Antrim no events posted in last week
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
 RTEs Sarah McInerney ? Fianna Fail supporter? Anthony
Joe Duffy is dishonest and untrustworthy Anthony
Robert Watt complaint: Time for decision by SIPO Anthony
RTE in breach of its own editorial principles Anthony
Waiting for SIPO Anthony Public Inquiry >>
A Blog About Human Rights
UN human rights chief calls for priority action ahead of climate summit Sat Oct 30, 2021 17:18 | Human Rights
5 Year Anniversary Of Kem Ley?s Death Sun Jul 11, 2021 12:34 | Human Rights
Poor Living Conditions for Migrants in Southern Italy Mon Jan 18, 2021 10:14 | Human Rights
Right to Water Mon Aug 03, 2020 19:13 | Human Rights
Human Rights Fri Mar 20, 2020 16:33 | Human Rights Human Rights in Ireland >>
Civil Servants Take Legal Action to Stop Rwanda Flights by Arguing International Law Ties Their Hand... Thu May 02, 2024 09:00 | Will Jones
Civil servants are attempting to stop Rishi Sunak?s Rwanda plan by mounting a legal challenge to the legislation, arguing that international law is binding on them.
The post Civil Servants Take Legal Action to Stop Rwanda Flights by Arguing International Law Ties Their Hands appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Chris Packham?s BBC Series Warning of ?Mass Extinction? by CO2 is Propaganda, Not Science Thu May 02, 2024 07:00 | Chris Morrison
Chris Packham's five-part series last year on the BBC called Earth, which warned of a coming CO2-driven "mass extinction", was propaganda not science, says Chris Morrison.
The post Chris Packham’s BBC Series Warning of “Mass Extinction” by CO2 is Propaganda, Not Science appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
News Round-Up Thu May 02, 2024 01:10 | Richard Eldred
A summary of the most interesting stories in the past 24 hours that challenge the prevailing orthodoxy about the ?climate emergency?, public health ?crises? and the supposed moral defects of Western civilisation.
The post News Round-Up appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Slavery Did Not Make Britain Rich, Report Finds Wed May 01, 2024 19:00 | Will Jones
Slavery and colonialism did not make Britain rich, and may even have made the nation poorer, a new study from the Institute of Economic Affairs has found.
The post Slavery Did Not Make Britain Rich, Report Finds appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Government Caught Playing Hardball Over Vaccine Injury Payouts as Victims? Legal Bills Mount Wed May 01, 2024 17:00 | Will Jones
The Government has been caught shamefully playing hardball with the victims of Covid vaccine injuries, refusing to settle payouts despite devastating harms, as legal bills mount.
The post Government Caught Playing Hardball Over Vaccine Injury Payouts as Victims’ Legal Bills Mount appeared first on The Daily Sceptic. Lockdown Skeptics >>
Voltaire, international edition
Paris 2024 and Berlin 1936 in the service of an impossible imperial dream, by Th... Tue Apr 30, 2024 07:07 | en
Georgia and the financing of political organizations from abroad Sat Apr 27, 2024 05:37 | en
Voltaire, International Newsletter N°84 Sat Apr 27, 2024 05:35 | en
Israel's complex relations with Iran, by Thierry Meyssan Wed Apr 24, 2024 05:25 | en
Iran's hypersonic missiles generate deterrence through terror, says Scott Ritter... Mon Apr 22, 2024 10:37 | en Voltaire Network >>
|
Democratic Centralism?
 antrim |
rights, freedoms and repression |
opinion/analysis
 Thursday December 16, 2004 16:07 by Davy Carlin
Democratic Centralism?
In this short piece I will give a frank {point – based }summary of my experiences of Democratic Centralism {DC}. This shall be done from the position of having being both in a DC organisation and working closely with others from similar DC organisations. Democratic Centralism?
In this short piece I will give a frank {point – based }summary of my experiences of Democratic Centralism {DC}. This shall be done from the position of having being both in a DC organisation and working closely with others from similar DC organisations.
I believe that such discussion is important as if one does not engage or initiate such discussion then lessons cannot be learnt. But as I have always said one needs to first begin to acknowledge as to learn, as to then therefore go forward with that knowledge. Although DC in itself {in theory} can be both an effective and democratic tool within a revolutionary organisation, it can also be an undemocratic and authoritarian instrument in practice. For oneself I firmly believe that such an instrument of ideological organisation {DC} should be an instrument that can adapt to new situations, more especially now within the course of new movements. In effect, as stated previous, to adapt without diluting, to not be rigid but to remain firm. To also embrace but to lead with strong engagement, to collectively create a campaign while also acknowledging individual creativity within in. To not fear diversity and difference. But to attempt to pull those parted and individual fingers and thumb together into a clenched fist for a common cause to move as one while engaging, discussing and debating as many, and in the process - while at the fore -attempting to win persons to a revolutionary understanding..
I have seen though from various quarters those who hold the mindset of yesteryear, of the party mindset of the 1980’s, and now trying to work that still etched understanding through both their parties and within the new movements, and in each case, maybe, or having been detrimental to one or both. As a Revolutionary Socialist the understanding of why the system should be overthrown is fundamental to ones beliefs - therefore it is not the question of the why - but practically - in real terms - of the how. Therefore fundamental to that is the way in which we organise, more especially within any given period and specific situations. Dogmatism and purism can be an ideological framework for some during a period or retreat, while for others in a similar period rigidness, uniformed conformity and indeed authoritarianism and revisionism all play their part. Yet in a period of moving forward the old guard - the ‘traditionalists’ {in the dogmatic DC sense} I have found in many organisations find it hardest to adapt. Some through a mindset - others I believe simply because they have known no other way.
Therefore lets move on to the practical. I say from the onset these are but a brief summary of my thoughts, and of course many may disagree as is there right, but this is my experience, my thoughts, and the lessons I have drawn from them, no more no less. Some will brush them off, others may criticise, but I hope some will begin to acknowledge. I have raised many of these points over the last several months with many comrades from and within various organisations both verbally and in written correspondence.
Although some activists from various organisations and none - say they do not read Indymedia I know that they do – and therefore hope that some may take these points on board.
I say firstly that I believe that a Revolutionary party is needed and therefore in saying that, that some form of DC is needed. For oneself though as stated before, it is the very nature of both {in the organisational sense and at times the ideological sense} rather than whether or not such is needed where in lays my problem.
1} Decision making processes need to be open, democratic and fully participatory, as do the publications for activists. There should not be an ideological elite – that is, that full information should be afforded to all activists on various issues as so to make a qualified assessment of a given situation. There cannot be those that believe {undemocratically} that they can decide what bits and pieces will or will not be given if comrades are to make a decision on something. I have heard this concern raised often within many organisations. Secondly new activists should be encouraged to write and participate in such ventures if they feel they wish to develop that activism and publications should be ‘open’ to that.
Of course mistakes will be made {both by longer term members and more especially by those recently involved} and if and when the case - such should not be dismissed or censored but encouraged, advised’ and developed. If not they will of course find other avenues for their expression. I believe some of the older members of such organisations could lend a lot of support to the development of activists in this avenue, but firstly a more open approach is needed to do this. There must be a blend of the more experienced and those activists developing that experience – this within every avenue of a said organisation. The gap between super activists and super ideologues should be narrowed thus potentially providing leading activists within the movements who can carry and win the arguments, while to the fore.
2} Secondly I believe that dogmatism, lack of acknowledgement that mistakes have been made – therefore activists having no faith that lessons had been learnt – therefore having little faith in further decisions made, revisionism, abstraction and formula politics will indeed put activists of, more especially if active within the diverse movements.
3} I find that some who may have been around a long time may understand the dynamic of their party - but not the dynamic of the movement. The way in which they seek to organise and their style of argument can be of putting to many, They operate in a sense of being in a diverse movement while attempting to impose a rigid party style rather than embracing the movement and acknowledging its creativity and diversity - this while attempting to win others through a more loose but nevertheless firm style of initial engagement. For an non party activist within such a present diverse movement to initially come up against an organisationally and ideologically rigid form would be and is extremely off putting. This situation will and has left such organisations behind in such movements. Again I believe a throw back to yesteryear.
4}This type of situation I had acknowledged and witnessed within some of the very leading members of the SP in Belfast, but this situation had begun to arise within the Belfast SWP. The number of genuine activists over the last eighteen months who had started to raise such about the Belfast SWP had grown – {about the change they had seen developing – rigid – down your throat, dogmatic etc} to an extent that they eventually stated that they could not and would not work with certain members of the SWP. This was raised by genuine activists who are to the fore in trade unionism, in solidarity, Women’s, Gay rights and writers groups etc. Some of them in parties although many not. And over time while the numbers increased the concerns though where the same.
I had raised this with the person’s concerned and their response was the very same response as that of a leading SWP comrade from Dublin who came up to speak with me at that time. In fact it is the similar response that I have heard from many ‘long termers’ within left, Socialist, Republican or anarchist organisations. That is, ‘who gives a fuck’ - sure he – she’s a Republican, an Anarchist, a left Republican or sure they are from such and such other Socialist organisation’ etc. Again such comments do not fully understand the dynamic of the movement.
While the movement is also in a sense a collective of like minded organisations and individuals on specifics, who would agree on many points – as well as differ on many - it also holds individuals who are to the fore in real terms in implementing the concept of think globally and act locally. May it be local Anti Privatisation, Anti Racism, Anti War, solidarity, women’s rights, gay rights, Anti sectarian campaigns etc. They could be in political parties or they could be in none – but what they have in common is being to the fore in their local campaigns with the support and indeed respect with not only those activists who work with them but on many occasions within the wider activist networks. They have put in the graft on the ground and are sincere in moving the issues forward – they are as I termed genuine activists. Therefore to attempt to simply dismiss such concerns raised by such activists by attempting to pigeon hole them misses the bigger picture. As while it may convince others in the same organisation as oneself – which is fair enough – if that is solely ones goal. It will not however convince that whole layer of activists within that network or indeed within many activists networks {who are part of the movement} - who work and engage with that said person - who may see them at work within such campaigns over the years and hold respect for their activism and ‘leadership’.
In effect it will be seen - and has been seen by some as sectarianism, and therefore diminishes support forthcoming from those said activists and networks. Of course one can tell the difference between the sectarians raising concern simply to be sectarian and genuine activists raising concerns as genuine concerns. But for many organisations they lump them all into the same pot - as so to brush the concern under the carpet where all the sectarians go – this may make it easier in the short term as so not to deal with the issue and concerns raised, in the long term it will though be detrimental to that said organisation if it does not change its ways and distinguish between both..
Again this is the eighties mentality I had seen in many organisations more especially the SP in Belfast where eventually many many activists would no longer work with them or participate in meetings or platforms with them etc due not only to their harsher words against genuine activists, but more especially the way in which they where working {or attempting to – or not} with others.
5} As I stated, a revolutionary party is needed. In my experience within the Belfast SWP not only had we collectively initiated many important campaigns but we collectively where able to argue and win the direction of change in others. Such collective understanding is essential. Important to this was the way in which we actually moved forward, open, fraternal, acknowledging and listening to others views while putting our points across in a concise, fraternal and reasoned way, starting not with the differences but with the commonalities, while discussing the differences in course of common struggle. Our inputs where not. Sectarian. long winded, divisive, dogmatic, or knee jerk reactions to attacks. We had stood above all that, reached out, won respect, ‘authority’ and so delivered – and people knew we would deliver while still engaging in a firm way with our point of view while respecting others views. Yet one can almost tell at meetings due to a dogmatic long winded – and at times down your throat intervention that one is from a particular party, based on the organisational methods of the back room smokey bar debates of yesteryear. Again one needs to adapt not only to the dynamics of the movement but indeed to be a driving force for that dynamic.
6} Finally for the moment – one should not fear debate, one should thrive on it. If one fears debate then I believe that they have little confidence in their stand. I remember attending public meetings organised by all shades of the left and centre left in Belfast over the years. And in each case I can remember a time when I was sitting in the audience with my hand raised high in the air {the only hand} and the chair from whatever organisation who had organised the meeting looking around the room asking in hope ‘Anybody got a question or point’ eyes looking everywhere but towards me. On some occasions the situation would have been hilarious if it was not so sad - this when they actually asked their own comrades ‘oh have you got a point’ where they would shake their head in the negative and so the chair would continue to search in vain for a hand in the air – any hand but mine. Again many genuine activists witnessed this over the years in relation to others and myself. Again I believe all parties on the left are guilty of this. A case of a public meeting where only sections of the public can intervene.
These are just some points of the top of my head as I had an hour or two to spare very late last night. Of course there will be the political inevitability of some remarks – more especially via the mindsets of yesteryear. I must say though as I have said before that I hold much respect for many activists in the SWP, SP and many other organisations but feel it important that such important issues should be discussed openly. This more especially with the debate on the Should – Should political parties {including that of Revolutionary Socialist ones} be part of the Movement?. While this is an important debate - I believe we should start the beginning with the,
What?
What type of Revolutionary Party? D
|
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (19 of 19)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19Socialists have the right to firmly hold ideas and express them in the movement.
There are big differences of opinion in the movement and debates around these differences are often robust.
Democratic Centralism is the best form of organisation structure, the only form that is democratic.
Only if it is used in a democratic way
Power Corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutly.
By their very nature DC parties stop over a period of time being democratic because of the fact that elites will always put their own interests over the interests of society (or the programme or the party ).
They always control the flow of information and discussion, control the appointment of people, the agenda of meetings etc. Like in the trade unions slowly a new ruling class evolves, because the party has leaders, and the more successfull a party gets the more leaders it gets and the more power the ruling group gets, because it's always the same more or less group of people and they will make sure it stays that way.
DC as practised by some socialist parties like the SP or SWP or any other one for that matter runs something like this . We are the vanguard party , ourselves controlled by a ruling class (albeit democratically elected) BUT!!!! ahah when we get control of the State we will GIVE ALL OUR POWER AWAY, to the people because we are SOCIALISTS. And we will not really remove the old ruling class just to install a new one , NO! Marx said that the state would "wither away". It will like fuck wither away. Do you expect these guys to give up their privilages once they're in power??? In 10,000 years of human history when has a power elite done this ? People's conciousness changes depending on the situation theyre in, is this not Marxist thought? When theyre wealthy and a bit powerfull and established, they'll change.
The only way foreward is for people to organise by sharing power with other people and never ask for it to be given over to them.
Revolutions have never been and will never be created by parties, but first by the enlightment of the people and then by their determination and action to force change.
I am very interested in Davy Carlins piece on democratic centralism and other issues he raises concerning left sectarianism etc. I feel that Davy is putting his finger on issues that have to be taken up. I also feel that Davy's general approach is correct.
I was 25 years in the CWI just about all of them as a fulltimer. That organization grew and developed dramatically over that period. However in the late 1980's and early 1990's the analysis the CWI had of the world situation was shown by events to be fundamentally wrong. Contrary to what the CWI had argued capitalism was reestablished in the stalinist world, the social democratic parties lost their working class base and the world economy did not collapse into slump. These false perspectives led to a major crisis in the CWI.
However such a crisis need not have led to the catastrophe that followed. If the leadership or if any significant force in the CWI had been able to face the situation openly, recognize the fundamental nature of the mistakes we had all made and called for an open discussion and debate in the organization then the collapse that followed would not have happened. More than that, what was called for was the leadership to openly explain their own mistakes and weaknesses, and in line with this mobilize the entire membership of the organization to discuss, read, study and clarify why we had made such mistakes and correct our analysis. Imagine how the creative energy of the organization could have been realized by such an initiative. However this did not happen. In fact the opposite happened.
The old leadership around Ted Grant were the worst. They were unable to admit any mistakes had been made at all. They also believed most firmly that there always had to be a leading member and that he or she had to always be correct. In this case Ted and later to be followed by Woods. So they split off to be able to maintain an organization that would be small enough, cut off enough and with an internal regime top down enough to maintain this myth. They still have this. They put the interests of the clique at the top of their tiny group over that of the working class.
In passing I would like to mention the issue of Lenin and the Russian Revolution and where Trotsky said that the Russian Revolution would not have been successful without Lenin. He was referring to Lenin's role in winning over the Bolshevik party to the position of moving to take power. This is intrepreted by many left "leaders" that every party has to have a Lenin and naturally it has to be them. Instead the intrepretation of Lenins role should be that if it was the case that without him the revolution would have failed then this meant that the entire revolution hinged on one person. This was a very very dangerous situation to be in. What it calls for in the present situation, the lesson that flows from it, is an open recognition of the need to much more consciously build a much more collective leadership. In fact to take steps to see that organizations are not dominated by one person.
For a short period after the split of Ted G and his group there was some talk about the need to open up the internal life of the CWI. But as far as the majority of the leadership of the group was concerned this was only talk. I resigned from the leadership of the CWI at this time as I could not understand the issues clearly and also because i could not accept that an organization I had given so much to was not able to face up to debate and discussion on the issues and had fallen so far from its previous heights. I then developed more general political differences on perspectives and was part of a faction to fight for these differences and was then expelled. We also hoped that by setting up a faction this might open up the organization a bit. We were wrong.
Davy's points strike a chord with me. I believe that the internal lives of the revolutionary socialist organizations have been severely influenced by the developments around the Russian civil war and the history of stalinism. The leaderships believe that they should lead and the membership are there to support them. When opposition rises it is not seen as a healthy development out of which all will learn and it is not seen as the right of any member to raise differences. It is seen as being something to be stamped out. This is totally contrary to the internal life of the Bolsheviks before the civil war.
We need to be absolutely clear on this. The working class will never move into a party with such an internal live. It is totally excluded. It is totally excluded that these parties such as the SP and the SWP will become mass parties. Mass parties inevitably means different views. Mass parties means all kinds of struggles, especially over stragegy and tactics. I have less knowledge of the SWP. But I have knowledge of the SP. The leadership of this party are totally incapable of tolerating any sustained opposition which struggles for their views.
When I went into opposition in the CWI on the issue of the Labor Party in the USA and the internal life, what happened? I was slandered from one end of the CWI to the other. I did not know it but people were flown to the sections to lie about me. Belfast provided one of these slanderers to fly about lying about me. I knew nothing about it. Then I was denied my right to appeal against my expulsion. Unbelievable. But there was worse. In all the years I was in the social democracy and in fierce opposition to the leadership there the Labor Party leadership never accused me of being personally dishonest. As soon as the difference arose in the CWI I and other faction members were accused of financial corruption in the organization. The SP can never become a mass revolutionary party. As well as everything else its internal life is already corrupt.
I know very little about the internal life of the SWP. But from what I know it seems to be no more capable of becoming a mass revolutionary workers party than the SP. I raise this because most of the details I raise above are about the SP. I am not interested in attacking the SP and leaving it there.I am interested in the internal regimes of the left organizations including the anarchist organizations and how these do so much damage to the struggles of the working class. What concerns me is what are the needs of the working class at this time, what is the potential of the working class at this time and what are the responsibilities of the revolutionary socialist activists.
I believe the main issue facing society and the working class is the offensive of capitalism which is sweeping the working class back, and which is determined to take away all the gains made in the last 100 years. For me the main task facing the working class is halting and throwing back this offensive and this in turn would open up a working class offensive which would then put the issue of the alternative to capitalism back on the agenda in a mass way. So for me the main task is building united fronts of fighting working class activists who are committed to mass fight to win action. That is committed not to lobbying or electoral politics but committed to mass action, based on fighting to win, to occupy factories to win strikes, to organize general strikes and occupations to close cities and countries, etc. etc.
How to we approach these tasks. This following point is to me the most important in relation to the damage done by the internal regimes of the left groups and to how these groups relate to each other. There are thousands of activists in Ireland who would take action along such lines as outlined above if they could see how to do so in an effective way and this includes a non sectarian organized alternative. The task I believe is to fight to build non sectarian fighting committees of the working class around issues and in cities and towns to take on and throw back the bosses offensive. This I believe is the main challenge to the left parties. But, and I believe i am in agreement with Davy in this, the left parties are thinking too much about their own interests to take up this task in an effective way. The thousands of potential activists are put off by the left sectarianism of the left parties, and how this is expressed in how they relate to each other and to the working class, and they are also put off by the internal regimes of the left groups.
How do left activists who are in the left parties or outside the left parties and who want to build these non sectarian activists struggles confront the left sectarianism of the left parties who are an obstacle to this work. Take for example the recent elections in Dublin and where the left parties prevented the running of a joint anti bin charges slate. Could this not have been taken to the working class. I believe that a flyer should have been brought out that made the case for a joint slate, explained that it was the left parties who were preventing this and named them and then taken these flyers to the anti bin charge committees, the neighbourhoods, the workplaces, the union meetings. That is mobilize the working class against left sectarianism.
What I am advocating is that instead of just pointing out the left sectarianism of the left parties and remaining passive in front of it, that we point this out and why it is so damaging and that we then take this to the working class and ask the working class to pass judgement and take on the left sectarianism of these parties. I believe that this will have results both inside and outside the left parties and begin to make it more possible to build mass fight to win united front committees to take on and throw back the capitalist offensive. This in turn can begin to open up the left groups and parties and perhaps open up possibilities in other areas also.
I am involved in discussions with Comrades in Ireland along these lines. Comrades who recognize the need to organize in a non left sectarian way against the capitalist offensive and who recognize the need to take the issue of sectarianism to the working class in order to be able to root out this left sectarianism and build a healthy movement, Comrades in the left parties or outside the left parties are welcome to join us in our discussions. I believe that the internal regimes of the left parties are directly related to the left sectarian relations that the left parties have between each other. Both are very damaging to the working class.
Davy talks about democratic centralism. I am not sure if this term is of much use any more. Can it be seperated from stalinism after all that has happened. In the small group I am involved in helping to build now we have to some extent postponed a definitive assessment of the internal lives of the revolutionary parties. Given the past experience we are erring on the side of making sure that there is very little centralism. We have no central leading body at this time. This cannot continue as more people get involved and more struggles are taken up.
But I believe that in order to learn the lessons of the past that in this period we should take our time and that we should recognize that the most important thing in groups such as the SWP and the SP is that their membership can express themselves and that they should recognize their own mistakes by opening up their ranks to all those who they expelled or drove out, and that they should open up discussions with other left groups in relation to how to approach the thousands of left activists who would be prepared to struggle if they could see an effective non left sectarian alternative.
John Throne.
QUOTE: I am interested in the internal regimes of the left organizations including the anarchist organizations
Given that they try and set themselves up to avoid regimes forming I'd be interested to know what you've found out about the above.
anyone can call themselves anarchist or socialist, doesn't always make it so.
John in relation to your article you start of by saying how the leadership of the organisation that you where in at the time had failed to address fundamental mistakes. I had and do see this also in many organisations. To me the greater issue to them is rather than acknowledging such mistakes, then attempting to address such mistakes, through open and democratic discussion {as so to learn from them} they will in fact attempt to either brush it under the carpet - attempt to put the blame on others {the 'sectarians' etc} or onto the present conditions - or to revert to good aul revisionism and denial. In effect anybody or anyone apart for themselves are to blame - for some the mindset will let them do no less.
Such a position is completely contradictory to that of the 'memory of the working class' more especially if such a memory by such an organisation who seeks to be the 'Vanguard', is based at best of not acknowledging thus not learning from mistakes - through to revisionism and complete denial. This situation of course can be easy to maintain by the long term {and in many cases unchanging and unchallenged} leaderships, again more especially if in a small organisation with a high turnover of membership.
Even recently picking up a recent political magazine of a political organisation and seeing the revisionism attempted at times in relation to the NIPSA dispute that had happened in the North - the words in the article where carefully woven together as so the blame was attempted to be shifted elsewhere as to the defeat of NIPSA - this is but a recent example of this. Of course many activists have seen this but the whole starting point for such organisations, as I have stated before, is to not convince others, but to in fact convince and hold their memberships to the 'facts' {whatever their choosen facts may be at that particular time} - and therefore to then pass them down from the leadership from above. As so to see and to show that they had did no wrong and to articulate as to what conditions, organisations or individuals where really to blame for the failures. etc etc..
Mistakes I have found cannot and of course would not be acknowledged by such an organisation more especially if their membership is told as to their 'leadership' of such a campaign from on top. Quite simply - in this case - if the NIPSA dispute would have won a historic victory it would have been the 'collective' leaderships victory lead by that said organisation - but as it was a historic defeat it was simply 'a section' of the collective leaderships fault. {Despite the unanimous decisions and bad tactical approaches that the collective leaderships did take on this at important times. This though, will be attempted to be re written away}. Yet this is just a very recent personal example as I see such at work in all such organisations at times within many campaigns.
Therefore I agree with your analysis which incorporates your points of the 'Russian Revolution and wherein Trotsky said that the Russian Revolution would not have been successful without Lenin - and how 'leaders' have indeed interrupted this.
John quotes 'The working class will never move into a party with such an internal life' I agree with this 100% - but will add that many genuine and the best activists will eventually also leave such organisations over time.
Your points on slandering etc as I had raised above about lack of information {at best} given or told of the whole issue to other local comrades or to others affialiated sections etc if someone like your self leaves - is again a leadership or leader believing that they are all powerful and all knowing to an extent that they can pick and choose what information is and is not relied. This even to other members of their political leadership or campaign leadership. Again this is not only undemocratic but control freakery and authoritarian.
John I like yourself have begun to engage with many like minded activists as to the way forward and we would agree with many of your points - so such engagement will I hope continue.
My final point is a broader one in relation to the movement. Within the debate about whether political parties should be part of the movement - {which then includes members of those said politic parties} I think that such organisations who are arguing that they should be should also take stock of when they deal with such activists who are to the fore in the concept of think globally act locally. You cannot raise your concerns as a 'genuine organisation with others as part of the movement and expect room and debate for such concerns to be raised while on the other hand affording no room, dismiss or ridicule other activists who are to the fore {but in differing parties} within the movement.
John - lessons can be learnt, but only when firstly such organisations are prepared to even begin to acknowledge that such mistakes have been made.
What should be feared is not when organisations make mistakes - but when in fact they for their own interests refuse to acknowledge them. D
David/John
Do you reject the principal of Democratic Centralism or just the methods of the SWP and SP?
I was in the SWP in Belfast a few years ago and left for a mixture of personal and political, reasons. Unlike Davy, I have not maintained close relations with the SWP, so I find it odd that I'm the one who is about to defend them.
This is because I want to set the record straight and I know Belfast SWP people have been told - years ago when I, as well as him, was still involved - not to respond to Davy's diatribes on Inydmedia.
I did not experience any of this centralism he complains about BUT I did experience a lack of willingness on Davy's part to take part in democratic decision-making and then to stand by the decisions made [which is what I always understood DC to mean]. Time and again, Davy made it clear in discussions that he would not be bound by a majority decision if he did not agree with it. Worse, there were times when there was total agreement from everyone else except him, he would just say "well, I don't really agree with democratic centralism, so I won't be bound by this" - although there was absolutely NO centralism involved, only democracy.
At one stage, he said that if the rest of the branch took a unanimous decision about something and he wasn't there, the decision would have no effect on him - can you imagine how difficult it would be for any political group to operate in this situation? So, Belfast SWP just kept on being embarrassed by Davy's rantings here on Indymedia and by some of the nonsense he argued in campaigns etc.
As to 'newer members' not getting writing for Socialist Worker etc., which was one of his constant complaints, I had no problems getting lots of articles into it from the day I joined and even after I left. This was because I wrote articles that were fairly short and made sense. Those of you who managed to read through all the above will know what I'm saying here - Davy wouldn't let anyone cut or correct the awful grammar in his articles but he wouldn't shorten them either.
In case you detect a bit of a gripe here on my part, I hold my hand up. He was a big part of why I left the SWP. I really felt that any party that had someone as arrogant and self-serving as him in it was not one I wanted to be part of. I really felt he was/is a self-publicist in search of a vehicle. I really wished for some real centralism that would just tell him to shape up or ship out, but it never happened. It annoyed him that my articles were published and his not. He put this down to 'reverse sexism' i.e. they were only published 'cos I'm a woman. The gender politics implied by this were confirmed in other situations as well, particularly his annoyance that several women were seen as 'leadership' while he wasn't. In fact, I finally left when it became clear that he was starting to get his own way entirely within Belfast SWP. I can only conclude that he left when people started to stand up to him!
I won't bite to this quite amateur approach- but just to say that many points are factually incorrect while others simply and fantastically untrue which those of relevance will already know.
But still - despite this - if you do want me to respond {'Ex Belfast SWP' socialist, leftie, anarchist, republican, whomever} to your points please print your name and I will of course engage with you. D
Anytime somebody leaves the SWP and publicly criticises its internal regime, the same story is told - this individual was arrogant, egotistical, undemocratic, and tried to impose his/her views on the poor helpless cadres of the SWP, who only wanted to practice democratic centralism and comradely debate. Honestly, who do you think you're kidding? Poor wee lambs, everyone is at fault, just not the SWP. Face it lads - nobody is buying this rubbish anymore
The cynic above is not me. I am the Cynic that is posting on Murphy and the Bin Tax.
God there's a lot of cynics floating around. Can't we just trust one another?
What follows is the conclusion to a splendid pamphlet written by John Sullivan in the late 1980s. In this, he reviews a variety of then existing left groups, and draws it all to a nice end by pointing out the absurdity of their respective positions and at least implicitly challenging the general psychology produced by the group dynamcs of each. Reading some of the unreconstructed stone age philosophy above, it feels useful to me to post it here.
It might also be worth pointing out that there were several discussions in the past year on this site of a similar character. Rather than repeating all the same old points it might be worth re-reading them. One of the most useful is at the following link:
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60690&search_text=socialist%20party&results_offset=150
Merry Xmas to all.
Conclusion
Those who express bewilderment that, presumably sane, members of the Left groups can continue to believe nonsense which is continually disproved are comparing their behaviour with some, presumed, model of rationality to which the majority of the population comply. All the evidence shows that most people, whether politically active or not, operate with assumptions which are just as magical as the members of the groups whom we have attempted to sympathetically portray.
In fact, the Left groups do not exist outside history, and if we consider the context in which they live their actions are as rational as anyone else’s. If we should criticise them particularly, it is because they claim to have a superior understanding. Curiously, members of Marxist groups are particularly incensed that the Marxist criterion that social existence determines consciousness should be applied to themselves. If, for example, you are a social worker in Hackney you will almost certainly number SWP members among your friends, but if you are a canteen assistant in Scunthorpe that would be most unlikely. If existence determines consciousness will that not have an effect on the Left group? Yet Left group members argue that their ideas must be examined on their own. They will accept that the social composition of their group does limit its influence but they believe it has no significance whatever in explaining its ideas, strategy and tactics. They might accept, in theory, that their rivals’ behaviour is determined by their real position in the world, but they really prefer to see their enemies’ backsliding in terms drawn from Victorian melodrama: treachery, corruption and inordinate ambition. Members of Left groups do not, on waking up each morning, ponder whether the group to which they belong does indeed have the right analysis, or whether their leaders are indeed far sighted, learned and wise. Does anyone? Would not the stress provoked by the literal application of Marx’s injunction, "Doubt everything", produce an unacceptable level of mental illness? Why should we be so contemptuous of loyalty to a leadership which perhaps does not deserve it, when we regard it as admirable for women to grant such loyalty to individual men? It may be objected that the Left group member has to forgive not the occasional betrayal, but a constant reiteration of beliefs which are contradicted by daily experience, and the regular disappointment of predictions which fail to come true. Yet surely the test of faith is in failure and adversity? Any fool can trust a general after he leads the charge which scatters the enemy. We should judge commitment by its quality, not by the worth of its recipient.
If we move on from absolving the individual sect member from the unjustified charge of mental instability, we will examine the reason why the sect itself cannot submit its beliefs to the test of experience and modify them accordingly. The claim that a group of people engaged in a continual discussion should be able to produce a more accurate analysis than a single individual seems plausible. However, group cohesion needs a doctrine. An ongoing discussion which continually presented all the group’s fondest beliefs to a searching criticism would be a recipe for an unbearably tense existence, like that of a couple constantly on the edge of divorce. A fanatical zealot for truth might be able to live in such an atmosphere, but the average person would find it unbearable. Group discussion has a much more modest function. It fills in the detail of an outline which has already been agreed on, and allows new areas to be explored so that group members can together agree on its interpretation. If one is honest, can one claim that discussion in a mainstream church or political party is any different? The implicit agreement that discussion must not disturb accepted truths explains the common, bewildered, accusation by loyal members that the latest defector, once a leading comrade, left without ever discussing her differences. Once differences are admitted, the member may find, within weeks, that the whole paradigm which she accepted for years is an absurdity, so that to argue with people who have been valued comrades for years is like an attempt to communicate with people speaking a different language.
To the rest of the members her abrupt departure seems light-minded, unprincipled and inexplicable. Yet, few groups have deliberately created a system where questions of principle cannot be discussed because of self-censorship. In fact, there will be regular occasions when errors will be admitted with a view to correcting the line. Such sessions do not generally deal with really heavy deviations, but rather with venial sins. That is hardly surprising. A church prayer group would not expect to hear confessions of murder, robbery and orgies, so a political group discussing its errors will concentrate on matters of presentation, emphasis and efficiency. Its grosser errors will not go unnoticed as they will be pointed out by its rivals. The group’s theoreticians have the delicate task of showing that the contradictions in its politics are only apparent. If serious mistakes were acknowledged as such, the group would be exposed to the virulent abuse of its competitors.
Do not the leaders of Left groups have greater freedom of manoeuvre than do bishops weighed down with centuries of dogma and congregations with no interest in intellectual inquiry? The contrast here is smaller than one might suppose. Left group leaders are stuck with the followers they have, and they well know that any drastic change will lose much of the membership, while there is no guarantee that they will be replaced by better people, although such people may well exist. A bird in the hand ... Why should the groups not benefit from experience? Should not the continual test of such experience bring different groups’ practice closer? That assumes that a group’s theory is devised through a careful examination of economics, politics, and history. Yet, consider how terribly difficult this would be! The ruling class’s analysis of the world and predictions of what is going to happen has generally been mistaken, in spite of the enormous resources and hired brains at its disposal. Is it fair to expect that a group of young people, without these advantages, will be able to examine the world and come to a more correct understanding? If you were Marx himself the task would be formidable.
Fortunately there is an easier way; every successful group leader’s maxim is: "But always remember – these rules are to help you to explain to the customers what you do after you do it, not before, When you have a project, do it exactly as you see fit; then fit the facts round the event, not the other way round". (Robert Scheckley, Dimension of Miracles, p.84.) Don’t try to reverse the Scheckleyan formula! It would be like trying to construct a car engine from a heap of metal. Once you have decided on the programme you want it is not too difficult to search for quotations, precedents and philosophical formula. Not everyone is capable of doing this, or we would have more groups than we do, but it is not nearly as difficult as learning a skilled trade or profession.
Once we accept that a Left group leader does not live outside history, but has to work with material and circumstances not of her choosing, many things become clear. What, for example, can be done to keep the members happy in times when little is happening? This is not a constant problem; often the group will be stretched to mount a campaign which is honestly seen as desperately important and where the leadership wish that they had ten times the forces available to put into it. Not always though. An older, established group can accept that sometimes times will be quiet and they can concentrate on their trade union work, propaganda and political education. A younger group, lacking implantation in the labour movement, will generally be incapable of reacting in this way. For example, the (British) SWP, after the success of the Anti-Nazi League campaign of the mid-seventies, promoted a number of other campaigns, which even its own leaders cannot now remember; yet, each was mounted in response to what was presented as some mortal danger. At the worst such campaigns can be cynical attempts to keep the troops happy, modern versions of the children’s crusade, but generally the leaders will be temporarily convinced that the campaign of the month is useful and necessary.
Most other aberrations have an equally rational explanation. There is, for example, the urge not to appear chicken. If a rival group calls for a General Strike, how can we fail to do so even though we know that few of us have enough influence over our workmates to win their support for that call. Left groups are caught in a continual competition to up the ante. But does not the need to defend your ideas from the criticism of other groups sharpen the mind and help to correct errors? Not really: a specific occurrence can generally be fitted into the general theory, so that after a particular reverse in the trade union struggle, a member of the SWP will conclude that the bureaucracy have sold out once again, while a Militant member will know that further efforts must be made to acquaint the workers with the socialist programme, familiarity with which is the one sure remedy against the recurrence of such defeats.
Do Militant and SWP members in the same staff room or office refuse to talk to each other? Not at all. They will often be on the best of terms, but their political discussion will be in formalised terms, where each knows the other’s responses in advance, much like the conversation of Catholics with Methodists. There is a common misconception that members of Left groups spend much of their time arguing with supporters of rival groups. In fact, both the larger groups, and the hyper-active smaller ones, provide a very comprehensive social life so that a member’s taken-for-granted thought world is seldom challenged.
Activists, when they develop differences, generally do so in a fragmented fashion, as the group’s line conflicts with some aspect of their experience. When it is pointed out that the policy which they object to is in conformity with the group’s general theory, which "you say you agree with", the average militant, unable to provide an alternative world view, either withdraws her criticisms or leaves the group in a state of confusion, aware that something is wrong but fearing that the fault is hers. Some of the smaller groups, unable to provide the extensive social life of the larger groups, rely on having a more rigorous theory, and do try to engage the larger groups in discussion. Unfortunately, the effect is often counter-productive. Leaders of the larger groups object to their meetings being leafleted by "sectarians" and "parasites". The resources built up by many years of members’ sacrifices are not to be squandered on sterile discussions on matters "which were settled long ago".
Some critics of the Left groups have cast the full timers in the role of villains: older people manipulating the naive young. We think that view is mistaken. Full timers are generally extremely loyal to their organisation. They work longer hours for less pay than the rest of their comrades, although it is fair to say that their job is generally less stressful than those on the production line or chalk face. They are often excellent comrades, but can sometimes display a lemming-like attitude to disastrous orders from above. Many of them fall into the category of stupid and industrious officers who the great General Schiefflen recommended should not be employed in any capacity whatsoever. But is the story any different for full timers in mainstream parties?
In sum, political sects provide a refuge which many people need, either permanently or temporarily. They are the heart of a heartless world and will disappear only when that world begins to change.
You make a lot of interesting points and provide an interesting link. Have not got time to come back to them presently but will say that this particular quote is something that plays a huge role in many left organisations.
'If serious mistakes were acknowledged as such, the group would be exposed to the virulent abuse of its competitors'.
In effect, for many, the 'mortal' fear of their 'Competitors' knowing and raising the fact that they where wrong in fact overrides the logical assumption that they should acknowledge such mistakes as so to learnt from them.
In effect the 'memory of the working class' is substituted for the benefit of the rightness of the leadership and the party - and the history of the working class is substituted for the benefit of the leadership and party’s rightness of their role within such.
If defeat is to be acknowledged - it will be the defeat for the class - but done by other forces, other sections, other situations that arose etc outside of the parties control. The party in such important events cannot and will not acknowledge its wrong - therefore the reasons for defeat need to be found elsewhere.
In reality that is one of the reasons that I write as so not only to put down the facts and experiences that I gain in the course of struggle -
but as I said from the onset - that I had started to write - as to stand against revisionism - which I had found that many organisations reeked of. I had found the SP in Belfast in reading their documents that they had accused the SWP of it {revisionism} yet on numerous occasions I had also witnessed {from the knowledge of many campaigns I was involved in, in Belfast over the years} that the SP having done and still doing the exact same to their members, as they where and had accused the SWP of!
I had also found that they would find it easier to do if their other members where not directly involved in lead or specific roles and so would take the word of their leaders as to what was and was not happening.
This became very obvious in the Anti War Movement in Belfast where some articles written as to the decision taken , by whom, and those to the fore etc where at times revised and knowingly untrue as so not to give the true extent as to how a 'differing' organisations was to the fore in the mobilisations and support etc. So on seeing this I then wrote my own account as to my experience based on the 'facts' as so persons could make up their own minds as to both accounts. Which I continue to do today
Yet it took me a while as to understand as to why while one group accuses another such group of it that they in fact where and are up to their necks in it also. The reasoning for this I came to through experience and have outlined above.
Therefore I will continue to always record such events and many will be recorded in my book which is in its final months of completion. D
are you guilty of changing the historical record?
did you do this time after time?
Do you still do it today?
Are you saying that Davey is going to be the keeper of the historical records. Sounds all very mystical
Do not exist in a vacum, these parties and groups and sects will make political analysis preach it (for want of a better word) and act upon it. If the party or group is a disaster, mistaken etc, it will loose members and support etc. If it is correct probably the opposite. politics in other words. there have been many parties and groups and even countries for that matter which have failed before. The main problem I think with some parts of the irish left which can be reflected on indymedia is somebody will join a party accept they are in the party and then take personal offence when such and such a party line is critised, . One example is kronsdat,(forgive the spelling) if your a socialist, it was necessecary, if an anarchist a crime. When the tuth is many of the people defending their positions haven't a breeze what they are on about and although they may study the subject, the conclusion came long before the research. Sometimes we should just admit when we don't know.
Factionalism and different parties is a natural part of any political process, Through this we can debate and learn things.
parties come and go, and will continue to come and go, in any mass political upheval literally hundreds of groups will appear and dissappear. The SP and SWP are a part of a process, not the be and end all of everything and hopefully we can learn from the successes as well as the mistakes of these and other parties. In my opinion we will have to form a mass multi tendency party with factional rights etc and that will be the next step forward. Although as people know the sp has made it clear it won't get involved in any grouping without substancial substance or support. what form this party takes as in internal democracy will be very important. DC is ok with me as long as rules are clearly laid down and factions are allowed. My real fear would be a larger party being ruled by deals done by pre existing groupings with no input from the membership. And with no recourse, for me the best defence of this is a federation with permanent factions.
By, the simple answer is no
I write as I see the facts of whatever campaign that I am in - I give the facts and let others judge.
HS - SP
Agree with many of your points, more especially
'the conclusion came long before the research'
this as the conclusion on many occasions has already been written, handed down, with the line to be therefore followed - rather than acquired on many issues. Therefore on many issues you are reading what has to be said rather than acquiring that knowledge via various quarters of research as well as in the course of struggle.
Also, in agreement - ‘parties come and go, and will continue to come and go' as do many activists within them.
If you are in an organisation and all you read is that tradition and told how all other traditions are wrong then you have two choices. Either take everything that has been written as gospel and what is being said as word - or research and study many traditions and none. This while having an understanding through practice and study of working class history past and developing presently.
In effect you can either be spoon fed or attempt to acquire and develop understanding
Many such organisations due to their high turnover etc hold few that have the 'history of the organisation' therefore it is easy to revise a past situation. There are thousands of left organisations around the world each with their own distinct ideology - with large or small differences from other such groups.
Each of them believe that each of them is right and so when some- one joins them the strategy is to win them to their tradition and understanding on issues as diverse as food to space and from that 'traditions' particular understanding of persons and individuals involved in struggle over thousands of years through to the tactics of today’s struggles.
With so much to 'learn' as so to repeat -few take the opportunity to acquire knowledge outside that one particular vision they had first encountered and have now become ideologically emerged in
Saying that -many who are socialists will find on the overwhelming amount of issues such different organisations are quite similar - but it is the differences in large part on many historical instances and at times on present tactics that divide them.
As I have stated - some form of DC is needed but the form that I had seen it used at times not only in the party I was in but in many other such parties was and is not for me.
It is only through the experiences of the struggles that I have been involved in - working with other organisations {and developing an understanding of both them and their history} and within the class. This is tandem with acquiring knowledge and understanding through reading and researching working class history and Internationalism {from many traditions perspective - none - and my own still developing understanding} that I began to arrive at my own conclusions.
Therefore with that understanding I am where I am now like many before me. I continue still to engage and acquire knowledge - may I be an individual activist - a network - and alliance - a new party? Who knows what the future holds. But HS - SP many other of the points you raised I can find agreement with but have not got time to go into presently. D signing of