Review of world economy.

by Marcas MacCaoimhín Fri Nov 17, 2006 10:17

Boy those germans have a word for everything!

John you wrote a novel. Its hardly the top priority for a revolutionary Marxist to promote your book. Funny how you critiscise Lynn Walsh for "relying on Bourgeois Academics" then go and praise the Likes of Jack O Connor and the Bourgeois Media.

by Observer Fri Nov 17, 2006 12:50

Marcus, I think you have missed the point. The point John is raising is that Lynn Walsh is totally dependent on Andrew Glynn for his ideas, rather than attempting to seriously develop any of his own. One could make some use fo the ideas formed by anyone, but to be utterly captive to the thoughts of an academic economist rather suggets some form of intellectually bankruptcy. There is a slight difference between this and having a trade union official say something at the public launch of one's own book - a book, incidentally, which is much more than a 'novel', but an exposure of some vital issues in the lives of ordinary people not so long ago. Perhaps you imagine that socialists should only write programmatic articles, and that socialist novels of the past are irrelevant? Nor am, I impressed by your knee jerk defence of Joe Higgins' refusal to attend the launch of John's book. People are rarely that busy! At the very least, Joe could have responded to the invite - it takes little time these days to send an emal or p[ick up the phone, or have someone do it for you. His refusal to do even that suggests rather more than being busy to me. It suggests a sectarian, exclusivist mindset within the CWI, in which 'building the party' (or not , as everyone knows is the case with Lynn Walsh) takes prededence over everything else. Which is, of course, the main reason for the continued virtual irrelevance of the CWI on a world scale.

by Marcas Maccaoimhin Fri Nov 17, 2006 13:05

1. Get it right, its Marcas not Marcus.

2. I take John Throne's comments about LW with a pinch of salt given his personal vendetta against him.

3. The CWI is more relevent on a world scale than the majority of the so called Trotskyist Internationals and certainly more so than JT's group.

4. I didn't downplay the role of Socialist orientated novels, just pointed out that they would hardly be Joe Higgins's top priority. JT's egotism that Joe should have some sort of lifelong allegiance to him just becauuse he initially recruited him is hardly the viewpoint of a revolutionary and betrays the real crux of JT's above "review", (which reviews nothing) that being J.T's enormous ego. (My personal opinion gleaned from reading JT's articles on here over the years - I've concluded that he suffers from "I'm Spartacus syndrome").

by Observer Fri Nov 17, 2006 13:54

Marcas, my apologies for, in a rush, mis-spelling your name. However, it seems less of a crime than misrepresenting someone else's position, or wilfully missing their point. Thus:

2. 'I take John Throne's comments about LW with a pinch of salt given his personal vendetta against him.' I am unaware of you producing evidence to suggest a personal vendetta. There is plenty of political criticism, none of it rebutted. But personal vendetta - that seems a tiny wee bit of over-statement to me. It might be more appopriate to deal with the arguments of your opponents rather than libel their motives. But your response is pretty normal for the CWI - another reason why most workers have no time for it. It is repellent.

3'. The CWI is more relevent on a world scale than the majority of the so called Trotskyist Internationals and certainly more so than JT's group. ' This isn't saying much. ALL of the Trotskyist groups are equally mired in irrelevance - yours included. John seems to be highlighting some reasons why this might be so. Some reflection from you and your colleagues on where you have gone wrong, rather than always blaming 'the objective situation' might show some much needed spirit of maturity. But I concede, this is a big ask.

4. 'I didn't downplay the role of Socialist orientated novels, just pointed out that they would hardly be Joe Higgins's top priority. JT's egotism that Joe should have some sort of lifelong allegiance to him just becauuse he initially recruited him is hardly the viewpoint of a revolutionary and betrays the real crux of JT's above "review", (which reviews nothing) that being J.T's enormous ego. (My personal opinion gleaned from reading JT's articles on here over the years - I've concluded that he suffers from "I'm Spartacus syndrome").'

Well, I read it differently. To ask someone to attend a book launch is slightly different, from a sane point of view, to expecting 'life long allegiance.' It is a matter of common courtesy, and of working with other people who inhabit a similar tradition to your own - something that goes in day in and day out in the labour movement. The main point is that Joe's response on this, and your own rather embittered riposte, typifies a sectarian mindset that dominates the CWI - a mindset which seems pretty obvious to everyone else but you. You are absolutely free to avoid correcting your errors on these fronts, so long as you are also happy to continuing paying the price - sectarian isolation, with only occasional spasms of influence.

by Marcas MacCaoimhin Fri Nov 17, 2006 15:16

There have been plenty of rebuttals of JT's and others criticisms of us here on indymedia. The original point I made, that JT's "Review" wasn't a review at all but an attack on LW, and very little political about it is valid. John makes some off the cuffe remarks about LW constantly hanging on AG's coat-tails witout actually backing up any of his claims. Simply saying that LW used to consult AG is not enough to make an accusation that he had no ideas of his own and thus ALWAYS relied on AG.
As for the SP being mired by sectarianism that simply isn't true. The SP has worked alongside other groups when it mattered. The SP has worked to build broad coalitions of lefts in the trade unions and with community groups and campaigns. Just because the SP does not jump to the tune of every call for "unity" or for that matter to attend a book launch is not an indication of sectarianism.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Fri Nov 17, 2006 22:45

This is the kind of thing which has me shaking my head in disbelief. Here we have a 1,500 word review of a review in a small circulation magazine of a book by a left wing economist. And what does that 1,500 word review of a review say? That:

a) Twenty years ago a prominent Marxist economist who was involved in a socialist organisation actually, shockingly, had a significant role in developing the economic perspective of that organisation. Whatever next? Trade unionists helping to develop a political party's ideas about trade unions?

b) That the writer of the reviewed review doesn't go through every point made, stating that like the rest of the world he didn't foresee x, y or z happening twenty years ago.

c) Rather bizarrely that Joe Higgins didn't attend the launch of a novel by somebody he used to work with 20 years ago. The bastard.

Does this posting count as a review of a review of a review of a book? Maybe I should thrown in something about how Martin McGuinness failed to attend my christening?

by Observer Sat Nov 18, 2006 10:35

Mark, I am not sure that you and I, or maybe anyone else, were reading the same text. Such are the perils of communication. I rather think the point isn't so much that Lynn Walsh consulted Andrew Glynn, but that a) Walsh was bereft of any ideas of his own, and b) thought that wider discussion within the CWI was less important than him bringing a few tablets of wisdom to the table. Walsh is supposed to be one of the CWI's main theoreticians, but his writings have been patchy for quite some time, and the few that surface are mostly bereft of theoretical insight. In my view, this is pretty typical of the entire CWI website - there is very little on offer in terms of reorienting to a much more difficult period than seemed likely not that long ago. It is rather timewarped and arrogant stuff. It is frankly unreadable.

The point about Joe was also related to a wider issue. Its not just that he did not turn up to an event by someone he used to work with (nice phrase that, implying someting rather less than the actual relationship he had with Throne), but that his attitude is suggestive of very deep sectarian attitudes on the part of the CWI. It is strange paradox. On the one hand, your theoretical base is broken, flimsy, and lacking in sufficient strength to support any real edificie. On the other hand, you remain convinced that it is fundamentally sound, and on that presumption evince a catastrophically arrogant view of the importance of your organisation.

It is an interesting but far from inspiring spectacle.

by Socialist observer - - Sat Nov 18, 2006 12:47

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061118/ap_on_bi_ge/g20_fin...china

Police on horseback and wielding batons clashed with rock- and bottle-throwing demonstrators outside a meeting of some the world's top financial officials in Melbourne earlier today, turning what had been promised as a peaceful rally against poverty into running street skirmishes.

"They threw missiles and rocks, ... bins — anything they could get their hands on they threw it at police and damaged property," a police chief told reporters. "We have not had anything like this, any kind of violent demonstration in the last six years."

Police on horseback and other uniform and riot officers brandishing shields and batons kept protesters out of the plush hotel where U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and top officials from Europe, Asia and Latin America opened two days of talks on global economic issues.

At one place, about 200 demonstrators rained stones, glass bottles and plastic garbage bins down on about one dozen police standing near a police car and truck parked outside the security perimeter.
The police ducked behind the vehicles to avoid the barrage, until a contingent of mounted police charged from behind the security fence and drove the demonstrators off

About 3,000 people rallied at a city park around midday Saturday, then marched on the meeting of the Group of 20 finance minister and central bankers. But most of the violence appeared to focus around a group of about 200 demonstrators dressed in white coveralls with red bandanas tied around their faces. The group ran from one location to another near the venue, challenging police before retreating.

The unrest recalled the widespread violence at anti-globalization protests that marked the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle in 1999, and a meeting of the World Economic Forum in Melbourne the following year as well as genoa in Italy.

"There is a hardcore militant and violent element among these protesters," Australian Treasurer Peter Costello, the G-20 meeting's chairman, told a news conference after the day's deliberations.
"These are people who want to trash the streets of Melbourne and trash the reputation of Australia," he said. "We won't stand for that."

Finance mandarins from 19 countries and the European Union, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund attended the talks. Formed in 1999, the G-20 includes the Group of Seven advanced industrial countries, the EU as well as China, Brazil, India, Russia, South Korea, Argentina, Australia, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Turkey.

The Irish rep in the talks, who wished to remain anonymous, reminded delegates of current scenes in Rossport suggesting that republican, anarchist and trotskyist involvement was suspected. "These people are not interested in reviews of reviews of books on the economy - they want to change the situation through struggle" he added.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Sat Nov 18, 2006 19:11

Observer, you are right about one thing - someone with your obvious axe to grind probably is reading the report differently. I'm sure that you are reading it in a rather more sympathetic light than I am, given that the insufferably long winded and tedious John Throne (who never makes a concise point when he can produce 22 pages of moaning instead) has a fairly similar anti-CWI agenda.

I have no interest in whether John feels miffed that twenty years ago Lynn Walsh preferred to listen to one of Europe's most prominent Marxist economists rather than to his words of wisdom. No interest at all, although I can say that if the Irish Socialist Party had a member with Andrew Glynn's level of expertise in a particular subject and he or she didn't have a major role to play in the formulation of our views on that subject I'd want to know why.

Equally words cannot express how little I care if Joe Higgins went to the launch of a novel by somebody he was an associate of twenty years ago. I hate to remind the obsessives and egotists of this, but a small book launch is not a significant political event and whether or not someone turns up to it has nothing to do with "sectarianism". Sectarianism has to do with the attitude of an organisation towards the wider workers movement, not whether or not one of its members attends the book launch of someone who has been vigorously hostile to that organisation for a decade. I am not however surprised to see John confuse his book launch with a major political event nor am I am surprised to see him confuse attitudes towards himself with attitudes towards the workers movement.

As far as his book is concerned, I haven't read it and it isn't anywhere near the top of my reading list, but I may read it at some point. I can only express my earnest hope that he has acquired a talented and ruthless editor.

Now, observer, I fully expect some further yapping from you about how this proves x, y or z. Feel free to get on with it in my absence.

by SP Member - Socialist Party/CWI Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:37

In my opinion the following comment by John Throne indicates the exact nature of his attitude to the CWI.

'This is the man (Joe Higgins) I recruited to socialist politics, stood aside from my position on the administrative council of the Labor Party for, and he would not even answer an invite to speak at the launch of my book. Not only that but while the launch brought together activists from many different traditions and groups the SP as a whole was not one of them. It boycotted the launch.'

John Throne recruited many people to the CWI, not all of them beneficial to the socialist cause. One particuplar individual I am aware was a drug dealer and ended up in jail for 3 years after being caught with £70,000 worth of cocaine.

It was John Throne's job to recruit people, just the same as it is any other member of the CWI. Who recruited who to the SP belongs in the banter in a pub on a Saturday night and is not any real basis for political criticism.

The next comment is even more egotistical. "stood aside from MY position on the administrative council of the Labor Party". Since when did it become John Throne's personal property to hand on to his heir apparent.

Shock and Horror. Joe Higgins has better things to be doing with his time than attending a book launch written by someone who worked in the same political organisation 15 years ago, like building a revolutionary organisation. And I can assure you the SP didn't boycott your book launch, despite what John Throne may think the SP does not spend all (or for that matter any) of its time discussing his latest activities.

Best of luck with the book John. Hope the criticism it received in Donegal has helped the sales. By the way I was under the impression that it was considered a work of fiction rather than a biography.

by john throne - labors militant voice Sun Nov 19, 2006 18:48 loughfinn at aol dot com

This person Marcas and other CWI members and supporters have got very annoyed at my posting on Lyn Walsh's review. They accuse me of having a "vendetta" aginst him, they accuse me of having an "enormous ego", they accuse me of not dealing with ideas and of being tedious etc. I could go on.

There are a few methods the CWI use against anybody who makes any criticism of them. They try and write them out of history. See how they deal with Comrades like myself and Dermot Connolly in their archives and websites. This is one of the methods of stalinism which has been adopted by the CWI. They write people out of history. They also have elements of stalinism in their use of slander and lies against anybody who disagrees with them.

Look at their response to this email of mine. Refuse to deal with the ideas and slander me from beginning to end. Yet here are some of the ideas I took up.

1. The economic boom of the 1990's and the past 6 years and how the CWI including myself when I was in it did not foresee this.

2. The technological boom and how we did not foresee this and how it would affect the world economy.

3. The re-establishment of capitalism in the stalinist world and how we did not foresee this.

4.The rise of Chinese capitalism and how it is affecting the world and how we did not forsee this.

5. Perspectives for capitalism in the years ahead and how these are very difficult to predict.

6. The permanent revolution and to what extent it applies today, how it applies today, and combined and uneven development in the different form it exists today.

These were some of the ideas I raised in my comments on Lyn Walsh's review. These are serious political and theoretical points. the answer from the CWI is personal slander. This is typical of the CWI. This is one of the methods used by stalinism.

At the beginning of the 1990's the CWI had 16,000 members. When I left Ireland earlier in the 1980's the Irish section had arpound 500 members, it has less than half that today as far as I know. What are the reasons for this collapse. Sure it has been a difficult objective situation. But the main reason for the collapse of the CWI was that our perspectives were wrong. We did not see that capitalism would go back to the stalinist world. We did not see that capitalism would have as strong a growth cycle as it did in the 1990's and the past six years as it did.

Then there was the internal life of the organization. When faced with the real world negating our perspectives, when faced with no longer being able to ignore this, the organization was not able to honestly say it was wrong and open up a discussion to correct our perspectives. Instead the leadership either in the case of the Grant/Woods group said we never made any mistakes and ignored reality and split, or in the case of the Taaffe/Walsh group blamed all on Grant and tried to claim they had been right all along.

Anybody who insisted that the CWI had to openly face the mistakes we made was either driven out, I was one of a number expelled, or were so disgusted and demoralized by this dishonesty and maneuvring at the top that they left. And the CWI collapsed to its present small size. By the way Walsh himself when he was once threatened by the internal maneuvring stated that the internal life of the CWI was not democratic but was bureaucratic centralist. Of course afraid to lose his position he did not take up a struggle on this, instead shut his mouth.

The internal life of the CWI does not tolerate internal sustained debate. Unlike the Bolsheviks in their healthy period and before they were trapped in the depths of the civil war the CWI does not allow factions. It drives alternative factions out and lies and slanders all who have alternative views. What this means more than anything else is that the CWI can never become a mass revolutionary organization. The workers and especially the more consciousness workers would never tolerate being in an organization with the internal life of the CWI. CWI members attack me for criticizing the CWI. In fact it is me who is acting in the best interests of the CWI. They by their refusal to take up a struggle to transform the CWI's internal life are dooming that organization to remaining a small sectarian organization.

Left sectarianism. I will not deal with this again. Except to say that the CWI practices left sectarianism the same as the other left groups and like them damages the interests of the working class. It does not go unnoticed by workers that the left groups are always seeking to gain maximum advantage for their own group out of any struggle. Instead united action in common struggle and laying out the different alternatives for the working class to consider would be in the best interest of all.

John Throne

by Marcas MacCaoimhín - SP PC Sun Nov 19, 2006 20:13

Give it a rest John. Repeating a mantra over and over again does not make it right. Just because you make a list of our "shortcomings" and after each point write that "this is one of the methods of Stalinism" does not make it so. In fact if anyone is taking on the methods of Stalinism it is your good self. This list is a mixture of distortions of some of the mistakes we have made in the past and of downright lies about our organisation. As for our wiping people from history, this is not the case. A lot of the comrades have great respect for Ted Grant and Alan Woods, despite their shortcomings. Personally I think that Reason in Revolt and Bolshevism the road to revolution are two of the best books to have come from the left in the last couple of decades.

On the points you make:
"1. The economic boom of the 1990's and the past 6 years and how the CWI including myself when I was in it did not foresee this."

2. The technological boom and how we did not foresee this and how it would affect the world economy.

3. The re-establishment of capitalism in the stalinist world and how we did not foresee this.

4.The rise of Chinese capitalism and how it is affecting the world and how we did not forsee this.
"
Big swing, papal infallibility does not apply to Marxists.

"5. Perspectives for capitalism in the years ahead and how these are very difficult to predict."

This is always the case. Perspectives for World Capitalism were difficult to predict for Marx and Engels too. They foresaw Socialist Revolution in France, Britain and Germany before the dawn of the 20th Century. They were clearly wrong in that respect. Trotsky failed to forsee the resurgance of Capitalism after world war 2. Many Trotskyists after the war failed to see what was staring them in the face and clung rigidly to the idea the Capitalism faced imminant collapse. Having said that, it is hard to see anything but stormy waters for capitalism in the coming period. The world economy, relying on US capital will be in big trouble should, as seems likely, the US bubble bursts. Nacent Chinese capitaism relies on US consumer spending power and that is already considerably weakened.

"6. The permanent revolution and to what extent it applies today, how it applies today, and combined and uneven development in the different form it exists today."
The Permanant Revolution applies today in much the same way as it has always applied. Third world/former colonial countries can not develope in the normal way that the advanced capitalist countries have. They will always be dominated by foreign capital unless they have a Socialist Revolution. Ireland is a case in point here. Sure we have a modern capitalist state and we were a colony, but without US capital the economy would be in ruins.

by SP Member - Socialist Party/CWI Sun Nov 19, 2006 20:50

That's what it sounds like John, a broken record.

There is absolutely nothing new in any of your arguments here. You have merely taken an opportunity of a review of a book by Lynn Walsh, to have a go at Walsh, the person, along with Peter Hadden, that you regard as personally responsible for shafting you in the US. We know the story, read many of the documents (It would probably take years to read everything now) and it's ancient history.

Enjoy your new career as a novelist. I actually would like to read the book. You writing abilities would undoubtedly make it a good read. But as regards the CWI, give it a rest.

by Observer Sun Nov 19, 2006 22:12

I am genuinely fascinated by the blindenss of CWI members. Their tone is utterly cynical. 'No room for sentimentality in rev. politics' seems to translate in practice into 'F*** everybody who disagrees with us', trash their reputations, dig deep and only admit errors under extreme pressure. And even admitting them, don't account for them, analyse them, learn from them. Well, I suppose folks are free to make a hash of their lives. Small sectarian organisations, tiny, tiny, insignificant sects - that is what they have 'built' and will, on this evidence, continue to do so. Past errors are discounted with a snide comment about no papal infallibility. But this is Marxism - scienctific socialism, teh science of perspectives. On the most fuyndamental political points imaginable, where its superiority over methods of thought shoudl eb apparant, teh CWI was completely wrong. And the list John produces is far from comprehensive. There has been no serious accounting for this from the CWI 'theoreticians' - just snide remarks of the kind delivered on this thread. Thsoe who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. On thsi evidence, further horrendous mistakes and continuing sectarian fragmentation and irrlevance is the future facing this bizarre organisation.

by hs - sp (per cap) Sun Nov 19, 2006 22:24

The problem here is John you titled the document as a review of a review (starange in itself) and then wrote a mis-mash of ideas, what seems a personalised political attack on Walsh and bizzarely ended up with the complaint Joe Higgins missed your book launch. Firstly i would find it unusual if the most prominent figure in a party you have been consistently attacking for the last few years turned up for your launch. And I'm sure heads would turn! Other than that, being in the same branch and well into an election year, I know how busy Joe is.
Your other points may have merit or may not but I would suggest you write them in an article of their own rather than a review of a review. There is no shortage of CWI material on China and the world economy so know reason why you couldn't do a straight political review of them. The method you chose doesn't sit well and seems petty. The entire left missed the boat before the collapse of the USSR, perspectives were obviously wrong and a debate in how wrong the left got it so wrong (not for the first time!) can do nothing but good. If it was done without what seems like an excuse for a personal attack I'm sure you would get a better response. HS

by john throne - labors militant voice Wed Nov 22, 2006 03:34 loughfinn at aol dot com

There are a few points from the CWI members I think I should not let go. They are indignant that they do not write past members out of history. The example given is Ted Grant. Well this is the example that proves the rule. They had to mention Ted when he died. But just about everybody except the most blind CWI member recognizes that the obituary for Ted by Peter Taaffe was an absolute disgrace. Obituaries from other groups and even some pf the bourgeois press treated Ted's role better. Taaffes obituary was a condemnation of a Comrade with whom he had worked for 30 years and who had founded the CWI.

Then there is the argument that we have nothing to worry about as not only us, but the entire left and the bourgeois missed the boat in relation to the re-entry of capitalism into the stalinist world. But according to the CWI all the years I was in it we were superior to all these others and our perspectives were correct and theirs were not. But now sure you see everybody was wrong so there is nothing to worry about us being wrong too. In fact the bourgeois had a better view of what was going on in the stalinist world and internationally in the 1980's than the CWI and the left in general. There has to be lessons drawn from this. The CWI refuses to do so.

Then another CWI person says I blame Walsh and Hadden for "shafting" me in the CWI. An entirely non marxist approach if I may say so. I was expelled because I would not go along with the rest of the CWI leaderships determination not to discuss the major mistakes we had all made and the lessons from these mistakes and the changes that needed to be made in the organization. The entire IS of the CWI and the overwhelming majority of the leaderships of all the sections collaborated in the refusal to draw the lessons and make the changes and from this in my expulsion. This refusal to draw the lessons is why so many people became demoralized and dropped out and why I and others were expelled.

This was not a personal issue. This was a question of method. This was a question of a process which flowed from political mistakes and the refusal to face up to these.

Then we have the SP member who attacks me for recruiting somebody whom he says ended up in jail for being a drug dealer after being caught with 70,000 euro of cocaine. Well I do not know if this is true or not. The CWI are quite capable of making this up. But even if it is true I will not beat myself up about it. It is impossible to build an organization of any size without some members over time giving up, becoming reformists, becoming reactionaries, becoming counter-revolutionaries or even gangsters.

This person might as well attack Peter Hadden for recruiting the guy in Belfast back in the 1970's. Hadden knows who he is I will not give more detail. This guy dropped out and disappeared from view. He later turned up a member of a sectarian murder squad in Belfast. I never held this against Hadden. We cannot guarantee the future of everybody we recruit. But of course the SP member here also knows this. He just wants to link me with somebody real or fictional who sold cocaine to slander me more than he and the CWI have already done. . Another slander.

John Throne.

by SP Member - Socialist Party/CWI Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:14

Looks like we touched one.

Let's talk about an entilrely non-Marxist approach:

'This is the man (Joe Higgins) I recruited to socialist politics, stood aside from my position on the administrative council of the Labor Party for, and he would not even answer an invite to speak at the launch of my book. Not only that but while the launch brought together activists from many different traditions and groups the SP as a whole was not one of them. It boycotted the launch.'

This is definintely a Marxist approach, with a bit of egotism, nepotism, a more than a little sulking thrown in for good measure.

As regards your expulsion!

You were booted out for refusing to accept the democratic decisions of the US section of the CWI. You and others attempted to circumvent, bypass, undermine etc. etc. these decisions. The majority of the membership of the US section refused to accept your manouverings and booted you out. You singled out Lynn Walsh and Peter Hadden for personal criticism during this period and have continued with it since. We have been over and over and over and over and over this again and again and again and again (get the picture). You can rabbit on all you like about how right you were as you have been for how long? about 10 years now, but its ancient history for the membership of the CWI.

The reason I mentioned the drug dealer you recruited (and yes you did recruit him) was purely because you were making a big deal out of 'This is the man (Joe Higgins) I recruited to socialist politics'. I pointed out that this belongs with the banter in the pub after a few points on a Saturday night. I am glad to see you agree.

I disagreed with Peter Taaffe's obituary for Ted Grant both in tone and content and I made my feelings known and I have no problem saying that in a public forum like this. My understanding is that many other members did the same. I can however understand where it was coming from given the long relationship between the two, even if it doesn't justify it. Incidentally the criticisms of Ted Grant were valid, but I feel a better balance should have been struck. As I have said in the past when replying to you on indymedia, the CWI is not perfect.

John, If you are intent on using a review, of a review by Lynn Walsh of a book, to take a swipe at Walsh and have a sulk about Joe Higgins not turning up to your book launch, you have to expect to receive some 'non Marxist' criticism from members of the CWI. Stop trying to clothe you comments in the 'this is a commentry about method and approach' type stuff.

by Former Militant Member Wed Nov 22, 2006 11:29

This is amazing stuff. If you have a shred of self insight, it is sadly lacking in your postings. I could cite numerous examples, but this will suffice. You say to John Throne: 'You and others attempted to circumvent, bypass, undermine etc. etc. these decisions. ' You are referring to why he was expelled. On no thread that I have studied have you or anyone else from the CWI attempted to explain precisely what form this bypassing, refusing to accept etc actually took. It appears to me, as it does to many others, that it consisted of continuing to argue for the positions that Throne and his colleagues believed in and argued for. In short, they were expelled for having a different opinion to Peter Taaffe. In addition, in defiance of your own constitution, this group were denied their right of appeal to either the US organisation or the CWI's international conference. I think you might fall back on the old refrain that they had 'placed themselves outside of the organisation.' What it appears to all but the wilfully blind as is evidence of blind sectarianism, arrogance, and Stalinism. There is no way forward on this basis.

If this was only the CWI it wouldn't matter much - you are, to be blunt, an insignificant sect, and likely to remain so. Unfortunately, you still manage to damage occasional groups of activists or young people who stumble, usually briefly, into your ranks. In a wider sense, since you epitomise the complete blind alley that practically all of the far left has languished in for decades (and see no reason to reappraise your position), your comments are infinitely sad: there is no prospect of renewal let alone renewed relevance for this kind of organisation.

by Never Militant Member Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:49

It’s all a bit curious. John Throne is condemned by SP Member for not accepting collective discipline. Whether this is true or not, I don’t know – it’s certainly disputed. If it is true, it seems to mean that he continued to argue for his position in the organisation long after the rest of the leadership had rejected that position.

But I seem to recall, not so long ago, SP Member tying himself up in knots trying to justify the behaviour of Tommy Sheridan – who totally rejected any idea of collective discipline, followed a disastrous course of action against the advice of his party comrades, and did enormous damage to the left in Scotland.

A bit of consistency never did anyone any harm. John Throne’s “indiscipline” was incomparably less damaging that Sheridan’s, so maybe SP Member could spare some of the generosity and understanding he lavishes on Sheridan…

(I expect to get back a few slogans about how the rest of the SSP leadership “sided with Rupert Murdoch” – SP Member gradually abandoned this line when he was debating with one of his SP comrades about the Sheridan affair, so I’ll take it with a pinch of salt)

by SP Member - Socialist Party/CWI Wed Nov 22, 2006 13:19

SP member who posts under 'SP Member', so different people may make different arguments.

To Former Militant...

The situation with John Throne and the other five expelled in the US has been gone through over and over again. Ask John Throne to provide ALL the documents and you can take the time to read through them. I have no intention of wasting my time going through item by item for someone who is clearly hostile to the CWI and is not really interested in genuinely finding out information, rather intent on just having a go at the CWI irrespective of what answers are received.

To Never Militant...

Are you suggesting that the SSP is a revolutionary organisation organised on the basis of democratic centralism?

The leadership of the SSP were happy enough to promote TS as the icon of the SSP when it suited them and then shaft him when they panicked about 'revelations' about his private life. The situation in Scotland has been an absolute mess, and Sheridan is partly responsible for it. However the damage that has been and continues to be inflicted by the leadership of the SSP is substantially greater than the damage Sheridan caused.

Take what you like with a pinch of salt. Who am I to tell you what condiments to use

by Never Militant Member Wed Nov 22, 2006 13:44

Yup, a big helping of salt is in order. The Sheridan affair has been extensively debated on Indymedia, and there’s probably nothing new left to say. Anyone who’s curious should check the archives – some of the best arguments against Sheridan (and defences of his SSP opponents) have come from members of the CWI in Ireland, funnily enough.

You only need ask the question – if the SSP leadership were so determined to “shaft” Tommy Sheridan, why did they keep the minutes of the notorious party meeting in 2004 confidential? If they had wanted to shaft him, publishing the minutes of a meeting where he admitted visiting sex clubs and declared his intention to lie in court would have done very nicely.

But it’s interesting to see the line on party organisation being handed down here. Apparently, either you organise on Leninist principles (where the centralism always seems to weigh down heavily on the democratic side of the equation) or you can’t have any kind of collective discipline. Any member of the party is absolutely free to do anything they like, whatsoever, no matter how damaging it is likely to be, no matter what their comrades have to say on the subject.

This is the same false choice that’s always posed by Leninists when debating organisation. They justify their style of organisation by saying “a revolutionary party is not a debating society” as if anyone imagined that it was. They claim that if you don’t follow the Leninist approach, you won’t be able to reach any kind of consensus for taking action.

Completely untrue, but it seems to be the stock response for Leninists which justifies (to them at least) the narrow, sectarian approach which is common to virtually all far-left groups inspired by the Bolsheviks. In reality, there’s a happy medium between chaotic, anything-goes organisations and narrow sects. As SP Member is no doubt perfectly aware, the SSP had (and has) its own democratic structures for making decisions. This is perfectly compatible with allowing members the freedom to disagree with the party line in public and organise their own currents, as many broad-minded organisations have shown.

by SP Member - Socialist Party/CWI Wed Nov 22, 2006 14:59

If the SSP Leaders were intent on protecting Sheridan why did they keep minutes at all and then leak them to the Scottish Herald within a few days of the meeting?

Trying to privately shaft Sheridan while publicly trying to claim the high moral ground by refusing to hand over a set of minutes to the courts (minutes they had previously leaked to the media) backfired bigtime to the detriment of Scottish socialism.

As for the democratic structures of the SSP - are you suggesting that there were rules within the SSP prohibiting a member from taking legal action against a right wing rag like the NOTW because it did not sit well with the notions of the leadership.

As you said this has been debated over and over on indymedia and only time will tell if anything is salvaged for the Scottish left from the whole debacle.

by Never Militant Member Wed Nov 22, 2006 15:30

Your attempts to massage the facts about the Sheridan affair in order to justify your claims are amusing if nothing else. The coy euphemisms you use to describe Sheridan's behaviour ("didn't sit well with the leadership" - that's one way of putting it!) are touching, they really are. Anyway, anyone can go back and check the archives ("Tommy Sheridan Wins" was the main thread on the subject) and judge for themselves. Apart from Sheridan himself, the only people on the left who seem to find his story convincing are the CWI and the SWP - great to see them coming together for once!

Anyway, I'm not surprised that you haven't made any attempt to address the more important question about organisational methods, just tried to dismiss it with an inane comment about the SSP's structure. Of course they didn't have a specific rule that said "it is unacceptable for the party convenor to bring a libel case against a newspaper that claims he has cheated on his wife and visited sex clubs, when the convenor has admitted to the party leadership that he has in fact cheated on his wife and visited sex clubs, but intends to lie about it in court and expects the party to back him in this course of action." But the letter and the spirit of the SSP's structures certainly required the leading figures of the party (especially its elected reps) to put the interests of the organisation ahead of their own personal interests. To claim otherwise is completely dishonest.

by Marcas MacCaoimhín Wed Nov 22, 2006 16:22

John would you have prefered Peter Taffe completely glossed over Ted's mistakes in his Obituary, or didn't really deal with his political life like you did in your "review of a visit to Ted's Flat"???
Have you read Trotsky's obituary of Kautsky? Do you have a problem with how Trotsky conducts the article or does this type of criticism only apply to current CWI personell?

by Never Militant Member Wed Nov 22, 2006 17:04

We're really getting into religious territory here. Because Trotsky did something, it must be ok! John Throne is damned one way or another - if he criticises Trotsky, he exposes himself as a damn heretic. God help us all. Incidentally, the analogy between Karl Kautsky and Ted Grant is about as striking as the analogy between Leon Trotsky and Peter Taaffe.

Glad I was never in the CWI if this is the mentality it breeds...

by Marcas MacCaoimhín Wed Nov 22, 2006 17:34

Your not very good at drawing analogies are you. The analogy was that they were both political obituaries and both looked at the negative sides of their subjects as well as their positive sides (Unlike John's Anecdotal Obit of Ted).

by Never Militant Member Wed Nov 22, 2006 18:30

The implication (not very subtle) of your analogy was that Ted Grant belonged in the same company as Karl Kautsky (another "renegade" I guess) and, presumably, that Taaffe belongs in the same company as Lenin and Trotsky. Both comparisons are daft

by former militant member Wed Nov 22, 2006 23:32

In relation to the expulsion of John Throne and the position of dissent within the CWI: SP Member writes, grandfy, 'The situation with John Throne and the other five expelled in the US has been gone through over and over again.' The implication is that this is a tedious issue, and that the CWI has responded openly, fully and at length on this in the past. My point is precisely that they have not.

No one from the CWI has ever explained PRECISELY what JT did that, in the CWI's parlance, defied the democratic traditions of the CWI, how exactly they refused to accept the majority decision of the US section and so on. To the outside observer, it looks rather like the defianc e of John Throne and his supporters consisted entirely of continuing to argue from a point of view different to Peter Taaffe. Moreover, they were refused their democratic right of appeal to either the US or CWI International Conference - in defiance of the CWI's own statutes. Now, SP Member can rant all he wishes - but this has NEVER been explained. What exactlyudid this terrible minority do that merited expulsion? They disagreed with Peter Taaffe (and Hadden)? They argued a point of view? They believed that even after a conference they should still uphold their position, anmd openly argue it? How absolutely shocking - shocking that in the strange world of the CWI these 'thought crimes' could be so terrible, shocking that its members would think they had no need to explain, shocking that that they could be so casual towards someone so vital to their own history.

In the real world of today, the certainties of the past are over: there is no prospect of a mass movement of working people having anything other than passionate and contentious debates about policy, perspectives, strategy and programme. The CWI's determination to build a monolithic internal culture can only repel those people interested in social change - and ensure that the CWI remains a tiny, dwindling and ever more irrelevant sect.

by SP Member - Socialist Party/CWI Thu Nov 23, 2006 16:39

The CWI dealt with all these issues years ago. The matter itself was an internal matter for the CWI and dealt with internally within the CWI according to the rules of the CWI (despite what JT claims). The only people who we have to justify decisions to are the members of the CWI ourselves. This was done, in the US, in Ireland and around the world. The CWI have answered all these arguments in detail in the past (the distant past at this stage) and I have no intention (and I would be surprised if any other member of the CWI would either) of reharshing them for an individual or individuals that really are not interested in reasoned argument, but merely having a go at the CWI.

There are mountains (literally) of documents. Ask John Throne for ALL of them and read them at your leisure (you will need a lot of time). When you have done that draw your own conclusions. John Throne has been harping on about his treatment for years now. My advise - move on - get a life and enjoy your new career as a writer. I wish you every success. As for those who just want to have a go at the CWI - TUFF - read the documents - they have the answers you seek.

by Pushkin Thu Nov 23, 2006 16:53

"The CWI dealt with all these issues years ago. The matter itself was an internal matter for the CWI and dealt with internally within the CWI according to the rules of the CWI (despite what JT claims). The only people who we have to justify decisions to are the members of the CWI ourselves. "

If you wish to build a Revolutionary International then you cannot say that how you run your orgainisations is not the business of the International Proletariat. How are you going to win them over if you act in such a secretive manner

Now JT makes certain claims:

1. He was not allowed his right of appeal (against expulsion) to the national conference of the US Section of the CWI.

2. He was not allowed his right of appeal (against expulsion) to the World congress of the CWI.

Are either of these claims correct?

by former militant member Thu Nov 23, 2006 17:08

I agree with Pushkin - for an organisation that claims to want the leadership of the working class to claim that how it deals with internal dissent is no one's businessness buts own is remarkable. Most activists want to be sure that they will be joining a genuinel ydemocratic organisation. They want to be sure that it lives up to its principles. When, insread, they expel and demonise long standing members, and then argue that they have no need to account for it, people can only draw negative conclusions.

All this is indicative of pure sectarianism. It also reeks of arrogance. A simple question has been posed - what exactly did JT do apart from argue for his ideas? Whby was he not allowed his right of appeal to either the US or world CWI conferences? Instead of answering this, anyone who inquires is haughtily referred to tons of documents. It would appear that the SP has no idea how off putting to people this kind of arrogant conduct is - or perhaps they are so mired in sectarianism and authoritarianism that they don't care. Whatever the explanation, most people will continue to do what they already do - give this rather bizarre outfit a wide berth. They will be right to do so. The whole approach on this and other threads is of people with something to hide... The stench, I am afraid, is overwhelming - and will not go away.

by ed Thu Nov 23, 2006 22:56

As a relative newcomer to this forum, I’m amazed by the blustering and arrogance of the CWIers on this topic. I spent fifteen years back in the 70s and 80s trying to build the Miltant and am baffled by the failure to answer simple questions about John Throne’s expulsion. This is a guy who cut his political teeth while the bullets were flying around him in Belfast in 1969 and has been so obviously utterly consumed by the desire to find a way to promote revolutionary socialism in the present climate that it almost hurts to read the stuff he writes. Let’s put the question again: what is he supposed to have done that was so beyond the pale that he had to be expelled from the organisation he’d devoted his life to building? Come on SP member, Marcas, etc, don’t be shy – just give a simple answer to a simple question, in words we can all understand.

by SP Member Fri Nov 24, 2006 11:20

To reitirate a previous post:

"There are mountains (literally) of documents. Ask John Throne for ALL of them and read them at your leisure (you will need a lot of time). When you have done that draw your own conclusions. John Throne has been harping on about his treatment for years now. My advise - move on - get a life and enjoy your new career as a writer. I wish you every success. As for those who just want to have a go at the CWI - TUFF - read the documents - they have the answers you seek."

by Pushkin Fri Nov 24, 2006 11:30

SP Member:

JT makes certain claims:

1. He was not allowed his right of appeal (against expulsion) to the national conference of the US Section of the CWI.

2. He was not allowed his right of appeal (against expulsion) to the World congress of the CWI.

Are either of these claims correct? The readers of this thread do not have hours to trawl through voluminous documents. Just address these two simple questions.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Fri Nov 24, 2006 15:13

Actually, we don't owe our anonymous critics anything at all. But in case anyone without an axe to grind is still wading through the poisonous sewer of this thread, I have no problem answering your question.

It has been some years since I bothered to read the material concerning John's expulsion from our American sister organisation but from memory, his complaint is normally that he was not allowed to appeal to the Irish section (ie the Socialist Party) or to the World Congress of the Committee for a Workers International. He, rightly wasn't allowed to appeal to the Irish organisation - we are not in the business of overruling the democratic decisions of our sister parties. If we had allowed him back into the organisation, threads like this would be accusing us of siding with the ousted leaders of our American organisation over the rank and file members who changed their leadership. He was however allowed an appeal to the CWI World Congress, an appeal which he didn't take up.

This will be my last comment on this thread, so feel free to get back to spewing anonymous bile.

by former militant member Fri Nov 24, 2006 20:00

Mark, sadly, your comment has all the hallmarks of teh Stalinist school of falsification. Caught out in one lie, you merely replace it with a bigger one. In particular, the notion that Throne was allowed to appeal to the CWI International Conference but for some strange reason declined takes audacity to a new level. It is risible. Of course, incidentally, you don't owe your anonymous critics anything - but you do rather owe it to the working class to demonstrate that your internal regime is above reproach. It is a challenge you continue to fail. And it reamins one of teh most fundamental reasons why your whole party building project will continbue to fail - nothing good can possibly come from methods like this.

by john throne - labors militant voice Fri Nov 24, 2006 22:17 loughfinn at aol dot com

The socialist party member claims I was allowed to appeal against my expulsion to the CWI conference but did not take the opportunity. Now why would I go and try to get into the Irish conference, try to get into the British CC and try to get into the British conference to appeal against my expulsion and then when according to SP member I was given the right to appeal at the international conference of the CWI I did not bother taking the opportunity.

This is such a blatant and obvious lie that only a blind CWI member could accept it. This lie has been repeated time after time and continues to be repeated as this is the only way the CWI can justify their actions. This is the method of stalinism. The internal life of the CWI is corrupt. Those who are members have a duty to fight this corruption and to take up the cases of those who have been victims of this corruption.

In another post SP member writes: "Best of luck with the book John. Hope the criticism it received in Donegal has helped the sales." Thank you for your comment SP member. But as our readers can see once again you cannot help taking a swipe. Talk about being petty.

But SP member I am sorry to say from your point of view that the overwhelming reaction to the book in Donegal and elsewhere has not been criticism.

The Donegal Democrat writes: "The Donegal Woman does not make for easy reading but it must be read." The Tyrone Herald writes: "I've just read a remarkable book by John Throne...."

The Belfast Telegraph writes: "John Throne's shocking book, The Donegal Woman - the story of his grandmother - has been selling out across Northern Ireland. The Donegal Woman has been lauded by critics....Critics have compared the writer to Peadar O'Donnell and Patrick McGill."

The Irish Times writes that while the book has "flaws it is a compelling book....Indeed, this book forces one to reassess what good literature is.......it deserves a place on everyones shelves."

In July 2006 we had our first printing. We are selling so well that we are now in our fourth printing. So thank you for your good wishes for the book SP member. I hope you buy a copy and enjoy reading it.

John Throne.

by Another SP Member - Socialist Party/CWI Sat Nov 25, 2006 02:57

develop a sense of humour will you. I'll tell you what - don't take the criticism dished out be CWI members so personally and we won't take any notice of your criticism either.

Seen as the CWI is so intent on telling lies, is corrupt and is so utterly and completely stalinist, surely we really don't warrant the enormous effort you make to point out our faults. Seen as we are so far off base we are undoubtedly beyond redemption.

by Former Militant Member Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:47

Your attempts to be funny are no more effective than your party's attempts to be profound. On the other hand, you continue to excel at evasion. Two simple questions have been asked:
1. What precisely did John Throne and his followers do, other than continue to argue for their views, that merited expulsion? What did this awful alleged defiance of decisions by the CWI actually consist of?
2. Why was he denied his right of appeal, guanateed under your own rules?
The first question has been ignored (I don't count references to documents not in the public domain as a response), and the second just lied about. Now you make snide remarks about the need to develop a sense of humor. (Incidentally, the humourless pose of Taaffe/ Hadden et al is completely lacking in this respect also - at least intentionally).
When I was in your organisation, we prided ourselves on an open atmosphere and often used to quote Trotsky against Stalinism: 'The motor force of progress is truth, not lies.' The fact is that the CWI has utterly degenerated, has no democratic internal norms worth a candle (or that working class people would recognise and respect, in any serious numbers), and in conseuqence is bogged down in petty sectarianism and fragmentation. As part of this, you expelled one of your longest standing and most dedicated members, John Throne, who made incredible sacrifices to build the CWI, and who remains a highly respected figure. When this is pointed out, all you can do is evade the questions, lie, sneer and stumble from one bad joke to another.
However, there is a benefite: others at least can see that this is where you have ended up, as a result of these disgusting methods, draw some lessons, and do better in the future.

by Marcas MacCaoimhín Mon Nov 27, 2006 14:05

I find it amazing that someone who "used" to be a member of Militant has such an "insight" into the internal life of the CWI. If you haven't been a member since those days, how do you know we have "degenerated"? When was the last time you were at a meeting of a CWI group?
As for John, I do not find it unbelievable that he didn't turn up to appeal his case at the CWI conference. I think he thought it would be pointless and his attempts to get into the Irish and British conferences were attempts to garner supopport for his split. It wasn't the last time disident members didn't bother turning up to argue their case. When Dermot Connolly and Joan Collins faced expulsion from the Irish section at the 2004 conference, neither of them bothered turning up to argue their case.
As for what John did? It has already been said. He refused to recognise the new leadership of the American section. He threw his rattle out of the pram because he was democratically removed from his position within the organisation.

by Former Militant Member Mon Nov 27, 2006 14:20

The previous poster displays a remarkable failure of logic. He assumes that since I am no longer active in the CWI it is unlikely I would know if it has degenerated. How could I, he chortles? Obviously, the skills of observation escape him – you don’t have to be a victim in a car crash to know it has happened, you did not have to be a member of the Communist Party in the 1930s to know it had become Stalinised, and you don’t have to be a Labour Party activist in Britain to know that Tony Blair is a Tory infiltrator.

In my case, I belong to the largest political party in these islands - former members of the Militant Tendency. We do occasionally talk to each other, read things, and even talk to the odd character who is still in the CWI. There are more than enough ways to know what is going on!

In terms of John Throne: you are continuing to tell barefaced lies. In the first place, you still ignore why he was expelled. What on earth does it mean to say that 'He refused to recognise the new leadership of the American section.' Does this mean that he argued for a change and disagreed with what had been done? Only in an organisation infected with the virus of Stalinist organisational methods could such an argument for expulsion be made. It is, to put it simply, revolting. In addition, you still declare that he declined to turn up to present his case to the CWI conference. This is a straight lie. The fact is that he was denied this right - your refusal to acknowledge this heaps a further layer of discredit on an already discredited position.

In addition, we suddenly have new information here about Dermot Connolly and Joan Collins. Previously, on Indymedia, your party just argued that they left, and on mostly good terms. The idea that they were driven out was pooh-poohed: we in the CWI are above that kind of thing, it was declared. Now we suddenly find, in total contradiction to everything your organisation has written about this before, that they were slated for expulsion – but in your view bizarrely failed to appeal this at your conference. Which lie is it that you intend to defend here? I have one constructive suggestion. If the CWI is determined to tell lies, it might be a good idea to tell the same lie consistently, rather than tell two totally opposed lies within a short time of each other.

Meanwhile, you continue to refuse to learn anything - I have hopes that, if you are at all a person of integrity, at some point in the future you too might wake up, express some dissent - and promptly find yourself expelled as well.

by Pushkin Mon Nov 27, 2006 14:20

"As for John, I do not find it unbelievable that he didn't turn up to appeal his case at the CWI conference. I think he thought it would be pointless and his attempts to get into the Irish and British conferences were attempts to garner supopport for his split."

Sadly you have swallowed the lie about JT not turning up for his appeal. It is sad to see someone who is so young being so malleable in the hands of the epignones. John was not allowed his appeal to the World Congress.

In fact John wasn't even allowed his appeal to the National Confernce of the US section of the CWI. Why do you repeat lies that are only damaging to tyour organisations credibility? No one outside of the CWI believes you.

by Marcas MacCaoimhin - SP-PC Mon Nov 27, 2006 17:37

I am not so young, I've been around for quite a while. I base my evaluation of our organisation's structures and internal life on my own personal experience and not gossip from bitter ex-members who have an obvious axe to grind. I evaluate every criticism of our organisation myself. I've heard John speaking many times, read his documents and what he writes is at varience with what I have personally experienced.
As for explaining myself further I doubt anyone that matters is still reading this thread. Its obvious you buy JT's story and no amount of debate will change your mind.

by Former Militant Member Mon Nov 27, 2006 17:40

Well Marcas, that stands as one of the most feeble ripostes to a criticism I have ever read in my life - nothing answered, nothing explained. Just lies and evasion. Not even a bleep from you on the Connolly/ Collins saga, where you are singing from a very different hymn sheet to your party brethern. The theoretical level, not to mention polemical muscles, are certainly in steep decline...

by Mark P Mon Nov 27, 2006 18:05

Just to correct a strange factual error in one of Marcas' posts above:

Dermot Connolly had, if my chronology is correct, resigned from the Socialist Party long before the 2004 conference. He could hardly therefore have been facing expulsion at it! Nor, for that matter is it very reasonable to criticise him for not showing up to the conference of an organisation he had already left. Joan Collins was not facing expulsion at the 2004 conference but there was a motion saying that a decision by her to stand as an independent candidate in the local elections would be considered an announcement that she was leaving the Socialist Party. It could hardly have been otherwise. Joan did stand as an independent, was elected and good luck to her - I'm sure she's a much better councillor than some right winger.

The Socialist Party and its predecessors have not, in my years of membership, or for decades before expelled anyone.

by SP - CWI Wed Jan 24, 2007 23:44

You can read the original article that John Throne was "criticising" - Capitalism Unleashed by Andrew Glyn reviewed by Lynn Walsh, editor, Socialism Today

at http://www.socialismtoday.org/105/capitalism.html

by Serf Thu Jan 25, 2007 00:09

'You see, ‘socialists’ only supported the USSR because of its nationalised property forms. The planned economy of the Soviet Union was a “beacon to show how an alternative society can work” and “despite the mismanagement, lack of democracy and massive waste”, the planned economy “proved its superiority to the capitalist mode of production”.'