step Foward, Two Steps Back, 1904. Membership of the Socialist Party is based on this criteria as laid down by Lenin and the Bolsheviks - Jimmy Kelly met none of this criteria.

by SP member Tue Dec 20, 2005 13:53

We seem to be wasting our breath and all people are trying to do is build paper castles

by pat c Tue Dec 20, 2005 13:59

or icecream castles in the air. what is the beef here? someone wasnt active for years and didnt pay dues so they were dropped from membership.

john, i am sure the USFI have membership norms as well. perhaps you would let us know how a member of the USFI would be treated if they had neglected their organisational responsibilities.

by Yezhev Tue Dec 20, 2005 14:03

This isn't the reason why Jimmy was removed. Stop being so gullible.
BTW there are other purges in the offing.

by pat c Tue Dec 20, 2005 14:06

there have been others who left the sp in dubious circumstances. i have raised their cases on indy in the past. but if someone was inactive and didnt pay dues then they dont have a leg to stand on. (even if there are other reasons for JKs removal.)

by Yezhev Tue Dec 20, 2005 14:09

If Jimmy hasn't done so in 15 years, do you reckon there were others members who haven't? Do you think that they have been written to? A bureaucratic device is a bureaucratic device at the end of the day.

by Old Lag Tue Dec 20, 2005 14:11

I'd expel the person who was in charge of collecting dues.

by Davy carlin Tue Dec 20, 2005 14:44

And it was all going so well,

Boyd'

Firstly calmmmmmm yourself down, take a chill pill, take it in your stride, my man.

I sense tension in the air - 'Boyd'.

Previous SP member was much more 'advanced' I think. You words remind me of another SP member I have come across on many occasions- methinks
.
Now all settled and hopefully chilled - Good- now let us begin

BOYD - it seems, as John had stated, that Jimmy thinks there is a political element to this - Is this the case?


From reading - youse - say no, while John says there is, and indeed from an outsider looking in I see still no reply to such.. That is my feeling, obviously you disagree.

Indeed such issues would be 'Paper Castles' if solely a technical issue - but it seems this is not the case..

Indeed as per previous posts as to Jimmy's 'leaving' there was complete denial, then it was due to technical issues, but as raised it is argued that it is also political.

This is the important factor.

And all I ask is - is that the case?.

I think John should elaborate on this or more importantly Jimmy should put his understanding, as so we can hear it from the 'horse’s month – as so to see if it is true or not - in his eyes.

I understand your points –BOYD- but forgive me of being a tad wary, given my experiences with your organisations leaders in the North over the years

. I will come back if john elaborates or more especially if Jimmy. replies.

In the meantime -BOYD- chill out - life’s to short my man.

Pat C – it is the timing Pat, the timing, that I refer to, more especially when one can point to similar situations across such organisations.

How many years was it?

I apologise for being sceptical but experience has taught me to be so. Despite that I take things still on merit and ask but simple questions of those SP members who want to engage {as Indymedia does well} while at the same time asking John to elaborate while asking Jimmy to reply.

And so,

With all such, people then can therefore reach there own conclusions will seeing all sides of the 'story'. I think that is responsible enough – and only those that fear such debate can and will have anything to fear.

Will come back if John or Jimmy replies - if have time. D.

by Chekov - 1 of imc Tue Dec 20, 2005 15:07

This story has been posted several times to the newswire. It was removed before, not through any desire to protect the SP from criticism, but because it did not contain any details which could possibly be substantiated. I do not think that anybody could really make a serious claim that indymedia editors are particularly zealous in protecting the SP from criticism.

I still do not think that there have been any details of real substance provided, however, it has now been published by a non-anonymous poster with at least a bare covering of details, so anybody is free to make up their own minds as to the merits of the allegations. Personally I think it is thusfar a very weak charge indeed - we don't even know whether the person in question actually wanted to remain a member of the party - and without such information it really does look like it could well be somebody drifting away from a party - which is not exactly earth-shattering news.

by SP member - Socialist Party/ CWI Tue Dec 20, 2005 15:28

I hope Jimmy Kelly doesn't come on here. I feel it would be inappropriate. If Jimmy wants to discuss political differences with the leadership of the SP then I am sure they would make themselves available. Jimmy is well aware of the internal procedures available if he is not happy with the response. I will support him 100% if he wants to initiate such an approach.

I think it would be counter-productive for Jimmy to come on here and hold this arguement in public at this time. I think to do so in the minds of some SP people would damage Jimmy's standing and history within the CWI and this is not something I would like to see happen.

If a parting of the ways has to occur, then I hope it will be amicable. Too often these things are not.

Jimmy Kelly has given so much to the SP and if he feels that there are difficulties with how things have developed I hope he can accept that these things happen.

As I said previously I have nothing but respect for this comrade and friend. I wish him well.

by Kollontai Tue Dec 20, 2005 15:32

And while we're at quoting Lenin, what, I wonder ,did he have to say about people who brought the Bolshevik party into constant disrepute by a litany of drunken, sexist, childish behaviour? I suppose to be fair, he saw that such people have their uses: to bullly others into conformity and to test run offensive attacks on perceived enemies just to see if it proved useful. I suppose he also had to contend with such lightweights constantly running back to him squealing about other comrades.

Of course these problems may not affect the SP because years of studying Lenin should have warned them of such individuals....or maybe not.

by Curious Tue Dec 20, 2005 15:36

'And while we're at quoting Lenin, what, I wonder ,did he have to say about people who brought the Bolshevik party into constant disrepute by a litany of drunken, sexist, childish behaviour? '

Throwing the cat amongst the pigeons there Kollontai, sit back and drink a glass of water. When you have calmed down a little you can tell us who the above remarks refer to.

by Davy Carlin Tue Dec 20, 2005 15:53

On some points SP Member --- Fair enough.

-From the onset I must say that your tone of argument has been very approachable,

So signing of for good. D
.

by Kollontoi Tue Dec 20, 2005 15:54

That was a lovely glass of water. Now Curious, it doesnt do to be too curious. Any resemblance to any one, living or dead, was purely argumentative and should not be taken as a true representation of any living creature other than stubby little stalinoid bullies who inhabit the murkier depths of most far left parties. Whether this is true of the SP, I wouldnt know, never having had the privilege of of being a member, not to mention the privelege of being informed that I no longer met the criteria for membership. How bout you Curious, ever been in the SP, any evidence that it contains disreputable cowardly hacks who masquerade as hardmen? Or maybe youre an SWPer, come across any of these pondlife in that party?
Maybe you could help me with the relevant Lenin quote?

by Curious Tue Dec 20, 2005 16:01

'Maybe you could help me with the relevant Lenin quote?'

No but I could give you a good Kollontoi quote. Interesting woman, she was with the Workers Opposition in 1920 but ended up as Stalinist hack finishing her career as Ambassador to Sweden. I think she was the only member of the Bolshevik Party Central Committee from 1917 (apart from Stalin himself) to survive the purges and executions. She must have paid her dues and attended meetings.

Heres the Kollontoi quote: 'Sex should be as simple as drinking a glass of water'.

by RTY Tue Dec 20, 2005 16:07

Would that be the Kollantai who was a Menshevik, then in 1921 formed an opposition to Lenin and Trotsky, and was a "diplomat" for Stalins' regime until 1945 and not surprisingly was never persecuted by Stalin!
Does your choice of heroine reflect your own menshevik politics?

by I want the doll Tue Dec 20, 2005 16:18

Kollontai leave the SWP alone they still have a Jimmy Kelly as a member.

by Kollontai Tue Dec 20, 2005 16:32

Yes an interesting career: got it all wrong, then all right, then all wrong again or maybe that should be all wrong all wrong all wrong or all...oh what the hell at least she did'nt claim to be right all the time which is more than can be said for some comrades.

Oh no RTY, Im certainly not a menshevik: that would mean I'm fixated on elections (especially in say....Dublin North and Dublin West), dont find direct action very agreeable,(especially at an airport called Shannon) and think that anyone can be a member of the party as long as they toe the line.

But really, such trivial issues aside, can either of you find me a Lenin quote on disreputable personal behaviour...Im sure he said something about that obscure hirsuite provincial guy who was a rude, sexist , bullying, ignorant bollocks. What was his name again, started with S.....

by RTY Tue Dec 20, 2005 16:48

Suggested reading by Kollontai the friend and defender of S....Stalin.
"We, the women of the Land of Soviets, are devoting all our energy to creative labour, to the fulfilment of the monumental tasks set by the five-year plan, knowing that in so doing we are strengthening the bulwark of peace throughout the world--the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics." This quote comes from The Soviet Woman — a Full and Equal Citizen of Her Country by Alexandra Kollontai 1946. The full article can be read at http://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/works/full.htm

by Kollontoi Tue Dec 20, 2005 16:52

I am going to name the person. The most obnoxious bully that I have ever come across on the left. A small minded man who only has the crudest understanding of marxism, a man who treats comrades with unbelivable disrespect, a boor who hails from a far flung province, a pig ignorant fool who received a religious education and who constantly ingratiates himself with the party leader. His name is ...Joseph Stalin. What? You thought I was refering to some one else? Oh no, surely no one else could fit that description?

by Dustin Tue Dec 20, 2005 17:03

Sounds like Dermot Connolly or even John Throne who were renowned as bullies... though neither of them had a religious education...Joe Higgins had a religious education do you mean him?

by Usual Suspects Tue Dec 20, 2005 17:17

As usual, the trolls are having a great time derailing any serious discussion.

As far as I can see this is the nub of this issue:

1.Jimmy Kelly, a founder member of the Militant, was sent a letter by a fairly junior member of the SP informing him that he no longer met the criteria for membership, effectively ending his membership of that organisation.

2.The SP claim that this was the routine administrative proceedure that happens when a member becomes inactive and that Jimmy Kelly's political views or associations had no bearing on the matter.

3. The SP's opponents claim that this was a bureaucratic manouevre to expel Jimmy because of his 'dissident status', his association with JohnThrone, etc

4. Its hard to weigh this up objectively but this information could clear it up: If the SP could show that this precise proceedure is used regularly to deal with those who become inactive then it would prove that it was indeed just a coincidence that a dissenting voice such as Jimmy fell foul of the rules. This would show that the SP deals with membership questions as one would expect any serious socialist organisation: if you are not active you can't be a member. If anyone in the SP could cite another example of such a letter being sent in the last year or so, that would clear up the matter quickly.

5. If, on the other hand, this proceedure has rarely or never been used, then it is a fair assumption that Jimmy Kelly has been targeted for his political views and connections and that he has effectively been expelled, which indicates that the SP has a truly undemocratic internal regime.

by Ex-Militant Tue Dec 20, 2005 17:19

That should read:

Title: Usual Suspects

Author: Ex-Militant

by SP Member - Socialist Party/CWI Tue Dec 20, 2005 17:22

are we supposed to prove it. Produce our minutes books for you to inspect?

Fat chance.

This happens on a regular basis, every few months. As someone said earlier if we didn't do this you guys would be accusing us of inflating our membership and not behaving as a proper socialist party.

Give us a break and give Jimmy a break.

by Kollontoi Tue Dec 20, 2005 17:30

Come to think of it, by a strange coincidence, my description of Stalin does sound a bit like a description of a whole host of SP/CWI leaders (and not so leaders) and lots of SWP leaders and plenty of the leaders of the micro-cranks...gee that never struck me before. Although its no redeeming feature in my book, at least the others have a spark of originality, they are not simply 'his masters voice'.

I forgot to mention as well that Stalin was brought up by his mother, poor boy that must have had an impact on his psyche.

by Mark P Tue Dec 20, 2005 17:45

What an abomination of a thread. Every second anonymous troll on the site gathered together to throw mud about absolutely nothing. Now we get "Ex-Militant" arriving to add his/her particular brand of axe-grinding. Although at least Ex-Militant isn't ranting on about Alexandra Kollontai and religious educations, so I suppose we should almost be grateful for the return to a more straightforward kind of sectarian shite.

For the record, and for Ex-Militant's benefit:

The Socialist Party regularly goes through its books and removes people from our membership list who don't meet our (not particularly stringent!) membership requirements. That is, if people aren't active and aren't paying membership dues, and haven't been doing so for a while, we stop counting them as members. That this is normal procedure should be blindingly obvious, otherwise our membership lists would be full to the point of bursting with everyone who ever joined us at some meeting a couple of decades ago.

Jimmy Kelly's case departed from the norm in only two ways. Firstly, he was allowed much more leeway then a member of shorter standing would be, in that he wasn't removed long ago. Secondly, instead of just removing him summarily he was sent a letter informing him of membership requirements and asking him to meet up to discuss becoming active again as well as telling him that he wouldn't be removed from the membership list for a month. Jimmy never replied to the letter and then and only then was he removed from the list.

I know, I know, what bastards we are. Why didn't we just crucify the man and have done with it? Everyone knows that someone who doesn't pay subs or go to meetings or take part in activities should be considered a party member for, erm, forever and ever!

By the way, since some people here seem to care so much about a trivial detail, the person who sent Jimmy the letter is the branch secretary of the branch Jimmy would be in if he ever attended branch meetings. Amongst other things the branch secretary is responsible for looking after branch membership lists.

Now honestly, do some of you really have nothing better to worry about than this?

by Ex-Militant Tue Dec 20, 2005 17:46

Of course no sane person would expect the SP to open their minute books to all for inspection, nor their private correspondence.
Its far easier than that. If this was not a clever wheeze aimed at expelling Jimmy without seeming to do so, then all the SP has to do is name the last ex-member who was subjected to this proceedure which, if the SP members are telling the truth, is a routine, though regretable, way in which inactive members are 'removed off the books'.

If you are able to name someone, then it can be verified, if you can't then this letter was unique to Jimmys case and, yes, things have got so bad that such a respected activist can be booted just because he disagreed with the party line.

by Mark P Tue Dec 20, 2005 17:51

How did I avoid the question? In case you missed it here is a direct response from my previous post:

The Socialist Party regularly goes through its books and removes people from our membership list who don't meet our (not particularly stringent!) membership requirements. That is, if people aren't active and aren't paying membership dues, and haven't been doing so for a while, we stop counting them as members. That this is normal procedure should be blindingly obvious, otherwise our membership lists would be full to the point of bursting with everyone who ever joined us at some meeting a couple of decades ago.

Jimmy Kelly's case departed from the norm in only two ways. Firstly, he was allowed much more leeway then a member of shorter standing would be, in that he wasn't removed long ago. Secondly, instead of just removing him summarily he was sent a letter informing him of membership requirements and asking him to meet up to discuss becoming active again as well as telling him that he wouldn't be removed from the membership list for a month. Jimmy never replied to the letter and then and only then was he removed from the list.

I know, I know, what bastards we are. Why didn't we just crucify the man and have done with it? Everyone knows that someone who doesn't pay subs or go to meetings or take part in activities should be considered a party member for, erm, forever and ever!

by SP member - Socialist Party Tue Dec 20, 2005 18:18

There is no hope that we are going to list the names of people here who have been reduced from membership of the SP. Have some cop-on. Did you pause to think that they may not want their names splashed on indymedia. How will you verify it? do you want their phone number, home address, workplace or college.

Get a life

by Ex-Militant Tue Dec 20, 2005 18:37

I agree, Mark, that most of this thread has been exactly that but I put forward a reasonable hypothesis. Surely you accept that, to an outside observer, this incident can only mean one of two things: Jimmy was expelled using a rarely-used bureaucratic proceedure or else this was just a routine clearing of the books and its just an unfortunate coincidence that Jimmy happened to fall foul of that. How is it sectarian to ask for some verification to prove that it is indeed a routine proceedure? Far from having 'an axe to grind' Ive heard all the rumours about this one but Im keeping an open mind on it.

Once again SPmember protests too much. No one expects phone numbers and addresses its just a matter of naming anyone else who has been dealt with in this way in recent times. Its no big deal if you name someone who received a letter from their branch, is it? If you can't show in some way that Jimmys case is not unique, then the only conclusion I can come to is that was an expulsion by another name, which would, of course, reflect very badly on the SP.

by SP Member - Socialist Party/CWI Tue Dec 20, 2005 18:49

The situation with Jimmy is extremely rare. The vast majority of former members who are reduced from membership do not receive any letter about their membership. Individual memebrs and branches know well who is interested in the party. Most people who are reduced from membership probably couldn't give two fiddlers that they were being taken off the membership lists.

Jimmy Kelly is a long-standing, highly respected member of the SP/CWI. Jimmy Kelly has not been active within the SP for some time now. The SP did not want to remove Jimmy Kelly from the membership list. The local branch wrote to Jimmy Kelly to advise him of the situation and outline the membership rules. Common courtsey I would think. It is possible Jimmy was upset by this, I don't know, but I doubt if he was really surprised. He knows the rules. Unfortunately Jimmy failed to respond to the letter. I don't know the reason for this but things took their normal course and Jimmy's membership was reduced.

I am absolutely sure that if Jimmy contacted his local branch or the head office they would be more than happy to discuss the matter with him. If he wanted to once again become active I am sure he would be welcomed back.

I have had enough of this rubbish. This thread does not warrant continued consideration. No matter what we say someone will come back and say but! but! but!

Jimmy Kelly is no longer a member of the SP. I am saddened by this but not surprised. I regard him as a comrade and a friend and always will and I wish him the best in the future.

by Anon miss Tue Dec 20, 2005 20:04

As a member of the Socialist Party I do not believe for one minute that Jimmy was expelled. Most members of the party express differences with the leadership at one point or other and thats what you would expect in a democratic party. In fact I think the party is sometimes too lenient on members. We have people who just go on on repeating the same opposition to what we've agreed again and again and we also have some members whose personal behaviour, I, as a woman, find offensive but all these are treated with kid gloves. My guess is that this is because we are afraid of being attacked by the sectarians for being too harsh.

I dont know Jimmy well, but his links with John Throne were longstanding and common knowledge in the party, if he was going to be expelled surely it would have happened a long time ago.

by hs Tue Dec 20, 2005 21:21

the party in 1998, and to date have never met jimmy kelly.

by Kollontoi Tue Dec 20, 2005 22:33

Theres another classic Stalin trick. Imply that your internal opponent is a spy. Remember the one about Trotsky being a fascist-imperialist provocateur?

But then the Donaldson example might be pertinent in an odd way. Someone who works at the heart of the party bureaucracy. A mediocrity who has the ear of the key party leaders. A keen appparatchik who's sent in to take out quash minor dissent (as Donaldson allegedly did in Scotland and the USA). A man whose personal life made him vurnerable to pressure. Well poor Jimmy certainly doesnt fit that bill and to be honest I really can't think of anyone in the SP who does...hmmmm

by John Meehan Wed Dec 21, 2005 01:51

A number of reasonable comments have been made on this thread – notably by Davy Carlin and Chekov.

The unreasonable category is occupied, especially - by Stephen Boyd – and to a lesser degree, by Mark P of the Socialist Party. As usual, I ignore anonymistas / pseudonymistas.

Chekov says that I provided a “bare covering of details” and people can make up their own minds on the allegations”. I’ve no disagreement with that.

However when he says “thus far this is a very weak charge indeed” we part company.

I say Jimmy has been put through a process akin to “constructive dismissal” – I don’t think that’s a “weak charge”. Maybe Chekov thinks differently – so be it.

I accept that, since only “a bare covering of details” are provided in the story, readers are entitled to seek more information before coming down on one side or the other. If that’s what you mean Chekov, fair enough.

Davy Carlin asks both me and Jimmy to elaborate. Jimmy may (or may not) add further details to the story – it’s his call. I hope he does.

At present, I do not have access to any new details.

Mark P sets out the Socialist Party case in this matter. His credibility is undermined when he claims I posted “ill-informed nonsense” about the Socialist Party. Mark – read what I said : “I spoke directly to Jimmy” – you don’t like what I say, you disagree strongly with the contents – but it’s definitely not “ill-informed”.

Mark refers to my “speculation” about “constructive dismissals”.

Unfortunately for Mark the contribution written by his comrade, Stephen Boyd, provides extra evidence that life can be made very uncomfortable for members who criticise the actions of the Socialist Party leadership. In this respect, Stephen shares much common ground with the Socialist Democracy group – right down to the use of disrespectful, ignorant and rude language about people he disagrees with.

The serious point here is that when party members know in advance they are likely to become targets of such abuse, they will be understandably reluctant to make critical comments about the actions of a party leadership. The spirit of comradeship and solidarity vanishes into thin air.

Evidently, Stephen approves of the way I was “spat out” of Socialist Democracy! Happily, from my point of view, he’s wrong about the United Secretariat of the Fourth International (USFI) – I appealed against the SD “spit”. In soccer parlance, which I know Stephen will understand, I “got a result” at the last Fourth International World Congress.

As Davy Carlin rightly says Stephen should chill out and calm down – perhaps he can do that soon at the Socialist Party full-timers’ Christmas staff party.

I’m signing off – Merry Christmas to all socialist activists, especially Jimmy Kelly.

by Fergal Goggin Wed Dec 21, 2005 02:01 fergalgoggin at yahoo dot co dot uk

Kollontai reveal your true identity it is very easy to slang off people and cast slurs when you hide behind a false identity so tell us all who you are and then people can engage you properly. Or are you just too cowardly to do that?

by observer Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:23

Nothing to do with the fact that Jimmy is related to Dermie?

by Stephen Boyd Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:46

John Meehan you entitle your latest comment reason and unreason. The reason for your two postings is you want to slander the Socialist Party and the "unreason" is that you have provided not one shred of evidence to back up your claim.
Your second posting adds nothing to the first. You are no different to the anonymous posters whom you decry in that your postings are as empty and as slanderous as theirs are.
HS in his posting points out that he has been a member of the Socialist Party for 7 years and has never met Jimmy Kelly. The vast majority of members of the Socialist Party will have never met Jimmy Kelly and a large number will have never even heard of him, so long has it been since he was an active member.
You claim that your accusation is credible because you have spoken to Jimmy Kelly. Your conversation didn’t provide you with too much information. You have discovered when Jimmy joined our organisation etc, and also that he is sympathetic to John Throne. This is hardly earth shattering news. Also that he was involved in some trade union initiative and there may be a disagreement over and from this you have concluded that he was expelled or a victim of "constructive dismissal".
Mark P has explained the procedure. You have not addressed what he has said; in fact you have totally ignored it. Your curious mind should be pointed in a different direction. You should ask Jimmy Kelly why has he never replied to the communication sent to him from the Socialist Party re his membership? Why did he refuse to meet a senior party member? Why has he not been active in the Socialist Party for so many years? John Throne parted company with the CWI nearly 10 years ago. If your accusation is true why would we wait so long to "expel" Jimmy Kelly as you claim?
Jimmy Kelly’s total lack of communication with the Socialist Party re his membership would seem to indicate that John Meehan and others with malicious intent are more concerned and more interested in this than he is.
2005 has been a good year for workers in this country. The mass demonstrations in support of the Irish Ferries workers on the 9 December are a sign that a new period of struggle by workers is beginning. The Socialist Party has played an important role in helping this process. We uncovered the GAMA scandal and played a fundamental role in the battle of the GAMA workers for justice. The struggle by the Turkish and Kurdish workers at GAMA has had an important impact on the consciousness of working class people. The Socialist Party has also been involved in a huge amount of other work, but as the year closes, what does John Meehan & co focus on – a slanderous accusation based on an empty claim! Here is another footballing term - you have scored an own goal!

by Boyd critic Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:54

Stephen Boyd is prone to appearing reasonable - a posture which collapses under close scrutiny. Thus he writes that 'John Throne parted company with the CWI ten years ago.' This is so reasonable. But it is as reasonable as writing that Trotsky 'parted company' with the Bolsheviks in 1928. This implies a healthy disagreement and - a resignation. In fact, Throne was expelled, fired from his job, and demonised throughout the CWI. Rather different I would say from 'parting company.' If Boyd wishes to allude to these events, he has an obligation to do so accurately - i presume that there remains some vestigate of the moral conscience that brought him into the CWI so many years ago.

by Curious Wed Dec 21, 2005 11:05

Where the objective conditions not right for collecting his subs?

by pat c Wed Dec 21, 2005 11:07

"Stephen shares much common ground with the Socialist Democracy group – right down to the use of disrespectful, ignorant and rude language about people he disagrees with. "

John, those who live in glasshouses should be careful about throwing stones. Its only a week ago that you addressed Gearóid O'Loinsigh as "Loinsigh". You also compared him to Dave Spart of the Private Eye. This was a disgraceful way to treat a serious revolutionary who puts his life on the line every day as he fights for workers rights in Columbia.

Stephen Boyd could also have used more temperate language and should not have addressed you and Davy by your surnames. It doesnt help if you want a reasoned debate.

As for the USFI, I was a member of its Irish Section, Peoples Democracy. Eventually I became disillusioned, stopped attending meetings and paying dues. I wasnt given 15 years grace, I was dropped from membership after 6 months. Could it have had anything to do with my disagreements on Trade Union policy with the PD leadership? Is it too late at this stage for me to lodge an appeal with the USFI?

by Barrington Wed Dec 21, 2005 11:15

since john meehan seems to be able to contact jimmy quite easily and jimmy seems to be very willing to discuss this issue with him so readily, maybe john meehan could ask him why he did not reply to a straight-forward letter asking him to clarify his membership. If jimmy had of replied - it would have to have been a "yes, i do consider myself a member and am prepared to accept the conditions of membership (subs, activity etc.)" or a "no i do not consider myself a member".
But then john wouldn't have been able to demonise the SP.

by Anon Wed Dec 21, 2005 11:16

John Meehan thinks that going around with gossip warrants left-wing activism. This posting by Meehan says alot about him. He's playing no serious role in the Irish left. He does not do a thing to build the USFI and it's Irish section Social Democracy. All he does is throw himself into petty-bourgeois campaigns around referendums and he gossips about people on the left. I remember him gossiping about the political views of an SP member's father! That's when I lost any respect I had for him. Pathetic. It's clear from reading this thread that the SP, like any organisation, reviews it's membership lists regularly. That means looking at who is active and who is paying dues. If you are not active and not paying dues then someone will write you a letter asking you to get active. Very fair and reasonable. Jimmy Kelly did not reply to the letter. He may still. From what i can see SP members that know Jimmy hold him in good regard and it would seem they would be open to him getting active again.

by Anon Wed Dec 21, 2005 11:32

The people that are attacking the Socialist Party can only resort to personalised attacks on a contributor to this thread. That's how low they've gone. They are attacking him in a libelous way and not based on fact. So what if someone went to a religious school!? Most people in this country did! So what if a person is a student! This is all an attepmt to clutch at straws when there is no way to attack the SP on it's membership policy.

Here are 5 basic facts.
1. Membership requires activity and paying dues. FACT.
2. The party constitution outlines that there is a proceedure for removing members due to lapsed membership. FACT.
3. This proceedure is done regularly. FACT.
4. Jimmy Kelly was written to and has not replied yet. FACT.
5. The SP would like if he did get in contact and forfill membership requirements. FACT.

by Sean Wed Dec 21, 2005 11:39

I have met Jimmy once or twice a couple of years ago. A good working class activist with strong TU credentials. He has spent a large part of his life working for the SP. All the critics here forget or dont want to consider this. He tolerated the mistreatment of other SP members when they were purged, including Dermot Connolly. Dermot himself was in the position where he was actually the guy who did the purging in the past. Now they are the victims. I'm not too sure I sympathise.

by Santa Claus Wed Dec 21, 2005 13:06

This thread clearly shows its time for that new mass party of the left...

Festive greetings to all activists who dedicate themselves to the issues rather than the petty squabbles and the bruised egos.

Ho, ho, ho...

Now I've got a bag of coal for a small boy named Bertie who lives in Drumcondra to deliver...

by Anon Wed Dec 21, 2005 13:09

For the record Sean. Dermot Connolly was not "purged". Dermot left the SP himself. There was nothing stopping him maintaining membership. He left because he had political disagreements which he felt were too big to maintain membership. FACT.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Wed Dec 21, 2005 13:34

John, your latest contribution to this mudslinging thread you've started is as disappointing as your first.

I described your original post as "ill-informed nonsense" because I was inclined to give you some benefit of the doubt, to imply that the problem was ignorance rather than malice on your part. I am less and less inclined to give you that benefit as this thread goes on. The facts of this issue were previously outlined in some detail on the open editorial list of this website. Since your first post I outlined them once more. Yet what's your response to that? You ignore those mere facts in favour of continuing to peddle falsehoods and innuendo.

As for your hurt feelings because Stephen was rude to you, well my heart bleeds. If you start spreading malicious rumours about an organisation someone has been a member of for most of their adult life what do you expect? And then you have the cheek to start talking about "the spirit of comradeship and solidarity", as if falsely claiming on a public website that the Socialist Party victimised someone was just overflowing with the spirit of comradeship!

I notice, by the way, that you have absolutely nothing to say about the factual matters outlined in the posts by various Socialist Party members on this thread. You don't argue that Jimmy Kelly was actively involved in the Socialist Party at any point in recent years. You don't argue that he met any of the responsibilities of membership. You don't argue that we normally keep people on our books indefinitely regardless of their level of involvement (or lack of involvement!). You don't respond to the points made by both hs and myself, reasonably longstanding Socialist Party members that neither of us have ever met Jimmy. You just don't respond to any of the points made at all.

So here's a question bluntly addressed to you John: Do you think that the Socialist Party should continue to count as members people who don't take part in our activities over a period of years, who don't respond to letters asking them to rectify that situation, who don't pay membership dues and who don't go to party meetings? Or do you agree that doing so would be utterly insane?

by Rashers Tierney Wed Dec 21, 2005 14:03

From now on I'll know that the Socialist Party membership is accurate unlike other parties that claim very large "memberships". Interested to read John Meehan's reply to blunt questions from Mark P.

by Svante - Workers Power Ireland (personal capacity) Wed Dec 21, 2005 16:17

I don't know of Jimmy Kelly at all. Neither do I know that much of the context of 20-years-or-so of internal left gossip that's constantly referred to in this discussion. Still, I would like to comment: It indeed seem to be a regular formal ending of a membership that for a long time de facto have been ended. SP people states that this kind of cleansing of the register is the usual process and that the only reason special care was taken in this case is the fact that Kelly is a long-standing member. Very well. If people have doubts about this, which everyone is entitled to, I encourage them to raise this questions with SP members in person. It is utterly strange to demand that SP post names of ex-members on a website accessible by all.

However, if such a personal inquiry finds that there is substance behind the claims of bureaucratic maneuverism, I think we all want to know. In that case, keep us updated in this thread.

That's it for now.

by anti-ultra Wed Dec 21, 2005 19:32

Workers' Power (WP) are being opportunistic in their snipe. WP are an ultra left group with no serious orientation to the working class. At a recent public meeting they didn't raise criticisms of the SP. Then they lambast them in a leaflet saying they are soft on the bureaucrats in SIPTU! These people are not serious and will probably not do to well in Ireland with this approach.

by Mark P - SP (pers cap) Wed Dec 21, 2005 19:53

Perhaps "anti-ultra" needs to read a bit more closely before getting so narky. Svante wasn't having a go at all as far as I can see.

by John Meehan Wed Dec 21, 2005 21:00

Mark P says to me :

"I described your original post as "ill-informed nonsense" because I was inclined to give you some benefit of the doubt, to imply that the problem was ignorance rather than malice on your part. I am less and less inclined to give you that benefit as this thread goes on. The facts of this issue were previously outlined in some detail on the open editorial list of this website. Since your first post I outlined them once more. Yet what's your response to that? You ignore those mere facts in favour of continuing to peddle falsehoods and innuendo."

OK Mark - that's your point of view - I disagree.

Continuing this discussion with you is clearly hopeless.

Readers are free to make their own minds up - I'm signing off on this one.

Happy Christmas, and chill out.

by A very chilled Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Wed Dec 21, 2005 21:05

It appears that somehow you managed to miss the meat of my post once again, not to mention the question specifically addressed to you. I know that this can only be due to some kind of oversight, so please find the relevant short extract again below. And Happy Christmas to you too.

I notice, by the way, that you have absolutely nothing to say about the factual matters outlined in the posts by various Socialist Party members on this thread. You don't argue that Jimmy Kelly was actively involved in the Socialist Party at any point in recent years. You don't argue that he met any of the responsibilities of membership. You don't argue that we normally keep people on our books indefinitely regardless of their level of involvement (or lack of involvement!). You don't respond to the points made by both hs and myself, reasonably longstanding Socialist Party members that neither of us have ever met Jimmy. You just don't respond to any of the points made at all.

So here's a question bluntly addressed to you John: Do you think that the Socialist Party should continue to count as members people who don't take part in our activities over a period of years, who don't respond to letters asking them to rectify that situation, who don't pay membership dues and who don't go to party meetings? Or do you agree that doing so would be utterly insane?

by Badman Wed Dec 21, 2005 22:32

Fellow workers, I beg your leave to interupt the elevated debate on the future of the international workers movement and the crippling nature of the blow occassioned by the departure of the esteemed comrade Kelly in dubious circumstances.

In the midst of this debate a stunning new fact has come to light. A hurrah, a mighty cheer, has echoed around the land, from working mans club to the fields and factories. We have learned, my fellow workers, of a new and exciting departure in the workers movement. Comrades, Workers Power are among us, it is almost as if the great man himself had risen from the grave, icepick dangling from his forehead, and had arrived on our humble shores to lead us to freedom!

Hithertofore, the toiling masses of Ireland, we horny handed sons of the soil, have been mightily deprived. We have been starved of Trostkyism and have been crying out for another London-based Trotskyite outfit to send us a leader - our prayers have finally been answered.

Until this august occassion, we have merely had four (or five depending on how deep into insanity you want to go) Trostkyite sattellite parties, led by our betters in London. Now that we have been blessed with a fifth (or sixth), I think that we can all agree that our crisis of leadership is approaching its end.

For years now, on this blighted isle the factories and working class estates have been abuzz with a common slogan. "The trots are great, but they don't have enough different parties, they don't hate each other enough, their parties are just too big and they are too independent of their mother-ships in London." From this day forward such talk will be confined to the dustbin of history.

All hail Workers Power (Ireland)!
All hail yet another Trostkyist party!
All hail parties whose membership is in single figures in binary notation!
All hail the noble art of parachuting in organisations from 'the mainland'!

Comrade Svante, comrade badman is reporting for duty. I await your orders - sah!

*stands to attention and salutes*

by seedot Wed Dec 21, 2005 23:02

But badman, as your enthusiasm brings WP into double figures (binary) how will the purity of the revolutionary message be protected?

Are you merely an entryist?

by Badman Wed Dec 21, 2005 23:58

Seedot, you are exposed as a parasite on the workers movement. The vanguard has - long ago - dispensed with the oppressive diktats of bourgeios scholarship. Boole's logic is exposed as a fraud and a sham - a manacle around the leg of the proletariat. The proletariat has (through it's vanguard naturally) derived a new and more potent system of binary logic, involving thousands, nay millions of symbols, which I think you will agree puts us far in advance of the capitalist system which imposes an impoverished set of two symbols on the lowly masses.

The only problem is that we inevitably split before we decide on the symbols to use. But that is a mere detail, as soon as everybody has a sufficently elevated consciousness to recognise my choice of symbols as the one true way and the only ones that are worthy of Trotskyism, the revolution should be a doddle.

by seedot Thu Dec 22, 2005 02:42

As a traitor to the class and the glorious project of revolutionary climax, I must admit to being one of the bad types of people. I, through immaturity, lack of experience or malign influences believed that all symbols should be removed and new ones would spring forth.

I see now that this was the path of disunity and there is no need to doubt the wisdom of our leader(s) and seek answers elsewhere. I too, as a non-aligned passing poster, must welcome WP to our screens on this blighted isle.

I am making this statement because of my new understanding of the objective conditions and not for any reasons the capitalist lackeys may insinuate.

by Svante - Workers Power Ireland (personal capacity) Thu Dec 22, 2005 10:57

Comrade, I am happy to hear that you welcome Workers Power Ireland and report for duty.

However, even though your satirical tone is well-practiced, you oughta study a bit more on the subject to really hit the spot: Workers Power Ireland (WPI) has been around since the 70s, published a paper (Class War) and even a book (on James Connolly). And despite that I think it's pretty lame to discuss such matters; I can assure you that none, at all, of the WPI comrades have, as you say, moved here from Britain.

On the other anonymous criticism of WPI raised in the thread, about our criticism of SP, I will come back to you about this.

by Mark H - SP (Personal Capacity) Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:13

In any organisation, you follow the rules of that organisation RE Membership. If you don't you are not a member. SImple as that. It is incomprehensible that there are people here that don't understad that.
For example I am also a member of another organisation, namely The Bohemian Football Club. It is a required criteria of my membership that I pay my annual membership fee. If I stop paying this I don't get to walk into Dalymount park for free, two weeks after its up never mind 15 years.
I've been a member of the SP since 1998 and was active around the organiastion for 2 years before that. I've never heard of Jimmy Kelly either until now.

by Ronnie Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:30

Fair play to John Meehan for this. People who may wish to join militant/SP will at least know what they are getting themselves into.

by Alan Thu Dec 22, 2005 13:18

You have done it now.
i will never join the SP.
Bohs ugg!

by Sean Thu Dec 22, 2005 13:27

Mark SP why are you even getting involved in this if you do not even know Mr Kelly? Should you not leave the sp case to people who know Jimmy, know what exactly happened, why it happened and most importantly who decided it should happen?

I would find it strange if I was permitted to be a treasured member for 15 years without paying subs to be suddenly considered unsuitable for membership. Mark if you dont know him you dont know his financial situation, if he is working or anything else.

by Ex-Militant Thu Dec 22, 2005 13:56

Mark, what you say regarding rules of membership is quite logical but as you know, formal rules are not always adhered to and this is the nub of this debate. You would'nt get into Dalymount for free after your Bohs membership lapsed because that rule is applied firmly and indiscrimately to all. On the other hand let us say that that rule was rarely if ever applied, and hundreds of non-dues paying Bohs fans were being allowed in free every week and suddenly, you, of all non-payers, were stopped, then you would rightly wonder why the letter of the law was applied to you but not the others.

Your definition of membership is accurate and Im sure thats what the SP rule says, but the key question is; are these rules put into practice regularly or was Jimmy's case an exception. Put another way, do members who do not comply with the criteria for membership (activity, subscription etc) receive such a letter as a matter of course. If that is the case then Jimmys letter and 'reduction' was a regretable but routine proceedure which is merely coincidental to his perceived 'dissidence'. If on the other hand Jimmys letter was very unusual (lets say no inactive member had received such a letter in the last few years) then it is obvious to any reasonably objective observer that he was targeted because of his 'dissidence'. Now I accept that its hard to prove all of this but can you, Mark, put your hand on your heart and honestly say you know of other cases where inactive members have received such a letter. If you can, fair enough, your viewpoint is vindicated and to hell with the begrudgers but if you can't, perhaps its time to give a bit of critical thought to the way things work inside the SP.

by SP Member Thu Dec 22, 2005 14:13

Jimmy Kelly was "reduced" from membership along with many others at the same time. Some others were written too, and some were asked would they like to meet to talk about their membership, and some were just "reduced" because it is clear that they don't want to be members. Jimmy Kelly was written to and in the letter he was asked to meet up with a party member to discuss his membership. He hasn't replied to this letter. Jimmy Kelly's "case" was therefore not unique as he was part of a batch of others. It is unique only in the sense that his membership was allowed to continue for so long in the hope that he would become an active member again, but that didn't happen and he still hasn't spoken to anyone in the party about his membership so maybe he just isn't interested.

by Badman Thu Dec 22, 2005 14:57

It's good to hear that you have been here so long, and that you are indigenous to this island (is that Svante Murphy by the way?) Anyway, as you will learn, if you haven't been on indymedia, you haven't existed on the Irish left. So we can still we salute your emergence after 20 years. (where have you been? training for the workers defence squads that the Iraqi proletariat have been crying out for WP to organise? or hiding behind the sofa?) to finally enter the cut and thrust of Leftist politics on our isle. The prospects for growth are enormous in the coming period with the upsurge in workers struggles, .....

by Davy Carlin Thu Dec 22, 2005 15:45

am not going to get involved in any more discussion as stated, but I must say it is good at times to have a bit of a chuckle at ourselves {the left}.

So just to lighten things up at this holiday period and such, I say -

Putting aside whatever left group was 'targeted' some of this thread had me wetting myself.

There is I have found ‘sarcasm’ {as noted} and then there is SARCASM, with the latter being an absolute piss.

-It all started with a loud Chuckle -

with the post - Cheers Stephen
by Amused Tuesday, Dec 20 2005, 1:47pm

then I moved into a loud belly laugh when -

Re: subs for Socialist Party post
by Curious Wednesday, Dec 21 2005, 10:05am

Then by the time I had read -

A momentous Occassion
by Badman Wednesday, Dec 21 2005, 9:32pm

I was in my kinks, and was almost physically removed from the ' quiet' computer suite - with choking on my tears for several minutes and almost taking a buckle in my eye.

I suppose only those of us on the left would really appreciate such - of course there will be those who would crack up at reading such - but when it is just a piss take then I see little harm, and persons need not bite to it - as most will see it in those terms.


Badman I ain't even gonna try to read the rest of your last post for a while as I fear I'll collapse in a heap – as well as getting banned from the computer suite.


Good to wind the aul neck in sometimes and laugh methinks - will probably get the mindsets coming back, but hey it was worth it.

Badman, Curious, absolute gems, had me laughing my plums of.

Suppose tis the season to be jolly and that rasamatass D.

by Mark H - SP (Personal Capacity) Thu Dec 22, 2005 17:03

I merely made the valid case that though I am a member of the party for a reasonable amount of time, I had never heard of him before this and therefore he was hardly what you'd call active. The only reason I maybe shouldn't have gotten involved was because I am arguing with a lot of pathetic losers who have nothing better to do than bait Socialist Party members. I should have known better.
My advise to the trolls on here would be to get on with whatever you are doing yourself and stop worrying about what we are doing. Apologies to the few genuine people with queries. I'm talking about the people who are here deliberately to stir trouble.

by Workers Power Thu Dec 22, 2005 21:00

yes they have been around since the late 70's, known as the Irish Workers Group

Commonly known as the Irish Workers Quartet.

Head honcho: Andy Johnson (lecturer in liberal studies in Galway regional technical college, someone told me he has now linked up with Socialist Democracy - don't know if its true) other members included his wife, a student he recruited in Galway RTC, James Laragy and later a female member of the CPSU who's name escapes me (I think she became a tu offical afterwards)

Didn't produce a paper 'Class War' but did produce an A4 stencilled magazine (usually about 50 pages) called 'Class Struggle' which usually comprised of gossip and attacks on other left groups, the two favourite targets: Militant Tendancy and the League for a Workers Republic (headed by Paddy Healy a brother of Seamus and also known as the Dozen for a Workers Republic).

Did produce a book on James Connolly which basically claimed that Connolly was a fool and a traitor (not because of 1916) who wasn't a Marxist and betrayed the Irish workers movement.

Highpoints of their existance:

1) Andy Johnson speaking to 300 people at a Galway Trades Council may day rally in Galway in 1982 calling on those in attendance to march to Renmore army barracks secure arms, march to Dublin and storm the Dail (The secretary of the Trades Council reminded everyone that Andy johnson was speaking in a personal capacity)

2) After one particularly vicious issue of Class Struggle, James Laragy being slagged off at a Militant Public Meeting by Dermot Connolly when he was told to go and hold his annual conference in a phone box.

Disappeared from the political scene in the early 90's

by Leyton Orient Fri Dec 23, 2005 15:39

That last comment by Mark echoes the present dispute between the Jose "the Special One" Mourinho and Arsene "the voyeur" Wenger. Advice - don't try and settle it with a Christmas card!

by Svante Fri Dec 23, 2005 16:24

Yeah, slandering political opponents because they've got an immigrant name/non-Irish sounding name -- that's really un-chauvinist satire at its finest.

by Badman Fri Dec 23, 2005 19:32

Svante, I clearly didn't slander you because of your name - I mocked you because you are a trot in a particularly ludicrous outfit. The name bit was merely me expressing how little I believe you when you say that Workers Power (Ireland) haven't been parachuted in here from the imperial hq over the water. I actually presumed that you had made your name up and even if you were svante (or Jimmy) murphy, I'd still assume that you were parachuted in in some shape or form. I simply don't believe that anybody could possibly be foolish enough to try to re-establish a branch of workers power in Ireland without a hefty helping of 'encouragement' from HQ.

Are you claiming to be a wholly unconnected organisation? Why, pray tell, did you choose to call yourself Workers Power (Ireland)?

by Ha Ha Ha Fri Dec 23, 2005 21:17

Clearly the person who posted the info above has a far better knowledge of the history of the Workers Power group in Ireland than you, you even got the name of their publication wrong. If you are going to claim lineage from an older group the least you should do is find out their history.

by A. Critic Sun Dec 25, 2005 22:07

If you've never heard of Jimmy Kelly, you obviously havent been paying attention. The party has always encouraged questions and "fresh thinking" but perhaps you should study the basics before even joining a debate?

by Pig destroyer Sun Dec 25, 2005 23:27

What a breath of fresh air, right at the end of such a lame year, where we were confined to concerning ourselves with boring trivialities like GAMA, Rossport, Irish Ferries, Shannon etc... and a worrying number of people had started misappropriating this medium for the frivilous purpouse of reporting on and discussing political campaigns; it's a relief to see that Indymedia is now once more been used for its rightful purpose, nameful for aiming sectarian ranting and abuse at rival left groups. A comparison between the number of comments on this thread and other recent topics (or indeed the vast majority of other postings at any time in the past) certainly serves to reassure me that most people have got their priorities right: as soon as a post appears which offers the opportunity to have a pop at the SP, SWP, WSM or whoever happens to best suited as a target for the purpose of proving ones own " only gay in the village" credentials, the masses descend on it and the comments pile up towards treble figures in no time.
Well done folks, there were times this year when I had started worrying that the Irish left were wasting too much of their time campaigning on issues and organising political activities - thanks for putting my mind at rest that this is not the case.

by Jimmy Kelly - Ex Socialist Party Fri Dec 30, 2005 03:40 kellyjimmy at eircom dot net

I intend to send a statement to this thread in a few days time regarding the ending of my association with the Socialist Party / Militant /CWI after 33 years of membership.
If any SP member who has contributed to the debate from the mask of anonimity wishes to express a view to me directly they may contact me at my e-mail address.
I would particularly like to hear from the comrade who ' never met me' so that I can return the red and black football scarf that he left in my car,
Fraternal New Year greetings to all,
Jimmy Kelly.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Fri Dec 30, 2005 10:20

I look forward to reading your statement. Although I do find myself wondering why you have the interest to post one here when you haven't been interested in making any contact with the Socialist Party directly? Anyway I'll send you an email to the above address.

by Davy Carlin Fri Dec 30, 2005 11:23

Look forward to reading your statement, was going to sign of on this one, but will wait and see the statement to see if I wish to rise points.

Like myself you must have thought long and hard as to go 'public' or not with your side of the story.

Indeed as I have said time and again it is best to have all the facts from all sides so all can make up their own minds.

Looking forward to reading your statement Jimmy more especially after 33 years in the CWI - and will read your points with interest.

Have a goodin at New Year.

Davy Carlin EX Socialist Workers Party {8 years}

by Sean Philips Fri Dec 30, 2005 11:39

Don't put up a statement on indymedia. It'll only attract trolls that will jump on anything to stir up an argument especially if it is to do with the SP or SWP. If you have a statement why not transmit it another way (email for example). A statement that you put up will be criticised by people here and may offend you and cause damage to your relations with others on the left. From reading the thread so far people hold you in good esteem and it would be a shame to see that lessened by a statement to indymedia instead you should look at face to face meeting, email or phone call.

by Davy Carlin Fri Dec 30, 2005 11:52 carlindavid at hotmail dot com

Sean does make some interesting points and indeed I took all this on board before I put up my statement - I also sent it out through e-mails to contacts and e- mail networks etc - {It even ended up in the Irish News}.

At the end of the day it is up to yourself - but if you do put it up I would say just ignore the trolls and reply to those who put their names or who 'you know'.

Genuine activists are cute enough to be able to cut through the bullshit and get to the meat of the issue. Which I am sure you already know.

I am even more interested now as to its content. D

by Sean Philips Fri Dec 30, 2005 12:18

I really think a statement on indymedia would be a bad idea. Remember that most people in the SP don't know him. A statement on indymedia would create the wrong tone. If Jimmy is interested in re-joining he should just contact his branch or the party office. If he's not interested in re-joining then fair enough and maybe a letter to the party to tie-up any loose ends he feels there are. If Jimmy does want to leave the SP he should do it on good terms and not with a statement for the trolls pleasure. Posting on indymedia would only damage Jimmy and the organisation he was a member of for 33 years.

by Middle Class Prince - Personal Capacity Fri Dec 30, 2005 12:27

It would be a bizarre state of affairs if Mr. Kelly merely put up a statement on Indymedia commenting on the content of this thread and didn't take the time to respond to the party and the particular letter in question first.

Some may argue it would be academic, but then again, surely removing someone from the books should also be academic after 15 years of inactivity.

In this case, clearly not for some reason that remains impenetrable to myself.

The saga goes on.

by former militant member Fri Dec 30, 2005 12:28

I really have no idea what Jimmy wants to say. However, in general, I don't see a problem with people posting their views on the SP or anything else if they have opinions that they want to discuss. For example, the political direction of the SP, how it treats its members, its strategy for the future are NOT private matters between a few individuals. They are issues of interest to the left and indeed the working class movement as a whole. If Jimmy has a critique of something, why should he confine it to, for example, a private conversation between himself and say Stephen Boyd?

I think that this view that disagreements shoudl be hushed up, kept internal, not shared with anyone is one of the problems that leftist organisations face. There is no earthly reason in a sane world why former members of any organisation should confine their views to private dialogue - it is rather bizarre to suggest otherwise.

As to the likelihood of 'trolling', one can only shrug and move on. People are grown up enough to deal with what is important and ignore what is not. You can't avoid debate simply to avoid some people trying to sidetrack it.

I hope that Jimmy, whom I remember well, disregards Sean's advice, if he so wishes, and expresses whatever he feels is important to himself.

by Sean Philips Fri Dec 30, 2005 12:47

I can only advice Jimmy not to post here. Not because I want to keep things hushed up. Quite the opposite. I want to hear what Jimmy has to say. But this is not the best forum for reasoned and thought-out debate. Why not use other forums where trolls cannot derail a debate. It should also be remembered that most SP members don't know Jimmy and it would be wrong to have them making judgements based on this site alone. Why not write a letter to the party and its branches to clarify things? or even better would be to meet up with your branch or members of the party and discuss face to face. Indymedia is certainly not the right place for a statement. If Jimmy does want to make a statement on indymedia he should only do it if he thinks other forums (as outlined above) are exhausted. That's my advice to Jimmy. Ultimately it's his decision.

by former militant member Fri Dec 30, 2005 13:47

sean

You don't seem to get it. YOU want to hear what Jimmy has to say, you write. But so do others - quite a few of them, and not all of them members of the SP. If Jimmy (and of course it is his decision) confines any discussion of why he is no longer a member to SP forums, those outside the ranks of the SP will be deprived of the opportunity to hear his side of the case.

I have no idea what that case is. But there are numerous possible permutations, theoretically and organisationally, that might pertain to the wider question of building socialist foirces and therefore interest more than the membership of the SP.

As to trolls: so what, and who cares? This has always been a hazard in debate between socialists: I am sure that when Lenin polemicised with the Mensheviks, many weirdos offered strange interpretations and made mischevious use of his points, and that of his opponents. But it did not stop debate, which ultimately served to clarify issues for those interested.

In this period, largely but not only because of the Internet, the idea that you can or should contain discussion to small 'internal' circles is absurd. All it does is foster a sect like mentality. It creates the impression, however erroneously, that you have something to hide. If you don't, let debate thrive in as many forums and forms as possible.

by Davy Carlin Fri Dec 30, 2005 17:48

'let debate thrive in as many forums and forms as possible'.

by SP Member - Socialist Party/CWI Mon Jan 02, 2006 21:17

I think it would be ill-advised to post a statement here. The question I would ask is 'what purpose would it serve?'. Any statement posted here would serve no other purpose than provide ammunition for opponents of the CWI to throw dirt at the SP. You have to ask yourself if that's what you really want to do. If you have a statement written I would suggest that you send it to the leadership of the SP and request its circulation within the SP for discussion. I am sure that if you wish to engage in a discussion with the rank and file of the SP it would be facilitated, I certainly would support it. In my opinion this would be far more productive than posting it here for all and sundry to try and use it as a big stick to beat the CWI

by pat c Tue Jan 03, 2006 11:43

Actually at this stage I think a statement by Jimmy Kelly could clear the air. As far as I know he is not a sectarian and will give an account of his parting from the SP from HIS perspective.

There may or may not be a sinister plot underway wherby canny Apparatchiks have used Jimmys non-attendance at meetings and not paying subs to exclude him from the SP when the real reason may be disagreements on TU policy.

I myself was dropped by the Irish Section of USFI as I didnt attend meetings or pay dues. I didnt get 15 years grace, just 6 months. However through attending a hypnotherapist I now, through Recovered Memory, realise that it was really due to my disdagreements with the leadership regarding TU policy.

I demand an immediate convocation of the International Executive Committee of the USFI to reinstate me In the interim I have taken all necessary steps to ensure that the fate of the Irish Proletariat is secure.

Badman! Withdraw your support from the WP(I) and join me in the new Irish Vanguard Party: The Vanguard Leninist League, IS, PISFI (ICR). At the moment the Party consists of one man and a cat but if you join and bring a dog with you we will acheive the two man and a dog critical mass. You will get Party Card No 2 and have first dibs at Commissariats after the Revolution.

Pat C
Secretary General
The Vanguard Leninist League
Irish Section
Provisional International Secretariat of the Fourth International (International Centre for Reconstruction).

by john throne - labors militant voice Tue Jan 03, 2006 18:05 loughfinn at aol dot com

One of the problems the SP has is credibility. It's members on this list do not seem to realize this. They implore Jimmy K not to put his statement on indymedia but they themselves put their statements on indymedia. It seems that if it is a statement they want read then they want it on, but if it is one they do not want read then they do not want it on. The supression of ideas is a feature of the SP. What kind of society would they build if they acted like this. Those who disagreed with them would be denied expression as much as this was in the power of the SP.

Then we have anonymous SP member above appealing to Jimmy K not to go on indymedia with his statement. This SP member says if he wants to he can have it raised in the SP and if he wants to engage in a discussion with the SP members this particular member of the SP would support this. Well I wish I had met this Comrade earlier. When I was expelled I was refused my right to appeal to the Irish CC and conference. I was refused entry to branches. These were my rights according to the internal life of the SP. If you are expelled you have the right to appeal. But the Irish SP refused me these rights.

So please SP member do not try and tell us things that are not true. And to the SP as a whole it would be useful to you to try and realize that you have no credibility when it comes to your internal life and this is because of your own actions. John Throne

by SP member - Socialist Party/ CWI Tue Jan 03, 2006 18:49

Credibility John, on another thread you criticised members of the SP for using pseudynoms yet you spent a significant part of your political life doing just that. Give us a break. Incidentally I for one am not worried about the credibility of the SP on this list. We place our credibility before those who matter, the working class. I am not in the least concerned with the constant harping on by you and others about the undemocratic nature of the SP. A handful of disgruntled ex-members and a handful of political opponents will not for one moment alter that fact.

You were not expelled from the Irish SP but from the CWI USA section. How can you appeal an expulsion that did not occur. You attempted to gain access to a number of Irish CWI conferences but the rank and file would not have you. You attempted to use your previous membership of the Irish section to get a backdoor back into the CWI and circumvent the decision of the vast majority of the membership of the USA section. It was not going to happen. Despite this, aggregate meetings did take place in Ireland to discuss this topic (something which the Irish section had no obligation to do). All the documents produced by both sides were made available to any member of the Irish section who wished to read them. You had no rights within the Irish section of the CWI and therefore no rights were denied you.

I have no desire to supress any views that Jimmy Kelly may have regarding the current situation. I have the utmost respect for Jimmy Kelly. If he wishes to make a statement then he should do what you did, which is to issue that statement internally This would allow for a full discussion of the issues involved rather than taking it onto a forum like indymedia and allow every ##### to use it to have a go at the SP. I am not interested in whether it is positive or negative, that is not the issue (whereas those wanting to see it here do so becuase they assume it will be critical of the SP). Incidently I have a lot more time for the fact that you did raise your differences within the CWI rather unlike individuals like Denis Tourish who are now giving out from afar without ever having produced a single word of dissent when a member. I have met you and discussed this issue with you in the past and made perfectly clear my point of view (and no I am not interested in putting my name up here). Unfortunately that discussion is now a 10 year old discussion. The SP/CWI has moved on perhaps you should do the same.

by former militant member Tue Jan 03, 2006 19:06

As far as I understand it, the CWI constitution allows any expelled members from any section to appeal their expulsion to the CWI conference, and to its individual sections. If that is the case, then it is hard to see why JThrone was denied his right to argue his case in Ireland.

In addition, SP member, you seem to have a fondness for 'internal' debate. Don't you see how absurd this has become, in this day and age? JK has a version of what happened, and it is not just of interest to SP members. IF he has theoretical and organisational conclusions about his experiences in the CWI, why should they be restricted just to sp members? there are many people interested in building left wing forces outside your ranks: they would be interested in the reflections of people like Jimmy Kelly and what lessons he has drawn.

Part of the problem with your organisation is that you feel there is only ever one right way to raise issues. In fact, there isn't. In the modern world, particularly with the internet, it is even more preposterous to try and restrict debate than it was in the past. You simply come over as rather strange sect when you argue this, more interested in drab conformity than in the challenging debates that might actually clarify issues.

It might be worth pointing out, as well, that you removed JK from membership of the SP - you say for good reason. very well. Bu twhy should someone that you yourselves regard as an ex-member confine his criticisms and observation about the SP to internal forums? It just does not make any sense.

As John Throne has also pointed out, you yourself aren't shy of using this website to coice your opinions on all kinds of issues, Why therefore should former members of the SP refuse to avail of a forum that you yourself find so convenient?

by Dennis Tourish Tue Jan 03, 2006 19:10

I have no intention of rehashing issues that I have debated with CWI members in the past. There are previous links on Indymedia where my own views have been spelled out in detail, and the counter attack of the CWI is also there on the record.

However, I would like to correct one factual inaccuracy in the above posting from SP member. That is that I did not raise a word of criticism of the CWI when I was a member: This is untrue. In previous threads, I have detailed precisely how I raised my critical opinions of the leadership, and how these were greeted by that leadership. Anyoen interested can read those accounts for themselves, and make up their own minds.

It appears that what happened to me - that I ended up outside the CWI - is what happens anyone who raises criticisms of a serious nature.

by SP member Tue Jan 03, 2006 19:19

No one said Jimmy Kelly should confine his comments to purely internal SP structures. It was suggested here that Jimmy feels he was defacto expelled for political differences. Jimmy has had many political differences with other members of the SP and the leadership in the past (I was on his side on more than one occasion) and was not expelled. Why would we engage in such an action now. We could have just allowed the rules to be ignored and then be open to the accusation that we were keeping inactive members on our books and inflating our membership figures. Jimmy Kelly was reduced from membership because of a considerable period of inactivity within the SP. He was not expelled and if he wishes to re-activate his membership and use the internal SP structures to raise differences then that is open to him (unlike John Throne who was expelled). It is possible that these differences could be reconciled allowing Jimmy to once again become an active member of the SP (this would certainly be my preferential position). If Jimmy chooses to do otherwise that is his decision. However, it would inevitably lead to a distorted and incomplete discussion with every #### having his say on the big bad SP.

by SP Member Tue Jan 03, 2006 19:23

I was a member of the Irish section of the CWI when you left and I have absolutely no recollection of you ever having raised differences within the irish section. You certainly did not publish any statement and take it to the membership. I have also answered your position on previous threads.

by dennis tourish Tue Jan 03, 2006 19:41

Ahh, my old friend SP member.

I won't labour the point unduly, but anyone who wants can re-read previous threads, in which I detailed how I attempted to raise criticisms of the CWI's internal regime and how this was responded to. I quite accept that I never got as far as publishing a statement about it (I can't help wondering by the way what would have been the reaction had I done so. I am sure it suddenly would have been discovered that this was violating lots of procedures, and that I should have first discussed it with the CC etc.)

In any event, I chose methods that were not sanctioned by the leadership - ie discussion with people individually (which was then represented as gossip); then raising it with the Political Committee (who said the membership would be too coinfused to understand and discuss the issues, so I should shut up about it); and then in writing to John Throne (this was also in violation of procedure, seemingly). At which point I gave up and moved on, wisely or otherwise.

The point in any event is simply that I did raise the issues, even if not in a form that SP member approves of or was privy to at that time.

I find it interesting that Jimmy Kelly is also now being advised on how not to raise whatever issues he has on his mind. Some things in this life change, but the phobic attitude of the CWI towards discussion seemingly does not.

I have no interest in engaging further with these issues, but cannot allow a factual inaccuracy to stand without rebutting it.

by crankwatch Tue Jan 03, 2006 21:22

Maybe Finn Geaney didn't come on indymedia, he certainly has been used by others. I apologise if i'm wrong about him but the central point i'm making is that all these people have left the SP for very different reasons and all opposed each other to some degree or another when each one departed. Why then the sudden unity now? Don't you find that strange?

I also think its strange that they choose to spend much of their time and effort in having a go at the SP instead of looking at their own politicla and organisational problems. Labours militant voice is nothing more than 2 people and a website, The community and workers group that dermot set up has not demonstrated that it can grow bigger then exisiting supporters.

by Davy Carlin Wed Jan 04, 2006 10:53

Former Militant member - 'Dissent and Debate' -

You raise some very good points.

by john throne - labors militant voice Wed Jan 04, 2006 16:02 loughfinn at aol dot com

Crankwatch says LMV is just two people and a website. He also talks about a lot of people leaving the SP for different reasons and then when they are out finding some kind of unity in criticizing the SP. Well I did not leave the SP. I was expelled. So exclude me from your short rant Crankwatch.

Then there is LMV. I believe in giving credit where credit is due. The SP does a lot of good work, for example Gama, the water and bins charges and so on. Its orientation to the working class is second to none. However where I disagree with it is that every increase in authority it gains through its work it seeks to use solely to recruit to its own ranks rather than to build a broader movement while at the same time build its own ranks This is what I mean by left sectarianism.

But to go back to crankwatch whom I suspect is an SP member. As I say I give credit where credit is due. But refusing to give credit where credit is due is also a sign of sectarianism. You expose yourself in your post. You say LMV is two members and a website. Well we are no great force that is for sure. However we have two websites not one. Laborsmilitantvoice.com and bringdownbush.org.

On bringdownbush.org we have blogs every day or two from New Orleans where LMV's fulltimer is working as the leader of the anti eviction movement there. This is not a mean achievement given the significance of the situation in New Orleans.

Over the course of the past few years we have played the central or leading roles in the following, the largest wildcat carpenters strike in Northern California, the carpenters rank and file movement here in Chicago which won a reduction in the retirement age by two years, the Direct Action Network movement here in Chicago which came out of the Seattle movement, the Can't Pay Won't Pay movement in Lake County, Indiana against the increase on the taxes of working peoples homes, the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty, Canada's best know direct action movement, the Campaign for Renters Rights in the Bay Area of California which recently helped 250 Section 8 tenants to organize and save their homes, I could go on.

So crankwatch please forgive me if I see your post as just another sectarian rant, probably by another anonymous SP member against myself and LMV. John Throne.

by Svante - Workers Power (personal capacity) Wed Jan 04, 2006 16:26

FYI:

A correction to a previous error in a WP article, stating that the CWI acted as a "left cover" for the union bureaucracy in the Irish Ferries conflict is now posted to the WP blog. See attached URL.

by Davy Carlin Wed Jan 04, 2006 17:46

John keep up the excellent work. I would like to elaborate on the issue of your activism and 'putting out the mesage'

I love reading 'hands on' activist accounts of struggle. Not only is such essential against Revisionism {which if needs be - as you have done now {and I do also} it can be linked to in the future if the case merits it} -

- but also that such accounts are, by and large, more 'real' and more inspiring than the usual leadership dogma and analysis one reads on the same matter..

Although in-depth analysis is of course needed it usually is, {when referred to in that type of party dogma}’ - about almost talking solely to ones membership or other interested ‘established’ leftist’s.

Whereas I have found, that in the method I write that it can find and hold a wider readership - and with it the same message can still be put out, albeit in 'simpler', 'more active' and ‘approachable’ terms.

I have also found that such ways of writing finds a far wider working class audience as it is also more ‘real and people can put themselves ‘in mind’ into the turns and twist of the account of struggle – And in doing so, not only can one get the message across, but indeed one can inspire and ‘create further involvement.

- Reels and reels of academia, ideology or dogma will not be the spark to get someone involved, who happens upon a certain article of struggle on an issue in which it has found their ‘initial’ interest. .

Indeed such had been the response to the West Belfast Series I had done a few years ago, as was done similar with the various Movements I have been involved in at the forefront over the years – That I now do my Diary and am to do my first book in such a way.

Therefore I, as I know others would, take time out to read such articles {which would ascend above other dogmatic accounts} more especially if I had limited time. This would be a greater case if one was just initially seeking articles of ‘interest’- and if interested, they would {could} forward on to those who they also may think would be interested etc.

Therefore in doing so, I have found, that if I enjoyed the account then I would read and google further to find out more about those people and their organisations -as I have done with yourself John.

- And indeed I know that many working class people with an interest on a ‘certain issue follow similarly.

Therefore does one write solely to convince those who are already convinced {ones membership and in 'large part other leftist -} or does one write- also and in tandem - to hold the interest, of those not yet convinced, therefore with a better chance of convincing them?

I believe that latter is more effective – indeed I rarely anymore read {or attempt to plough through} such dogmatic accounts of those on the left I know little about – only if one is drawn through the medium of that initial ‘hands on’ activist account.

I have found that this is also the case within the wider movement, in general, of those many ‘searching ‘ for answers to the many questions the Movement throws up. .

And on John, reading links to the recent activism of your organisation I say on a personal note - that I have a lot of time for those who walk the walk, and therefore, secondly, on reading those 'hands on and inspiring accounts', will read more into your site for 'deeper understanding of your positions - and will link into as and when..

Keep up the good work. D

by another sp member Wed Jan 04, 2006 18:19

his argument here, he might explain where he's been and if he's paid his dues and if not why not. He hasn't been expelled but just taken off the membership lists his name can be put back on just as easily. If he wants to be a member of the party no one should have a problem with it. Plenty of members don't make all branch meetings for whatever reasons and members can go through years of inactivity and rejoin, and if he's supported John Throne for ten years now so what nothing much changed there.

by Davy Carlin Wed Jan 04, 2006 18:24

Are the SP going to move to 'attacks' here?

I hope not.

May come back on what I have written above in more depth - if the situation merits it. D

by pat c Wed Jan 04, 2006 19:36

i have tried on several occasions to post a comment in reply to andys article on irish ferries. keep getting an error message. looks as if the problem is on your end as i've tried it on 3 different pcs. it gives a boolean speel about incorrect parameter.

by john throne - labors militant voice Thu Jan 05, 2006 03:55 loughfinn at aol dot com

Thank you Davy for your comments on my post. One of the ways that we speak of it here is that while continuing to fight for revolutionary socialism we try to do so in a way that will allow us to break out of the "left ghetto'. One of the ways we try to achieve this is the use of the transitional "method" in its full richness not the transitional "program" crudely applied. John Throne

by pragmatic solutions Thu Jan 05, 2006 04:54

if only the left were like a computer, we could run a defrag programme and unite all the disenchanted/expelled individuals with the pleathora of mini parties and form athe grand coalition for infighting and slagging off, we could have a national convention once a year where everyone could throw mud at each other and use up all their energy fighting other revolutionaries!


remind me again, whose fault is it that fianna fail/fine gael have run the country without interruption since the inception of the state?Little wonder they arent worried about losing power!

jesus, boys, but egos a shocking thing!!!

by Sean Philips Thu Jan 05, 2006 13:29

It's ironic that Throne and his odd band of CWI-haters are the very ones in a 'left ghetto'. They think that the existing left forces in this country can solve the worlds problems. If you think that 'united action' between the SWP and SP could have won the Irish Ferries dispute despite the totally different positions on the union bureaucracy you are the one in the left ghetto. John get over it and start to orientate to the working class.

by pat c Thu Jan 05, 2006 13:43

John Throne is hardly an SP hater, a critic yes. The problem is that many of his criticisms are never addressed and instead (some) SP members just make personal attacks on him and his comrades.

Lets take one of John Thrones major beefs with the CWI: his parting with their US section.
John (I believe) says the following:

1. He was denied the right of appeal to the US sections Annual Conference.

2. He was denied the right of appeal to the CWI World Congress.

Given the above it is hardly surprising that he should take his case to other sections of the CWI. Seeing as he was one of the founders of the Irish Section it is hardly shocking that he should seek to put his case to the SP National Committee and SP Annual Conference.

From my reading of John Thrones articles it is clear (to me) that his politics have diverged from those of the CWI. The form of organisational structure he favours would be (IMHO) closer to that of Luxemburg than to Lenin.

Johns articles are sometimes overlong but he is not ignorant of events in Ireland. If you have a disagreement with him then tackle the politics not the man.

by Former Militant member Thu Jan 05, 2006 13:57

I agree with Pat C's comments above. For example, whatever you think of his analysis, I do not recall John Throne saying that united action by the SP/ SWP would have won the Irish Ferries dispite. Rather, he argued that it would be helpful, and that beyond the dispute it could have helped to build the left. There is little point in misrepresenting what people think, in order to have a pop at them. The more SP members do this, the more credence they lend to their critics rather than their own arguments. On the other hand, when they engage with people's actual rather than phantom arguments (as some contributors to this site have done - eg Mark), a fruitful exchange of views occurs.

by Jimmy Kelly Thu Jan 12, 2006 17:41 kellyjimmy at eircom dot net

Due to requests from a number of comrades for whom I have serious respect to have individual discussions with proir to responding to this thread I intend to defer my comments for a short while.
Jimmy Kelly

by Pero Fri Jan 13, 2006 19:59

I think it's better to resolve issues with your comrades than to provide entertainment for the hecklers and ditch-hurlers who constituted most of the audience on this thread. This mob thrive on bad blood and soured relationships.

by Anthony Sat Jan 14, 2006 16:23

would be to not talk to people like John Meehan who make allegations against organisations but fail to substantiate them. In an article of 150+ comments, Mr. Meehan has not provided a shred of evidence to back up his (central) claim that Jimmy Kelly 'has been put through a process akin to “constructive dismissal”'.

by anti gossip Sat Jan 14, 2006 20:57

My general approach to idle gossips is just to completely ignore them and have nothing to do with them. Meehan spends his time gossiping about left wingers instead of getting stuck into real activities. I say lets everyone ignore him, it could be you next he's talking about.

by true red Mon Jan 16, 2006 13:00

considering throne when we was told to hand in his party card went and formed an other organisation who paper was a sectarian attack on the CWI and their program it no wonder he was refused entry.the sp is the only organisation on the left getting things done.-those who want to spend there time attacking sp on this website would be better doing somthing instead of being a dot com commie

by pat c Mon Jan 16, 2006 13:34

you really are not adding to the debate with those comments. as i've said i think JT has moved aay from the politics & form of party oranisation held to by the SP. this still doesnt excuse the fact that he wasnt allowed to makean appeal to the CWI World Congress.

by Fact checker Mon Jan 16, 2006 14:06

In fact Pat, John was allowed to appeal the CWI world congress. He didn't show up. Ask him about it some time.

by pat c Mon Jan 16, 2006 14:11

ok. let JT reply to that if he wants to.

by Liu Shaoqi Mon Jan 16, 2006 14:27

You really should give your side of the story. From what I have read you have been treated disgracefully.
I am really interested in this sentence:

"I would particularly like to hear from the comrade who ' never met me' so that I can return the red and black football scarf that he left in my car,"

This has all the hallmarks of the SP's acting out their own version of the 'Cultural Revolution'.

by hs Mon Jan 16, 2006 17:47

I haven't checked this one in a while. But I can say hand and heart I have never owned a black and red football scarf in my life. I don't follow football at all. And as far as I'm aware we've never met.

And "liu" comparisons like that is probably excatly why Jimmy isn't writing on this thread. Grow up.

by Liu Mon Jan 16, 2006 18:03

"I haven't checked this one in a while. But I can say hand and heart I have never owned a black and red football scarf in my life. I don't follow football at all. And as far as I'm aware we've never met.
And "liu" comparisons like that is probably excatly why Jimmy isn't writing on this thread. Grow up."

As someone who stated categorically that they never met Jimmy (now downgraded to 'as far as I'm aware') you can't possibly claim to know why Jimmy isn't writing on this thread, perhaps a bit of naval gazing wouldn't go astray before you tell people to grow up. As far as I'm concerned Jimmy was treated very badly and I believe he should give his side of the story. Otherwise the little lenins just get away with their fabrications and characteer assassinations.

by hs Mon Jan 16, 2006 18:13

Liu, now you're just stirring shit , I haven't met the man i'm just being polite. And anyone who knows me, knows i'm not into football.

And if you want to compare someone being droped from a political party to the chinese cultural revolution thats fine but don't expect to be taken seriously. As far as I'm concerned you don't seem to be aware of anything beyond some gossip. If by going from your last point you take me being polite as "downgrading" of some sort I can't imagine what you made of the rest of it.. And why do you say Jimmy should be "allowed" to speak? Do you think indymedia has banned him? Or he's in the Sp Gulag in outer blanchardstown? Well I suppose thats the cultural revolution again isn't it.

(BTW you don't happen to be a member of a political organisation by any chance)

by hs Mon Jan 16, 2006 18:20

And again jimmy if you read this, i think there's a mix up as I don't believe we met. But I'll look forward to hearing what you have to say, whether through the party or indymedia.

by Liu Mon Jan 16, 2006 18:28

"As far as I'm concerned Jimmy was treated very badly and I believe he should give his side of the story."

Where did I say allowed. Read again (above) what I wrote. And you accuse me of shit stirring?

by pat c Mon Jan 16, 2006 18:47

"I don't follow football at all. "

good man! soccer is just a circus to divert the minds of the masses from the economic and political problems which confront them!

by Not the man in question... Mon Jan 16, 2006 18:58

... I don't follow Bohemians. But why exactly would it be important if somebody forgot a scarf and one random meeting with an inactive comrade over the course of 15 years.

Especially, if a couple of pints were more than likely consumed in a local hostelry on the night of the match.

You are seriously threatening the structural integrity of the bottom of the barrel itself by drawing such ridiculously overblown conclusions from such a microscopic and insignificant event.

by Liu Mon Jan 16, 2006 19:23

"Especially, if a couple of pints were more than likely consumed in a local hostelry on the night of the match.
You are seriously threatening the structural integrity of the bottom of the barrel itself by drawing such ridiculously overblown conclusions from such a microscopic and insignificant event."

Jimmy seemed to imply that he knew what he was talking about. He said that a person who claimed not to know him (airbrushing is a wonderful thing) had left a red and black scarf in his car.
Now you have jumped to the conclusion that the person must be a Bohemians supporter (Don't A.C. Milan and Portadown play in the same colours) and was drinking in a local hostelry on the night of the match. Got to give it to you for somebody who accuses me of making overblown conclusions from such a microscopic and insignificant event you sure do a good job of fleshing out that microscopic and insignificant event. Thanks for that.

by Barrington Mon Jan 16, 2006 19:55

Had this person not left his (or her) red and black Bohs (or portadown, or AC milan) scarf in jimmy's car, the SP would not have had to write to Jimmy asking him to return the scarf to its rightful owner. however, having been greatly insulted by such a letter (implying as it did that Jimmy was a scarf snatcher), jimmy contacted john Meehan (who isn't a Bohs, or Portadown, or AC milan fan) but does know alot about the property relations regarding football fans and their scarves. John took some time off work to investigate this scurilous attack on jimmy by the SP and decided to bring the issue to the attention of the masses via indymedia and the United Scarf-wearers International. John felt enormous sympathy with Jimmy as his former comrades in SD had also tried to imply that John was a gloves snatcher. Then, hearing that there was trouble at mill, John Throne felt it necessary to point out that the SP had once denied him the right to reclaim an old hat he had left in the Militant office in the 1980's and he wanted it back. Then Davy carlin said he had written an interesting article on the history of scarf-wearing and sectarianism on his website if anyone wanted to read it.
Things have not quite been resolved yet. Word is afoot that Jimmy, John M and John T are planning a public meeting where they will appeal to all those who have been unfortunate enough to have been caught up in any hat, glooves or scarf controversy over the years to come together and to put the petty differences of colour in their respective scarves (or hats or glooves) aside and to form a united front to rectify this issue once and for all. However, their plans could be scuppered if the rumour of workers at the Dublin Woolen Mills take strike action is found to be true. (these workers are responsible for the production of 67.2% of all woolen hats, scarves and gloves in the greater Dublin area.) It is rumoured that the SP leadership have been busy behind the scenes trying to agitate workers there into taking strike action. This cunning and underhand attempt to stiffle discussion is the lowest of the low. Beware of SP manoeuverings. Scarf wearers of the world ... Unite

by pat c Mon Jan 16, 2006 20:12

i am also concerned with material losses . several union banners went missing over the years and i got the blame. (i am not trying to start up my own labour history museum).could these be stored at sp hq? or might john m have them? on that note perhaps we could clothes these proceedings.

by hs Tue Jan 17, 2006 00:50

and to top it all off red and black are anarchist colours! no self respecting sp member could subscribe to such left wing communist infantile disorders, i move for the scarf wearers immediate expulsion.

by Curious Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:51

" i move for the scarf wearers immediate expulsion."

Why? Were they not paying their ewes?

by pat c Tue Jan 17, 2006 11:21

red & black are also the sandinista colours. perhaps the comrade was just feeling nostalgic.