Democracy in the Socialist party

by Former Militant Member Wed May 27, 2009 10:25

I am not sure what Fed Up wants evidence about! His outfit has expelled someone, and refuses to explain in any detail why. I have asked them to spell this out - otherwise, it might be reasonable to infer that John Throne was expelled for something no more heinous than holding an opinion different to that advocated by Peter Taaffe. Fed Up disagrees? S/he thinks Throne was expelled fro good reason? Then the solution is simple - provide some detail on the issue. So far, very little in the way of a case to support Throne's expulsion has been made - and I find this alarming.

socialist organisations, as a matter of general principle, should be pretty open about these issues, to reassure workers that they will maintain internal democratic norms. I believe that workers moving into such organisations, sooner or later, will want reassurance that they can differ from the leaders without facing expulsion. That is the core issue. Fed Up keeps shrieking that I must produce 'evidence' - yet s/he refuses not just to give 'evidence', but to even give any detail about why this expulsion occurred.

There is something wrong here, and I rather suspect that most people who are not already in the CWI woudl say the same.

by Fed up Wed May 27, 2009 09:32

former militant, Ted Grant was not expelled. Ted Grant had significantly more support in the CWI than you suggest. Whole sections left the CWI with him. Approximately 6 people left the CWI in support of Throne!

Leon Trotsky had the support of millions and even in terms of the CP he had hundreds of thousands of active supporters many of whom went to their deaths in Stalinist camps to defend the real ideas of Marxism and because of their support for Trotsky's struggle. What has that got to do with Throne who has no support.

If I was to say, I know who this former militant is and he was expelled because he stole our party's money, I would be expected to provide evidence to back such a serious claim. You need to provide proof of your outrageous claims as should John Throne who has once again made false accusations.

Provide evidence!

by Statistician Wed May 27, 2009 09:18

Was Ted Grant a leading member of Militant? Then how come he left / was expelled in 1991 with less than 10% of the British organisation supporting him?

by Former Militant Member Wed May 27, 2009 09:16

I rather think the evidence is simple - a man expelled with no reasonable account given, none that you would accept from a trade union or labour bureaucrat, or the head of a scout camp come to that. What more do you want - fingerprints? A body?

But you can still redeem this. Just explain in detail why this expulsion occurred. You have no need to do so? You have no need to account publicly for your internal regime? Then you have no business trying to lead the working class.....

By the way, was Trotsky a leading member of the Communist International? If so, how come he was expelled with such little support in the 1920s? (I'm not comparing JT to Trotsky - just suggesting a little flaw in your logic).

by Fed up Wed May 27, 2009 09:02

If John Throne was a respected leading member of the CWI then why did 90% of the members in the US organisation vote to expel him? Why in the whole of the CWI did less than 10 people support him?

Former militant you have failed to once again provide one single piece of credible evidence to back up your claims. Provide proof of your wild and groundless accusations.

by Former Militant Member Wed May 27, 2009 08:05

Fed Up would make a fascinating case study in denial. Firstly, his denial that John Throne was 'was not one of the most respected leading members of the CWI' is - interesting. Throne was a founding leader of the CWI in Ireland. Yes, he left Ireland 27 years ago - to remain and work as one of its key people in its international headquarters, from where he visited and worked with many other sections of the CWI. At its various events I attended, he was for many years indeed one of its key members. I wonder what you have to do to be a key member in Fed Up's eyes - perhaps only Peter Taaffe merits this accolade within the CWI?

As for the accusations of Stalinism. Here we have a key person in your organisation - though the same argument would apply to any member - who is expelled. The only explanation given is that he defied your rules by 'refusing to accept the decisions' you had made. What this defiance looked like, how he broke these rules - you refuse to say. Instead, if anyone asks, you bellow that there are 'thousands of documents;' detailing your disagreements - knowing full well that these are not in the public remain. Even if they were, and although they might chronicle the course of your internal dispute, they don't explain why that had to end in expulsions rather than ongoing debate, with different opinions being allowed to remain within the same socialist organisation. Yet you just refuse to say: evidently, you feel you owe no explanation publicly for your actions, despite seeking votes and the leadership of the working class.

The example of Rakovksy is dragged in here. But no one has ever argued that the fate of one person - in this case, John Throne - trumps the interests of the party as a whole. What I have suggested, and I think this is true, is that how you treat one man is likely to be how you treat others; that once you expel one person for dissent, others are likely to follow; that once you abuse democratic practices in a particular case, it is more likely to become the norm. Once a hypocrite, always a hypocrite. Even Stalin did not begin the way he ended up, but got to the purges one expulsion, one show trial and one execution at a time.

And does it all matter? There are obviously bigger issues. But the reason why it matters to me, and I suspect others, is really quite straightforward. The CWI seeks to become a mass force in a post Stalinist world. It therefore must show that it has learned from the debacle of Stalinism, and has impeccable democratic practices internally. Impatience in the face of questions about this, a refusal to give any detail, simply suggests there is something to hide. It means that the CWI is holding itself to a lesser standard than it would expect from a trade union or a Labour bureaucracy. I very much doubt that this double accounting mindset is one which the working class will be prepared to tolerate - and unless something changes (something I don't expect to see happening) the CWI will remain a relatively small force in the future, and will do so largely for these reasons.

by Fed up Wed May 27, 2009 00:48

The quotation given by someone earlier referring to Trotsky's comment on hearing about the betrayal of Christian Rakovsky is accurate. I 'd suggest you do some more research as this is quite a commonly know quotation.
The point being made by Trotsky was not a condemnation of Rakovsky's life and his contribution to the Bolshevik Party, he was simply saying that no one individual is so important, invaluable or indispensible as to be allowed to derail the struggle for socialism which is why I assume it was used in this context. The ideas of Marxism and the political programme and method of a revolutionary party are what is important and if some, as many do fall by the wayside, then that is unfortunate but the struggle must go on.
John Throne was not one of the most respected leading members of the CWI. The overwhelming majority of the membership of the CWI have never heard of John Throne. He left Ireland 27 years ago and only a tiny number of Socialist Party members would know him personally. In the all of the CWI sections around the world literally only handful of people supported Throne even though all of the documents from the debate in the US section were openly made available to every member and were widely read and discussed .
The comments made here by people who claim to be ex Militant members are truely extraordinary and pathetic. Claims that the CWI are undemocratic are not backed up by one single example except the unsubstantiated claims of John Throne who hasn't provided one single shred of evidence to back up his claims.
Yet people have leapt on to this and gone off on a frantic verbal rampage of nonsense comparing the CWI to Stalinism and other such bullshit.
Provide some evidence. Provide one single example with proof to substantiate your claims.
Those who say, the SP and CWI have to disprove John Throne's claims are like the journalist who asks someone to deny they are beating their wife!
The CWI is renowned for its democratic traditions and open political debate. I suggest if you are really interested that you should go to the following CWI website and there you will find volumes of documents made publicly available for anyone to read on some of the most important political debates that have taken place in the CWI, which include many that ended up in divisions and splits. The website is http://www.marxist.net . There you can read the documents written in the debates that lead to the split with Ted Grant, with those who became the majority leadership in the SSP etc real issues of importance and significance.
If Throne really wants to inform people of what took place then let him as others have suggested post links to the documents that were written by both sides at the time. If he does then you can judge for yourself. If he doesn't then it just re-enforces my belief that Throne is just shit stirring in an attempt to damage Joe Higgins election campaign and to encourage people not to vote for him. What would you call that?

by Former Militant Member Tue May 26, 2009 23:22

I am not sure of the tone of jollity adopted here regarding the old Bolshevik Rakovsky. He was one of the noblest Bolsheviks and a close personal friend of Trotsky. Nor did he simply defect lkght-mindedly to Stalin. He was subject to huge personal pressure, and also had in mind the threatening cloud of Nazism against the Soviet Union. I imagine that with his family facing 'liquidation', and the possible elimination of the soviet state, he made his confessions in the great trials with such agony as CWI members can barely begin to imagine. Everything I have ever read about Trotsky also suggests that his reaction to this was anything but casual- and search as I have through the archives, I can't find anything from him saying 'Man overboard - next item on the agenda.' Trotsky above all knew how much was at stake in these struggles, and how much pressure his colleagues were subjected to in order to embrace the monster, Stalin.

Now, all this tradition is traduced and besmirched by the CWI. You oppose Stalinism in theory? Very good. But in practice you are tainted with its cynicism, its tone of hatred to former allies, its rejection of dissent, its stifling internal norms which assert that only the ways of the leadership are good and all else is vile, and by your refusal to spell out why one of your most respected leaders merits expulsion. All this is your right. As is the right of the working class to conclude that such an undemocratic, unprincipled and immoral organisation has been born a sect, remains a sect and will remain a sect - but never secure the leadership of working people.

On this path, nothing good awaits you. Very sad.

I am ashamed to ever have been part of your movement.

by Interested Observer Tue May 26, 2009 22:59

Actually, every once in a while someone like me pops up and says: please just tell us what this former leading member did that merited his expulsion. You with equal regularity refuse to say what this was - you resort to vague generalities, such as 'he refused toaccept the democratic decision of the organisation.' You wouldn't accept this kind of vague waffle from Labour bureaucrats , but you expect working class people to accept it from you. Why should they? You want the leadership of the working class? then earn it - be open, straight and honest. Just get specific about why you kick out people like John Throne. If you don't want to do this, which is your right, then don't be surprised by the fact that most working people look at you, sniff, and walk on by.

by choco bot - SP Tue May 26, 2009 22:44

At the time, did the SP not organise a members meeting in Dublin and Belfast for you to address and put your position along with Lynn Walsh to put the position of the IS????

by choco bot - SP Tue May 26, 2009 22:41

this is bizarre. every once in a while lonely john throne comes along onto indymedia ireland having a pop at someone who had nothing to do with his expulsion. but because john throne says it, it must be true. If Denis Tourish wrote a book saying the SP/CWI is a sect, well but of course it is... sure didn't denis say so. I wouldn't mind but if the CWI leadership at the time had have backed JT against the democratic decision of the vast majority of the membership, I wonder if Former Militant member and interested (impartial) observer et al would be attacking the SP now. The answer is Yes.... because no matter what happens, there is one absolute truth - the CWI are wrong. these people have chip on the shoulder about the SP/CWI. they probably weren't hugged enough when they were in the organisation and blame the party now that they still don't have anyone to hug them. I put it to all of them. In the last month, what have you done to 1) defend the wages, rights, conditions and jobs of the working class. 2) what have you done to advance the cause of socialism.

nothing

and thats fine by us. just leave us alone and we'll get on with the job.

As trotsky said when he heard Rakovsky had defected to Stalin: "man over board..... next item on the agenda"

by john throne - labors militant voice Tue May 26, 2009 21:53 loughfinn at aol dot com

a democratic internal life
turning up for my appeal
Brother John Kelly, The claim that I did not turn up for my appeal against my expulsion is untrue. i turned up at the Irish CC, the Irish conference, the British CC, the British conference and was turned away from them all. The SP Comrades will say anything to try and cover themselves. And by the way if you are part of an international as the CWI claims to be then no matter what section you are in you can appeal for your rights throughout the entire section. Otherwise it is not an international it is a gather of of sections independent from each other.

John Throne

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party Tue May 26, 2009 18:50

Interested Observer

No one from the SP in Ireland is remotely interested in debating with anyone about the expulsion of John Throne from Socialist Alternative (USA) over 15 years ago. John Throne pops his head into indymedia every time Joe Higgins is standing for election or involved in a campaign like GAMA to try and disrupt the campaign by claiming that Joe Higgins is anti-democratic. Just because John Throne has a gripe with the SP doesn't mean he was hard done by. And I will repeat again - If you are really that interested in delving into the history of Socialist Alternative (USA) than ask John Throne to post the documents (and be prepared to spend about six months reading through all the docuntments and counter-documents from both sides). He has them and he has the time to do it. We wasted enough time on this issue 15 years ago we have no intention of wasting anymore. You really should be asking John Throne why he hasn't posted the documents if his case is so solid.

In reply to John Kelly -
John Throne was expelled for attempting to undermine and subvert the democratic decisions of the USA section of the CWI. The membership of the USA section voted (almost unanimously) to expel him. A huge amount of time and resources were devoted to discussing all the issues involved with John Throne and the mountain of documents is there to prove it. We would still be at it if we hadn't said enough is enough. John Throne could have formed a faction within the CWI with full democratic rights and continued to work within the CWI if he accepted the democratic will of the members in the USA and agreed to abide by and work on the basis of those decisions - he refused and as a result they expelled him. There is no case to answer and there hasn't been for 15 years (except in John Throne's head).

M. Wilson -
You are correct - it bears absolutely no relevence to the working class

undecided-
The SP is opposed to the EU - it is a capitalist construction designed to facilitate the exploitation of the working class. We call for the establishment of a Socialist Europe with the countries of Europe co-operating on a voluntary basis as a socialist federation. The issue of withdrawing from the EU is not on the agenda at the moment. Inside or outside Ireland would still have to operate in a capitalist world and the agenda would be set by big business interests in Boston and Berlin. At some stage the demand for withdrawl from the EU will probably be appropriate - when will probably depend on the development of the left in Ireland and the programme being pursued by European big business.

And yes - Joe Higgins will take his seat in the European Parliament if elected

by John Kelly Tue May 26, 2009 18:50

John Throne can you please clarify for us 'Fed Up''s assertion that you were afforded an appeal hearing but failed to turn up.

Many thanks

J K

PS : I did not know about this 15 years ago but it hardly precludes me from trying to ascertain the position as now asserted by Mr Throne.

by Tom - Not affliated Tue May 26, 2009 18:33

ridiculous. Focus on something else.

by Interested Observer Tue May 26, 2009 17:40

'Fed Up' writes: 'As for the details of what happened they have already been supplied earlier.' Well, I have missed them - I don't recall these details here, or anywhere else. But this makes things even easier for the CWI. If a paragraph exists somewhere which outlines the horrendous, terrible, despicable actions that Throne engaged in that merited his expulsion (rather than, say, ongoing debate within the CWI), perhaps Fed Up can simply copy and paste it here? That way, we can all move on.

It is also far from laughable. The internal democracy of socialist groups is a fairly important issue, and rather than being dismissive, taking the effort to write a couple of sentences setting the record straight isn't a very onerous ask. In the absence of this, people can be forgiven for evincing some scepticism about the CWI's democratic credentials - and, from there, about whether it would be wise to accord it a leading role in the working class movement.

By the way, the questions about the SWP might be very fair. But then, it is the CWI we are discussing here - turning attention to the equally undemocratic internal regime of the SWP doesn't render the CWI's record any less questionable than it is.

Why the shyness about answering a perfectly straightforward question, with just a little bit of detail? This would not be acceptable from a trade union or Labour bureaucrat. Why should it be acceptable from the CWI. Something to hide???

by Fed up Tue May 26, 2009 17:24

Where were all of you interested observers 15 years ago when this actually happened. John Throne was given the right to an appeal and he failed to turn up.

As for the details of what happened they have already been supplied earlier.

Would the SWP like to tell us why they expelled Rob Hoveman, Kevin Ovenden and Nick Wrack?

by undecided Tue May 26, 2009 17:23

Neither Joe's election posters nor his Joe Higgins.EU website allude to the position of the Irish Socialist Party to the EU itself . The Higgins website does point out what it considers to be the faults of the EU , but does not call for Ireland’ s withdrawal from the organisation or for the abstentionist positions advocated by the proponents of the British no2eu platform .

“We will not sit in the European parliament in the event of winning any seats. Our candidates will only nominally hold the title MEP and will not board the notorious EU gravy train.”

The policies of the no2eu campaign and the name itself suggest that supporters would like to see Britain pull out of the EU altogether . From the above post by CWI and Socialist Party member ,Jolly Red Giant , I assume that the Irish Socialist Party broadly supports the British No2EU initiative . I haven’t made my mind up which way to vote in June , but before then I’d like to know whether Joe would take his seat in the EU parliament if elected .

by Interested Observer Tue May 26, 2009 16:56

Hi JRG - your post is illuminating as usual, though perhaps not as intended. I quite accept that democratic centralism has rules that are different to those of social democratic organisations. My point is simply that we would - rightly - protest at someone being expelled from say the British Labour Party, without the leadership feeling any need to explain in any detail why. (This is rather different to suggesting that social democratic and Marxist organisations have teh same rules for membership! You have expelled someone from the CWI - and refuse to say anything other than that they broke your rules. What rules, where and when you don't think you have to explain. But it is really quite simple. A short para outlining what in this case John Throne actually did that was so horrible, so terrible, so vile that expulsion was the only option would suffice. You don't think that a revolutionary party seeking to lead the working class has any obligation to provide that kind of information, information you would - rightly - demand of Labour leaders?

I argue that organisations seeking to lead my class in struggle have to be above board and even more scrupulous than right wing labour leaders. And that means you have to openly say precisely why leading people deserve the fate of expulsion. You just refuse to provide any information on this, thereby - in my view - heaping discredit on yourself and, indirectly, your whole project. In this post Stalinist world I do not believe that this closed approach is one which will find ultimate favour in the working class.

by John Kelly. Tue May 26, 2009 16:53

I have a great admiration for Joe Higgins and the SP. That said, it is disturbing to read of a man who gave a huge amount of his life to the forerunner of the SP in the form of the Militant orgainstion and who was removed from it's affiliate CWI with no right of appeal.

I do not know anything about this dispute except what I have read here, but as a citizen and a shop steward for 17 years, I do recognise that it is a first principle of natural justice and a self evident truth, that a person accused of violating a rule or regulation or some other transgression in a company or other society, has a right to hear the case being made against him and to present his/her own defence if he or she so wishes.

Mr Throne clearly wanted to present his defence and this did not happen.

That is such a basic rule of justice that any self respecting trade unionist would down tools in the face of its violation by an employer.

There appears to be a case to answer.

by Maddog Wilson Tue May 26, 2009 16:02 mr_paulwilson2 at yahoo dot co dot uk

At a time of economic meltdown, and with Elections just around the corner, does the arcane dispute debated in the previous posts have any possible relevance to the working class?

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party / CWI Tue May 26, 2009 14:42

Interested Observer -

There is a substantial difference between teh British LP of the 1980's and the CWI. The British LP was a social democratic party organised along parliamentary lines. The CWI was not. The US Section of the CWI is a revolutionary party organised on the principles of 'democratic centralism'. It is explained to members when they join how the party is organised. Given John Throne's experience he should have been well aware of the consequences of breaking the rules of the CWI - yet he went ahead and did it anyway.

By point made by 'Another Observer' -

are actually relevent - the role of the SWP within the PbP Alliance and the role of the SP within the No2EU Alliance does warrant debate.

I would suggest that if you want to used a reference for a debate that you find something that is not from the far-lefts equivalent of 'The Sun' - the Weekly Worker is nothing more than a gossip rag and is recognised as such by every organisation on the left including the SWP. But that is a side issue.

So the difference in approach between the SWP and the SP in broader formations.

1. The SWP comprise the vast majority of the PbP Alliance. They control its political direction they control its orientation and they control it organisational structures. Within the PbP Alliance the SWP has been instrumental in watering down the platform of the PbP Alliance and in 'dumbing down' socialism - i.e. moving it to the right. The PbP comprises the SWP and a handful of other individuals - it has no basis of support within the trade unions (an important component in building any political alternative).

2. The SP comprises a minority of the No2EU Alliance. The Alliance is far from perfect but it is a step forward. The Alliance is based on the RMT trade union (a left union in Britain) and has many candidates who hold prominent positions within the RMT and other trade unions. The SP within the No2EU Alliance has consistantly pushed for the Alliance to adopt a 'socialist' programme and attempt to push the alliance to the left. We have had some (limited it has to be said) success with this within the Alliance. The No2EU offers the possibility (and no more than that) that it could develop into a more concrete left alternative in the future.

The contradiction for the SWP with regards the No2EU is as follows - the SWP are annoyed that they were excluded from membership and have been taking swipes at the No2EU Alliance since. The SWP adopted a wholly incorrect position on the Lyndsey strikes and got their fingers badly burned as a result. They would ahve jumped at the chance of joining but no one would ahve them after their antics in the Socialist Alliance and then RESPECT. The SWP in England opposes the No2EU Alliance from the same incorrect political position as they took in the Lyndsey strikes (they have difficulty learning from their mistakes) - yet in Scotland where Solidarity is a component of the No2EU Alliance - the SWP support No2EU.

by Fed up Tue May 26, 2009 14:33

Clarification
author by Fed Up with Fed Uppublication date Tue May 26, 2009 14:16Report this post to the editors

Actually Fed Up I don't recall JT ever claiming to have been expelled from the Irish SP. Can you provide a quotation where he did so?? What I recall him saying is that he was denied his right of appeal to the CWI International Congress. But this was refused, in ringing defiance of your statutes. Ring any bells?

Well then I suggest you scroll up to the very top of this thread and read what it says.

Democracy in the Socialist party
Sunday May 24, 2009 15:21author by john throne - Labours Militant

Expulsions and the denial of the right to appeal.

Some years ago a group of Comrades were expelled from the Irish Socialist Party and the Socialist Party's international organization. I John throne was amongst these.

by Marcas - SP (Personal Capacity) Tue May 26, 2009 14:32

PBP supporter,
Or should that be SWP member? It is quite clear that the SWP have moved to the right from a time when they condemned the SP for standing in elections to now when they are so deeply mired in electoralism that they make no mention of Socialism in the very limited reformist programme of their front organisation PBP. These are clear criticisms based on something that is happening right now and is relevent to the developement of the left in this country, not some personal gripe that has been festering for fifteen years and is irrelevent to everybody except a small group of people who harbour paranoid delusional fantasies. Any real points about Democratic Centralism that JT could have made have been obscured by his personal bitterness at being removed from the leadership of the US organisation. Indeed the thrust of JT's argument seems to revolve around the belief that because he did a lot of good work to build the CWI in Ireland and the US, he therefore had some divine right to lead the organisation.

by Another Observer Tue May 26, 2009 14:17

Stephen Boyd wrote:

"Whereas criticism levelled at the SWP and PBPA members regarding their dramatic political shift to the right, the deficiencies of your programme and associations with right-wing politicians are valid criticisms and will continue."

I write:

The same criticisms can be levelled at the SP in Britain who now pander to a “little Britain”, anti-EU and nationalist trend within the working class.

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/769/confusion.html

by Fed Up with Fed Up Tue May 26, 2009 14:16

Actually Fed Up I don't recall JT ever claiming to have been expelled from the Irish SP. Can you provide a quotation where he did so?? What I recall him saying is that he was denied his right of appeal to the CWI International Congress. But this was refused, in ringing defiance of your statutes. Ring any bells?

by pbp supporter - pbp Tue May 26, 2009 14:03

A 'perceived' shift to the right by the swp by the sp is a legitimate excuse for constant remarks on any event/press release by pbp but a question about a democratic deficit in the sp is not?
Thats handy stephen!
Make it up as you go along.

by Fed up Tue May 26, 2009 13:58

Some Facts:

John Throne claims he was expelled from the Irish Socialist Party. This is not true.

John Throne left Ireland and the Irish Section of the CWI 27 years ago. Therefore it was impossible for him to be expelled from a section he was no longer a member of and hadn't been a member of for 14 years prior to his expulsion from the US section of the CWI. The Socialist Party didn't even exist when John Throne lived in Ireland!

John Throne at the time of his expulsion was a member of the US section of the CWI not the Irish section. John Throne had no rights to make an appeal against his expulsion in the Irish section of the CWI, as and I repeat again he was not a member of the Irish section of the CWI.

I think this should be clear to everyone. Therefore the whole premise of John Throne's original claims on this thread are false and untrue.

Why don't you ask John Throne to explain why he has made these false claims.

by Interested Observer Tue May 26, 2009 13:34

Marcas. Thanks for the reply. And of course a group has the right to expel people for breaking the rules, that is not in question. What is in question is exactly what JT and others did that broke the rules. You say they refused 'to recognise the new democratically elected leadership.' (By the way, this an advance on Stephen Boyd's position, who seems to believe he owes no explanation to anybody. But no matter). I don't quite get what this means. What form did this 'refusal' take? Did John and his colleagues people just continue to argue for their views, or was something more sinister involved - such as the threatened assassination of the new leadership? If the former, then this looks like Stalinism (lite). If the latter, then just tell us. One para will do.

A point of comparison. In Britain in the 1980s several Labour MPs were also members of Militant. Imagine if say Dave Nellist had been expelled by the Labour Party NEC for 'refusing to recognise the new democratically elected leadership' of the Labour Party. Would that have been satisfactory - or would you have demanded to know more? How would you have felt if the Labour leaders had refused to explain themselves any further? You would, quite rightly, have raised merry hell.

I do not believe that revolutionary organisations should be held by themselves, or others, to a lesser standard than what we apply to the Labour bureaucracy.

by Marcas - SP (Personal Capacity) Tue May 26, 2009 12:31

IO, your comparison to what "Stalin would have said" is disingenious in the extreme. 90% of the membership of Socialist Alternative (Or Labor Militant as it would have been at the time I think) voted to remove the leadership of which John was part of. John and his faction refused to recognise the new democratically elected leadership and the membership overwhelmingly voted to expel them. A group has the right to organise as a faction and try to win over the membership but if they break the rules of the organisation, ignore the will of 90% of the membership then there is no option but expulsion.

The problem with debates on indymedia of this kind is that John will come on and put his own spin on things and it will boil down to his word against ours. The only way to decisively make up your own mind is by going through the documents of the actual debate at the time which John is more than free to publish on his own website.

by Former Militant Member Tue May 26, 2009 11:06

A follow up for Stephen here as well. I belong to that very large group of people in Irish politics - former Militant Members. I don't like your tone on this Stephen. I remember John Throne very well indeed, and can say for a fact that he has never exaggerated his contribution to the building of the SP in Ireland. Perhaps even the opposite. When I joined he was a revered figure, well known for dedicating his entire life to socialism, selling his home and giving most of the money to building the printing apparatus, and much more. Even today I know many scores if not hundreds of activists of various hues who hold him in the highest esteem, and find your approach to this issue both shocking and alienating. As a previous poster has said, you owe some explanation to people beyond your own ranks if you want to become a bigger organisation. Many of us care deeply about how people are treated when they join a socialist organisation. To simply say that you don't owe any real explanation for expelling someone of John's calibre and standing is almost bizarre, and a rather poor reflection on your organisation and its principles.

by Interested Observer Tue May 26, 2009 10:43

Stephen You are obviously annoyed at John Throne for bringing this up frequently. But in addition to him there are all the others - specifically, the working class you aspire to lead. You say: 'John Throne was expelled from the US section of the CWI for gross breaches of democratic centralism. That is the only answer required.' Now, I can imagine Stalin and co saying similar things about Zinoviev et al in the 1930s. It would not have been satisfactory then, and it isn't now. Working people really care about the democratic credentials of parties canvassing their votes, their membership and much else. If you expel a leading member, I think people are not out of order in asking: Why? Some public accountability beyond your own ranks is part of the game of seeking mass support. You, and your friend JRG, refuse to answer a perfectly straightforward question: exactly what did this violation of democratic centralism consist of? Did Throne stand up at your meetings and hurl grenades at Peter Taaffe? Did he appeared on the front page of the New York Times, denouncing Trotskyism? Did he embezzle funds? Or - did he simply continue to argue for his views? You can clear this up very simply in one short para - but keep refusing to do so.

It isn't much of a response to describe your critic as being 'sad and pathetic.' Give the facts, avoid abuse. I would respectfully suggest that your approach only makes it appear you have something to hide. I have no inside information on this and may be wrong - but if I am, please just straightforwardly enlighten me and anyone else who may have an interest in this. Stop making yourself look shifty!

by Stephen Boyd - Socialist Party Tue May 26, 2009 09:37

To The Interested Observer you stated in your comment "But Marcas - it is all very simple. You clearly have nothing to hide and nothing to fear. If John's allegations are so easily refuted then please just refute them. Just explain".

John Throne was expelled from the US section of the CWI for gross breaches of democratic centralism. That is the only answer required. This is ancient history which has been dragged up on this site in a vain and futile attempt by John Throne to damage the Socialist Party during these elections.

John Throne has spent the last 15 years attacking the CWI and reflecting his failure to build an alternative organisation his life is now dominated by an obsessive hatred of our international.

The PBPA supporter has attempted to compare this thread with other threads on which the politics and actions of the SWP and the PBPA have been criticised. He/she said " same old argument which has been had at public meetings, here on this site and elsewhere, is brought up- over and over.
Just like you now are experiencing, I wish for you and all our sakes the sp members on here and those taking a pop at them and at pbp that the broken record could be changed!".

But PBPA supporter there is a major difference. John Throne is a sad pathetic figure who has nothing better to do than whine on about and exaggerate his past life. Whereas criticism levelled at the SWP and PBPA members regarding their dramatic political shift to the right, the deficiencies of your programme and associations with right-wing politicians are valid criticisms and will continue.

by pbp supporter - pbpa Tue May 26, 2009 09:10

Hey Marcas (sp- personal capacity), speaking of broken record, take the SP every time there is an event, press statement by the pbp- same old argument which has been had at public meetings, here on this site and elsewhere, is brought up- over and over.
Just like you now are experiencing, I wish for you and all our sakes the sp members on here and those taking a pop at them and at pbp that the broken record could be changed!

by Interested Observer Mon May 25, 2009 20:28

But Marcas - it is all very simple. You clearly have nothing to hide and nothing to fear. If John's allegations are so easily refuted then please just refute them. Just explain (I'm not greedy - one short para will do) precisely what he did that merited his expulsion; what precisely he did that constituted defying the democratic decisions of the CWI; how precisely he refused to accept these decisions. I have asked this question quite a few times here, and all I get is the vague assertion that 'he has been refuted' or that there are thousands of documents (somewhere) which deal with this. I'm not greedy. I don't need thousands of documents. I don't want them uploaded on Indymedia. Just a para will do, concretely, practically, specifically showing what this defiance of the democratic decisions of the CWI involved. Will you oblige?

If you will not do this, and no member of the CWI has so far attempted to do so, then I can only conclude that John's defiance consisted of one thing: a thought crime, of daring to hold onto his views. How absolutely terrible.

Now, whether you care about what I think, think of this: what would militant workers moving into struggle and wanting reassurance about the democratic traditions of a party seeking to secure leadership of the working class make of its refusal to address this kind of question? In the post-Stalinist world we are all even more sensitive to democratic rights within socialist organisations. Thus far, the SP and CWI, by refusing to answer the kind of simple questions I pose here and which have repeatedly been asked, make themselves look like organisations which are replicating some of the worst excesses of Stalinism internally - and therefore of being organisations which will never win the leadership of the working class.

You disagree? Then you have a simple remedy. Just tell us, in detail, what Throne did that was so heinous, so unconscionable, so terrible that it merited his expulsion. If you don't, you only resemble a man on a barstool who from a far appears to have only one leg - but who, on attempting to stand up, is suddenly revealed as not even having that.

by Marcas - SP (Personal Capacity Mon May 25, 2009 19:48

IO, you may or may not be aware that this "grievance" of John is
brought up on this website every time the SP are in the public
eye. Every time, John's allegations are refuted. His tactic is
to wait a while and come back and make them the next time the SP
are in the public eye in the hope he can influence someone who
is not aware of his bitter crusade against the CWI. It just goes
on and on. I'm sure a quick search on this site will point you
in the right direction of those threads and it will also show
you that trying to damage the SP is the only reason John comes
onto this site. At this stage I think he deserves to be called a
troll.

by Interested Observer Mon May 25, 2009 14:44

Dear JRG - do calm down. You run the risk of a heart attack.

I haven't asked you at all to post thousands of documents on the internet. I have just asked you a simple question. When you expelled one of your key members on the basis that he was 'defying the democratic decisions of your organisation', please merely specify what you mean. What did he actually do that was so terrible? Your silence on this point is deafening. You might have gone over this many times 15 years ago - I did not. Neither did many other people with an interest in the internal democratic life of socialist organisations. We would like to be assured that you are not perpetuating Stalinist practices in stifling dissent, rather reasonably I would have thought. You are seeking the leadership of the working class. Very well. It is a working class that has some interest in ensuring its potential leaders don't expel people simply for thought crimes. Yet you never, ever actually explain in any shape or form why someone like John Throne merited expulsion. I, and not only I, find this rather alarming. I do not believe that working class people are blind to issues of democracy and free expression. But I do think that many people will find your total reluctance to answer a simple question - something you could in 5 minutes, in a short paragraph - perhaps more revealing than you intend.

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party / CWI Mon May 25, 2009 14:31

It really is quite laughable to read this stuff - the issue of the expulsion of John Throne has been debated to death within the CWI and outside since it happened.

It periodically appears on indymedia and some other left sites when the SP is engaged in prominent political activity (like the euro election - the last time was I believe the general election) as John Throne sees an opportunity to try and undermine the work of the SP/CWI.

Interested Observer and John Throne both call for the CWI to publish all the documents on the internet. If John Throne is really so interested in getting the 'truth' out there - why doesn't he post all the documents - he has them all and he has his own website to post them on.

Interestingly, I note that neither contributor addressed the issue of the irony of John Throne accusing Joe Higgins of subverting democracy when that is exactly what John Throne did.

End of story - you want people to know what happened John - put all the bloody documents up on your own website and then interested observer can read them to his/her hearts content. If you don't plan on doing that then don't expect any member of the CWI to waste time debating with you.

by john throne - labors militant voice Mon May 25, 2009 14:20 loughfinn at aol dot com

Just a detail. As I said in an earlier post as far as the CWI is concerned there is never a good time to raise any issue that is critical of them. But I have been thinking of another issue. SP members and supporters are now saying that this should not be discussed because it happened ten to fifteen years ago. But the Socialist Party discusses issues, including expulsions and internal democracy which took place up to one hundred years ago. See their discussions of the Bolsheviks, Trotsky and Stalinism, etc etc. But when it comes to me and the Socialist Party's own tramping on democratic rights of its members then there is never a good time and anything that took place ten or fifteen years ago is too far in the past. These are just excuses to cover up what the leadership of the SP and the leadership of the CWI were part of.

I agree with the points made by the last contributor. Put up the information about where I am supposed to have refused to accept the organizations democratic decisions.

Sean

by An Interested Observer Mon May 25, 2009 12:22

Our old friend Jolly Red Giant doesn't sound too jolly in his posts here - the anger and annoyance is palpable. However, it does have to be said that clarity is not near the surface. Repeatedly, when John Throne has posted here or when people have asked questions on his behalf, we have been told that he was expelled for 'refusing to carry out the democratic decisions of the members of the USA group. The members booted after you actively attempted to undermine the democratic decisions of the group.'

Now, many people have repeatedly asked a simple question: what did this refusing to carry out the democratic decisions of the US group consist of? What did this undermining the democratic decisions of the organisation actually, practically, concretely involve? JGR and his friends always refuse to answer - instead they refer bleakly to a huge stash of documents (none of them in my possession, or publicly available) which allegedly spell this out. But the question is simple, and a couple of sentences are all it takes to respond. In the absence of any explanation, one can only conclude that this undermining of democratic decisions etc probably consisted of - continuing to argue for a particular point of view. If this interpretation is wrong, JRG has a simple remedy - spell out the facts for all to see. Until this is done, when John Throne raises these issues, I mad many others will pay him some respect, and harbour some suspicions about the allegedly terrific internal democratic life of the SP.

More importantly, in this post-Stalinist world, those arguing a Marxist perspective have some problems. Working class people want to be sure that Stalinism will not be repeated, and they want parties that claim a socialist agenda to be above board in their democratic practices, and be seen to do so. When JRG and his colleagues talk about 'undermining democratic decisions', without ever being specific, I am afraid that they simply conjure up images of Stalinism and alienate many of those they are trying to influence.

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Mon May 25, 2009 11:36

that John Throne has nothing better to be doing than re-hashing a dispute from the CWI over 15 years ago.

I find it even more amusing that an individual that ignored the democratic wishes of the organisation he was a member of and, even worse, actively worked to subvert those wishes, can lecture Joe Higgins about democracy.

by john throne - labors militant voice Sun May 24, 2009 23:27 loughfinn at aol dot com

When the Socialist Party makes a mistake or does something that it wants ignored then its first response to anybody who raises the issue is that the time is not right. The problem is according to the SP and its supporters the time is never right to raise any criticism of the SP. I would suggest that the time is very right to raise issues with the SP. Joe Higgins has a major platform today to take up any issue he wants. If the party's hands are clean and Joe Higgin's hands are clean then let him take this opportunity and state his case.

I am shocked at how little interest the trotskyist Socialist Party and its supporters have in internal party democracy. After all the catastrophe of stalinism stands there as an example to us all as to what can happen. But the Socialist Party's members are not interested in investigating expulsions and denials of the right to appeal when it is in their own ranks. Only if it is in others or if it was decades ago in the stalinist organizations. Are workers interested in the issue of internal democracy in its organizations? How could anybody say they are not? As I say stalinism has been a catastrophe. Workers want to be reassured they are not getting involved with a stalinist or undemocratic organization. This is an issue in the mass consciousness.

Some other contributors whine about me keeping on at this issue years after I was expelled. Sorry about that Comrades. What did you think would happen? That having spent so much time, around twenty five years, building the Socialist Party and its international organization, I would just allow myself to be expelled and denied my right to appeal against that expulsion and say nothing. It will not happen. If anything is to be saved from the Socialist Party its internal life will have to change. I am acting much more in the interests of the Socialist Party than those who go along and say nothing except to attack me and try and get me to keep quiet. Of course I know it is difficult. If you speak up you will be attacked by the SP leadership with all kinds of slanders and lies such as the ones repeated here that I was undermining the democracy of the CWI. . But life is tough. And being a member of a revolutionary organization is tough. Speaking up is part of the responsibility of membership of such an organization even if it gets you attacked and in my case expelled.

I respect Joe Higgins for speaking out against capitalism and for his organizing. But that alone is not enough. You have to take a principled stand in the internal life of the organization to which you belong. When I was being denied my right to appeal I asked Joe to ask that I be given this right. It was after all my constitutional right. His words were: "I will not. You got yourself into this yourself. You can get yourself out of it yourself." Incredible. Of course if Joe had stood up for my rights the leadership of the SP and the CWI would have gone after him to silence him and if they could have remove him from his positions.

I met Joe when he was at UCD many years ago and I was a full timer for Militant which then became the SP. Joe was after coming out of training to be a full timer in another vocation at the time. Fortunately he gave that up. I won Joe over to socialism and to Militant and worked with him closely for many years. Joe plays an excellent role criticizing capitalism and organizing against it. However his support for the lack of internal democracy in the SP and the CWI, his support for the injustice that has been carried out against not only myself but other Comrades in those organizations remain as a stain on the Comrade's record.

John Throne.

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party / CWI Sun May 24, 2009 22:40

get over it.

You were booted out of the USA section of the CWI (not the Irish section) - what was it - 15 years ago - for what - refusing to carry out the democratic decisions of the memebrs of the USA group. The members booted after you actively attempted to undermine the democratic decisions of the group. And then you came crying to everyone who you thought would listen. Nearly ten years ago I advised you to get a life - it was good advice at the time - and even better now.

In all honesty John - it has gone from being embarassing to pathetic.

by John Drone Sun May 24, 2009 18:30

I've no problem with that. Parties can expel people for not abiding by the democratic decisions of conference. I've no problems with that. If a party expels you in the USA you don't have a right of appeal in the Irish sister party. I've no problem with that. At a time when the left could make a real breakthrough with Joe Higgins scoring a very good result in the Euro election all Mr. Throne can think of is this.

by Jonah Sun May 24, 2009 17:19

At a time when the world is a global economic crisis, the right is cutting services and hitting working people with taxes and levies and our MEPs will be facing a Lisbon referendum in a few short months I think it is more vital than ever that Joe be asked questions about an internal dispute in the SP that no-one in the real world will have heard of, understand or care about.