Resignation statement of a number of members of the Socialist Party

Resignation statement of a number of members of the Socialist Party December 19, 2013

Posted by irishelectionliterature in Irish Politics, The Left.
trackback

Thanks to Gavin Mendel-Gleason for posting this in the What You want to say ..Open Thread

Resignation statement of a number of members of the SP

Comments»

1. ejh - December 19, 2013: Is this some kind of Xmas trend this year?

LikeLike

Reply
Bob Smiles - December 22, 2013: I think they should give it a rest now, it is Christmas after all

LikeLike

Reply
Doug - June 1, 2014: This reply to the resignation statement from a member of the SP might be of interest.

A response to Socialist Party Resignation Statement

LikeLike

Reply
ejh - June 1, 2014: Not at that length.

LikeLike

Reply
WorldbyStorm - June 1, 2014: Is it just me or can others not access that link too?

LikeLike

Reply
Tomboktu - June 1, 2014: Probably not just you, but it opens for me. (I too felt life is to short to bother testing it.)

LikeLike
2. Johnny Forty Coats - December 19, 2013: The statement hits so many nails on the head that it may seem like nit-picking to find any fault with it, but there is one aspect that must be criticised. I refer to the authors’ repeated invocation of Bolshevik practice as a model:

“[the SP’s] structures are inherently undemocratic and bear no resemblance to the structure of the Bolshevik Party that they espouse”

“the slate system was introduced when Lenin was looking to ‘temporarily minimise dissent’ within the Bolshevik Party”

“the structure of the Bolshevik Party in the lead-up to the October Revolution revolved around a dynamic internal atmosphere”

Any credible party of the left will have to consign this theological mindset to the rubbish bin of history.

LikeLike

Reply
ejh - December 19, 2013: The statement hits so many nails on the head

I’d like it to hit rather fewer, to be honest: it does go on a bit. Do people write this much when they give notice?

LikeLike

Reply
CL - December 19, 2013: ‘things are very fluid on the far left in terms of the “Leninism” question.’
http://louisproyect.org/2013/07/22/recent-debates-in-the-british-swp-over-leninism/

LikeLike

Reply
Ed - December 19, 2013: In general it’s a reasonable point, you can’t base a socialist party today on a model from Tsarist Russia. But both the SP and the SWP justify their internal structures on the basis that this was the model that led the first successful socialist revolution in the world and it’s the only one that could ever lead a revolution in the future. So if you’re coming from that milieu, it makes sense to take those arguments on in their own right. Sometimes people need to settle accounts with a certain heritage before they can move on.

LikeLike

Reply
3. Brian D - December 19, 2013: These are the same resignations from 7 months ago, the ones who published an article in the Weekly Worker in Britain. Not a very efficient bunch.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark P - December 19, 2013: Perhaps the plan is to resign every six months for the foreseeable future. Sort of like a band rereleasing a popular single in time for Christmas.

It’s rather a pity that the six authors didn’t write the piece and circulate it for discussion within the Socialist Party six months before they left rather than six months after. As for its contents, there are a few points it makes that I broadly agree with stitched together with a great deal of very tendentious moaning. It also mixes together some substantive issues with very minor tactical disagreements of no real interest to anyone.

I note as mentioned in the “Dublin Marxist” blog linked to below that after they resigned that the authors were invited to a national meeting of the party to raise and discuss their criticisms. There is no other political organisation in Ireland that would dream of affording people who had left that facility.

I’m rather amused by littlemicky2012’s predictable comments about “hacks” below. There’s rather unlikely to be a flood of members of the SP rubbishing the views of the authors. We’ve had this discussion six months ago, and indeed had elements of it again more recently at national conference. Few members of the SP agree with the bulk of the author’s views, but they were worth discussing respectfully. I do however have every faith in the ability of some mostly anonymous commenters here, who know next to nothing about the structures or internal life of the SP but nonetheless are hostile to its political project, to keep the comment section ticking over till the New Year with sage proclamations of the piece’s perspicacity and significance. We’ll see which of our predictions proves more accurate. Perhaps we should bet a few euro on it?

Finally, as an aside, I find myself in agreement with Johnny Forty Coats on at least one point in a comment that otherwise consists of little more than an attempt to give me a head start in that competition with littlemickey: arguments for particular structures grounded on comparisons with the Bolsheviks are tiresome whether they are made by people I agree with or people I disagree with.

LikeLike

Reply
dublinmarxist - December 19, 2013: Mark P,

Its a shame that you are unwilling to engage politically with the arguments put forward and instead prefer to personalise our resignations at every turn.

Read my post, we were invited to a meeting most of us were unable to attend and the leadership knew that. Perhaps the leadership could have offered us another debate? You had quite a one-sided debate, one which quite a number of people who were at that meeting raised with us. These are facts so please don’t just ignore them.

Also, why is the publication date of this statement in anyway relevant? We took our time to develop our critique. Also, one of the people resigned only recently and was a candidate for the AAA too. As I stated there were others involved in the process too who didn’t sign. Many of the 6 authors didn’t even know each other before resigning so I’m afraid that argument isn’t valid either.

Deal with these points politically and stop personalising our resignations. If it isn’t significant than ignore it.

What do you make of the points raised around the slate system by the way?

LikeLike

Reply
Frank - December 19, 2013: dublinmarxist, re the meeting you were invited to; as far as anyone in the Socialist Party was aware, one of the four of the resignees would be out of the country and one would be in Athlone. Therefore is was more than reasonable to expect that three of the four would be able to attend the meeting, as least if you were in any way serious. But there was no onus on the Socialist Party to invite you to anything, it was generous and extremely democratic.

Of course as Mark P says, far better would have been the novel idea of raising your disagreements inside the party, while you were all still members – form a faction even. You all chose not to, at any stage and therefore forfeited any rights you had as members, and also any credibility on the issue of democracy in the Socialist Party.

LikeLike

Reply
Frank - December 19, 2013: In fact, most of those on this list avoided numerous invitations to discuss with other members of the party about whatever issues they had – which the rest of the party were completely unaware of – they chose not to articulate any disagreements until after they resigned, bizarrely.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark P - December 19, 2013: DM,

There’s nothing personal at all in my comment, so I am genuinely baffled by your response. It is a political, not personal point to make that it would have been more productive to develop and raise these arguments while still members of the organisation, rather than leaving first and arguing second.

I find it difficult to take seriously your complaint that not all of you were in a position to avail of the SPs invitation to address its members about your views after you left. As you know, it was an expanded version of an already scheduled national committee meeting and according to your blog you didn’t request that it be rescheduled. I note also that you don’t seem to dispute that there is no other political organisation in the country that would have considered offering people who had resigned that opportunity in the first place. I don’t say that to sneer at other organisations. One of the consequences of leaving an organisation is that you have no right to take part in its democratic structures. That the SP afforded you a chance to do so anyway is of note in and of itself. That it doesn’t do so endlessly is hardly surprising.

I have no particular interest in discussing in detail my views of the SPs structures for the delectation of the littlemickey’s and Johnny Forty Coats of this world, so I’m not going to get into a prolonged discussion with you here. But as you specifically asked about slate systems: I’m opposed to them. In fact, I can only presume that this is a rhetorical question given that I’ve argued against them for ten years. However, I also think that electoral systems of any kind play very little role in determining the strengths or weaknesses of the Irish SP, given the outsized nature of the leading bodies in comparison to membership numbers. It may be a more relevant issue in, for instance, the English and Welsh SP.

Have a good Christmas.

LikeLike

Reply
Frank - December 19, 2013: Thankfully, the idea that the Socialist Party insist that the practices and structures of the Bolshevik party “must be strictly adhered to and replicated” is in fact silly nonsense.

LikeLike

Reply
dublinmarxist - December 19, 2013: With all due respect Frank, that is yet another circumnavigation of the political points raised. It may suit you to say I have forfeited my credibility on an issue but regardless it is still to a deviation of the point. Also, your point isn’t accurate and I want to deal with all things political here. Unfortunately, I have to respond to the complete and utter inaccuracies you have posted above in relation to our attendance.

2 of the Comrades were in another country. 1 was at close friend’s wedding in Athlone. Were we supposed to cancel all of those prior engagements? If the leadership was in a generous mood as you describe, why did it not ask us for a date that was convenient to us? Surely that might be a whole lot more democratic? Why did it invite 2 people it knew were not around in the first place…

LikeLike

Reply
Frank - December 19, 2013: You were invited to a meeting of the National Committee that was already organised – a very generous gesture – to raise your differences openly, something you chose not to do at any time until you left.

I repeat, as far as the party was concerned it was more than feasible for three of the four to attend a two hour meeting. Your suggestions that is was a sop, and that somehow the party owes you something, is petulant and baseless.

LikeLike

Reply
dublinmarxist - December 19, 2013: Re-read what I wrote there Frank…

LikeLike

Reply
Frank - December 19, 2013: Do you accept that it was very generous of the Socialist Party to go out of its way to give you a platform to raise your disagreements even after you left, including the right to two 15 minute slots and rights of reply?

Again, had you remained as members you could have had numerous platforms to raise your disagreements, you chose not to, and yet you have the gall to criticise the democracy in the Socialist Party.

What’s most striking about your statement is just how ignorant you are of the democratic structures inside the Socialist Party and so many aspects of our politics, surprisingly so.

LikeLike

Reply
dublinmarxist - December 19, 2013: Frank, you are quite blatantly ignoring some facts above so its making replying somewhat difficult…

The statement is a critique of Trotskyism so by its nature it is saying we don’t adhere to Trotskyist politics and feel that their replication since WWII have led to similar and poor results.

No, I don’t think that it is ‘generous’. Furthermore I think your argument is completely apolitical and a convenient way of not engaging with the arguments put forward.

“What’s most striking about your statement is just how ignorant you are of the democratic structures inside the Socialist Party and so many aspects of our politics, surprisingly so.”

Right rather than empty statements, back up what you mean there exactly. What part of the SP’s structures am I not clued into?

LikeLike

Reply
Frank - December 19, 2013: Your statement is a lot of things, a resignation statement is not one by the way, but how you can say that it’s a critique of Trotskyism I don’t know. It says nothing about Trotsky’s ideas. That would be important, no?

It says nothing about Trotskyist organisations historically either, save the inclusion of one reference to the SWP and the WRP, for some strange reason. Lumping those organisation in with the CWI might be convenient but it’s not serious.

Thankfully you use the words ‘dogmatic’, ‘dialectical’, ‘undemocratic’ repeatedly and you talk about the slate system so it automatically applies as a satisfactory critique of a revolutionary organisation, as least as far as hostile elements are concerned.

There’s very little of any political substance. Apart, apart from all of the non sequiturs about Bolshevism etc. your disagreements with the Socialist Party are not that serious, although most don’t even apply. You could have those disagreements and remain a member i.e. they are not reasons to resign.

In fact your statement barely qualifies as a critique of the Socialist Party. It’s a critique of how you’d like the Socialist Party to be so you could write this nonsense and feel that you’ve contributed something. I could go through every line and tell you were you’re wrong but I don’t have the time or the inclination. You could have educated yourself about the Socialist Party while you were a member, sadly you didn’t.

The fact that you won’t accept the generosity of the Socialist Party in offering you the opportunity to raise your disagreements even after you left (whether you could attend or not is actually beside the point, as as far as the party was concerned two, if not three of the four of you could have) shows that you have a problem with the Socialist Party that’s not fully rational.

LikeLike

Reply
Frank - December 19, 2013: As for what SP structures are you not clued into: well presumably you’re not aware of any of them, since you didn’t use any of them to exert your right as a member who has a disagreement and would like to have it discussed and debated. One example is a written members bulletin which all comrades have the right to use.

LikeLike

Reply
WorldbyStorm - December 19, 2013: That’s all you’ve got? Really?

LikeLike

Reply
Frank - December 19, 2013: That’s one example. Thorough discussion and debate is a constant feature of life inside the Socialist Party, problems arise when people don’t engage in those discussions and debates, as these members unfortunately didn’t.

That applies to all levels, whether branch meetings, branch committee meetings, regional committees, aggregates, regional councils etc. The resignees here were free to raise points, put motions to all of those bodies, and more. They didn’t, only they know why.

We operate on the basis of political discussion and agreement, we don;’t and never have used bureaucratic structures to stifle disagreements or debates. There is nothing undemocratic in having discussions, although you’d think that from reading the above.

LikeLike

Reply
Frank - December 19, 2013: What’s noticeable about the statement is the absence of any example of where undemocratic methods were used, or were their (or anyone’s) rights as members were ever infringed upon.

LikeLike

Reply
WorldbyStorm - December 19, 2013: I feel like I’m intruding on someone else’s conversation here, and perhaps I am, but you know, a number of activists leave the SP for various reasons and you’re suggesting they didn’t know the structures of the party. That just doesn’t scan right from the off.

It feels evasive and as if rather than engaging you’re waving away of any of the substantive issues raised. I’ve no wish to go into the rights and wrongs of this, and fair enough if you don’t think the letter from the above crowd merits a response at all that’s obviously enough one thing, but this? Perhaps better not to have said anything at all to dublinmarxist.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark P - December 19, 2013: Frank,

I really don’t think it’s necessary to point out that DM and co left first and raised their critique later over and over again. That point is relevant but it has been made, and its neither necessary nor desirable to repeat it endlessly.

LikeLike

Reply
Frank - December 19, 2013: Members of the Socialist Party have responsibilities but they also have rights, to dispute any decisions and have any debate they feel is important. These members left without virtually any discussion about the issues in the statement, and somehow the Socialist Party is responsible.

Not only did they have rights, including faction rights, as members, but they were also given a platform to bring their issues to the party after they left. I think it’s incredible that dublinmarxist is trying to argue that they were somehow hard done by. That’s all, I’ll finish there.

LikeLike

Reply
WorldbyStorm - December 19, 2013: Again, Frank, I don’t want to get into the minutiae, just the process of this discussion, but I’ve often found that when people feel that there’s a problem, even if others don’t, it is usually as well to address that. For example, they seem exercised by various aspects of internal practice.

Now they regard parts of that practice as undemocratic and you and others don’t.

That’s fair enough as well, but if you are going to engage at all (which is creditable) with them perhaps an actual explanation as to why x y or z isn’t undemocratic might be more useful than suggesting they don’t know about the democratic procedures extant.

But again it’s entirely up to you as to whether to do so or not.

LikeLike

Reply
Kevin Higgins - December 21, 2013: My learned friend, it’s a bit rich someone who always goes under a pseudonym jabbering on about anonymous commenters. In relation to what ‘Mark P’ says about “I do however have every faith in the ability of some mostly anonymous commenters here, who know next to nothing about the structures or internal life of the SP but nonetheless are hostile to its political project”, the problem with this is that, it’s now clear, that the SPs real project these days is simply to keep its own existing structures in place – it is, in that sense, a bit like FAS or the Dublin Docklands Development Authority (without the jokes).

LikeLike

Reply
4. Liberius - December 19, 2013: “Whilst being in favour of standing anti-austerity candidates, we feel that in some areas where CAPTA/AAA is standing, the number of candidates being run and the balance between SP and independent candidates raises serious question marks over the genuine nature of these campaigns.”

How many of those candidates are not SP? I’ve spent a little time this afternoon looking into it and I’ve so far been only able to find one, the sweeper for Mick Barry in cork city, and I’m not even totally sure I’m correct there. While I’m at it isn’t it a touch churlish to be chiding the Socialist Party for running with non-SP candidates while at the same time hammering them for their lack of openness.

LikeLike

Reply
5. rdlp715 - December 19, 2013: This level of considered, informed discussion is very welcome and it’s hard to disagree with what it says. They’re conclusions many are independently coming to.

There is a desperate need for rank & file activists – particularly the new generation of activists like the comrades who wrote this – to be able to publicly discuss and share their ideas on the left/social/workers movement – rather than repeat the line passed down from on high/regurgitate the received wisdom of the day.

The state of things are pretty shocking and all, quite naturally, are afflicted to differing degrees by the postwar sect-form, bureaucratisation(both as individuals and more clearly in our organisations). By its nature, it won’t last. Activists will either reintroduce this kind of dissident Marxism, develop a revolutionary praxis to regenerate our movement, its orgs or wait for it to crumble under the pressure of crisis. (See England.)

“Austerity… ?.. more votes and more recruits for the gruntwork .. ? .. socialism .. be grand” has failed and will not do any more. Need generalised critical thinking/action, a perspective based on harsh reality and armed with a strategy out of that. To quote a memorable remark from the grassroots’ battle to renew SWP England this year “Lenin’s fucking dead – we’re the Leninists now”

More of this please.

LikeLike

Reply
littlemicky2012 - December 19, 2013: Well said. A very refreshing habit in Ireland now for the various dissidents on the left to offer critiques of their former organisations and engage in a debate and search for effective new organisational forms and effective strategies to advance the cause of socialism.

Unfortunately there will be a tide of hacks to attempt to rubbish this valuable critique.

LikeLike

Reply
rundlp - December 19, 2013: It’s hard to acknowledge failure on the scale we’ve been led to, or at times even the reality, depths of that failure and general situation we’re in because of it. For the sake of the left/workers movement, someone somewhere had to and always was going to start this most welcome process of open, critical self-appraisal – and they’ll come under a wave of mostly personal attack for it. I’d like to think that arises not out of malice, but of denial.

The service and example for the movement of the comrades’ piece is much more valuable than those who attempt to bury and drone it out so as the strategy-free routine of leading us into cul-de-sacs can carry on until it’s worn down to nothing.

This piece though has to be understood in a much wider historical/international context – as part of an organic international response from below to the post2008 exposure of the extent our period-specific bureaucratisation/sect-forms. Which is no individual’s fault, it’s not a conscious thing(hopefully) – but it does need to be resolved before we can build, intervene effectively and win.

LikeLike

Reply
6. dublinmarxist - December 19, 2013: Just a few points of clarification…

JFC – the statement isn’t suggesting that the Bolshevik model should be adopted. There is widespread disagreement amongst many of the resignees as to what approach should be adopted.

Brian D – Craig Murphy wrote that article by himself and didn’t put his name to this statement. The length of time in publishing is elaborating on here:

Socialist Party Resignation Statement

Liberius – there are more non-SP running than that and the statement isn’t critiquing the SP for standing alongside other anti-austerity candidates.

LikeLike

Reply
Liberius - December 19, 2013: I was looking more for numbers rather than anecdote, although to be fair I think it’s as much a problem of the SP’s that someone could spend 30-odd minutes looking up candidates but be unable to identify their people; party recognition is, at least in my mind, an important building block of progress which is something they might like to consider.

And I still can’t help but feel that the line I quoted above does show at least an unconscious desire to use petty quibbles that are inconsistent with the logic employed in the critique of the SP’s internal structure.

LikeLike

Reply
dublinmarxist - December 19, 2013: The statement was split into two sections. The first dealing with historical inaccuracies/critique of Leninism and the second was major tactical differences we had that flowed from the way the party organises. I suppose the point is that these are some recent examples of how that method/culture expresses itself… In reality the workers’ movement is at a very low level and I think it is fair for anyone around the Left to critique and offer suggestions as to how activists should go about re-building it.

Thanks for the feedback, by the way.

LikeLike

Reply
7. doctorfive - December 19, 2013: Feels like a loss of patience has become more acute over the past year and a bit. Not with the SP in particular or any individual but you can sense a considerable amount of vexation gaining ground on the day to day helplessness. The parties and unions have been have been fuck all use to themselves let alone anyone else. Locals are going to a big barometer but what alternative?

Interesting to read more on the ARC/ROSA. The energy and creativity on the prochoice end of things has been very impressive over the past year. Abortion was/is a big enough lightening rod and defined target to keep a fairly diverse bunch together toward the same end, it’s apples and oranges but I think it’s very interesting how we have come from a handful of core groups* to a multitude, big and small campaigns across a spectrum of reproductive rights, working independently. As far as I know much of it has grown organically and probably because of that nature hasn’t been dominated by any party aiming to.

(Not suggesting all of it is new or ignoring the work ongoing before November last year but there are a few lessons there for when we’re here in May wondering what the gains could have been)

LikeLike

Reply
Frank - December 19, 2013: The criticisms of ROSA are probably the most absurd in the above piece, mainly because ROSA is in fact not just another pro-choice campaign, of which there are about 7-8 in the country, including ARC. Most members of ROSA are also members of ARC.

ROSA is a socialist groups that organises discussions and actions on a wide range of issues that relate to women’s oppression, initiated by women in the Socialist Party.

LikeLike

Reply
revolutionaryprogramme - December 21, 2013: In Cork the reality is that after ROSA was set up the SP: completely stopped their work within the existing pro-choice movement in Cork (Cork Women’s Right to Choose Group and the wider alliance Pro-Choice Cork). One SP women did say she wanted to be active in CWRCG (as a ROSA rep) and I added her to the core activist email list but she has not turned up to any meetings, events or contributed to any of the discussions on the email list. Hard not to think it was done just to have someone getting those emails for information purposes rather than actually wanting to contribute to the pro-choice activity.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark P - December 19, 2013: It’s worth noting that ROSA is not directly equivalent to the ARC. It is a socialist feminist organisation rather than a single issue campaign and its “peers” are more accurately the liberal feminist, anarcha feminist, intersectional feminist etc groups which have proliferated over the last few years. Quite rightly all of these groups campaign for abortion rights.

LikeLike

Reply
doctorfive - December 19, 2013: Was only the reference on ROSA & ARC in the statement which set me off on the other stuff. Not comparing them. I just see the variety of feminist activity significant when momentum continues to be hit and miss on other fronts. Obviously it includes more than a fair share of tension but elements look a bit more coherent than response to austerity to date.

LikeLike

Reply
Clive Sullish - December 21, 2013: With fronts like ROSA and AAA (or Is it Triple A?), has the SP begun to model itself on the SWP?

LikeLike

Reply
WorldbyStorm - December 19, 2013: +1 to your first paragraph

LikeLike

Reply
8. dublinmarxist - December 19, 2013: First time posting here and post number 7 wasn’t supposed to be published on this website. MODS – can I edit?

LikeLike

Reply
9. HS - December 20, 2013: I think the SP should write a reply to this. As a former member I do not agree that the structures exist within the SP to raise substantial differences; any differences are met with one and one meetings with party officers rather than in branches etc. There is certainly not a culture of airing differences openly within the party or at least such differences are not considered positive in any sense. Moreover the nature of the bureaucracy makes any formal opposition very difficult and again any differences or even positive suggestions tend to be treated as a negative by full timers. The fact that members and branches cannot send motions upwards outside annual conference (unlike many other working class parties and organisations) means that there is no culture of political discussion from the membership up, Democracy in the party only takes place once a year a conference and that is frankly sullied by the single vote slate system which is indefensible.

I note that nobody has attempted to defend any of these structural problems but rather focus on the fact that comrades didn’t raise the issues while in the party. The point is that the culture and structure don’t allow it so people drift away.

I wrote a similar critique one year ago and will link to below, I think the critiques on the SP organisational practices should be read alongside critiques written in the UK, US and other places on organisational practices.

http://www.irishleftreview.org/2013/01/09/structure-democracy-irish-left-call-discussion/

LikeLike

Reply
10. Pasionario - December 20, 2013: The SP is a small party — 150 members or so?, 200 tops. As such, there is no reason why important decisions could not be regularly taken by ballot of the entire membership. The reality, seemingly, is that the leadership is elected in often uncontested votes and then decides everything without the membership having any real say. If you were at the head of a movement comprising tens of thousands of members, then “democratic centralism” might have some justification. But when the entire party can be accommodated within one large room (or simply sent an email asking for their vote), then there’s no excuse for this malarkey.

LikeLike

Reply
Séamus - December 20, 2013: I take it then that the SP wouldn’t have an annual ard-fheis?

LikeLike

Reply
Jack Jameson - December 20, 2013: Does the SP have an annual conference, public or private?

LikeLike

Reply
dmfod - December 20, 2013: It has an annual 3-day conference of the whole membership.

LikeLike

Reply
Jack Jameson - December 20, 2013: Thanks, dmfod.

LikeLike

Reply
Pasionario - December 21, 2013: I believe they have a conference where the leadership gets elected on a slate. (Can anyone give any details of these elections? Are they ever genuinely contested?) Seemingly the de facto party leader, McLoughlin, has not changed in decades.

The leadership then takes all important decisions. As I say, it would not be complicated for the party to organise regular internal votes on specific policy questions. Even the Labour Party balloted conference delegates on the coalition agreement with Fine Gael. Did the SP have a ballot about entering the ULA, or indeed leaving it for that matter? Doubt it.

Looking at their website I am struck by how little information it provides about the party. There is no list of party officers, no details about the annual conference, no records of votes taken there, not even the party constitution! It’s a model of organisational opacity. “Mark P” is complaining about people being ignorant of how the SP works. That’s rich seeing as they seem to be concealing every important detail about how they actually operate.

LikeLike

Reply
Bob Smiles - December 22, 2013: Ask any Eirigi member about how SF works internally and you’ll have no complaints about the SP

LikeLike

Reply
WorldbyStorm - December 22, 2013: Ah, but you clearly missed the complaints about éirígí on the Pensive Quill I think it was.

LikeLike

Reply
CMK - December 22, 2013: Surely, the SF internal regime should be next up for detailed examination on CLR? Given that SF are the great hopes for many here and many multiples more working class people will be voting for SF than SP for the foreseeable future. If discussion of internal regimes are being limited to just one small party, then that could be fairly construed to give licence for an attack on that party. But if we’re talking about internal regimes generally, then surely we need to know more about SF, WP etc. The point was made that working class voters entitled to clarity regarding structures from the SP; surely that point applies even more so to SF?

LikeLike

Reply
WorldbyStorm - December 22, 2013: Absolutely, SF and the WP, and indeed all left parties. Which are the one’s that don’t present their constitutions/programmes/internal structures before the working class. And if not why not. Obviously this piece was sparked by the resignation of people from the SP, but I agree entirely, what of others?

Just on the point of ‘great hopes’, I wonder if that’s entirely true, there’s a lot of people here who detest them at least to judge from comments.

LikeLike

Reply
WorldbyStorm - December 22, 2013: Just to add another thought. I wonder if the same questions were put to members of other groups, say for example PBPA (whose internal democracy seems vastly more opaque than the SP) or the SWP itself, or indeed any of many, would we have any members of same discussing these matters openly like we have with the SP?

I suggest the question supplies it’s own answer.

LikeLike

Reply
Johnny Forty Coats - December 22, 2013: I would make a distinction between two issues: internal democracy and organisational independence. Both are important, but if anything the latter is the more important because it’s a prerequisite for the former.

Whatever shortcomings Sinn Féin or éirígí may have on the internal democracy front, I don’t think it can be said that their strings are being pulled by external bodies.

I do have a grudging respect for the political consistency shown by the SP, not just year after year but decade after decade, and I have no such respect for the SWP. But I also believe that if the next general election were to hand the balance of power in the Dáil to either group, they’d be on the phone to their respective “internationals” in London to find out how to vote.

LikeLike

Reply
que - December 22, 2013: I don’t think there is the same level of farting in Sinn Fein about ideology and that’s a party which was fairly strict in establishing the line of authority from the rising and how that was an appropriate basis to reject the partitioned states. So clearly an ideological party but not as ideological as the other left parties.

Sinn Feiners are fairly democratic in the sense they all broadly agree with the line in some way and even if they have problems with some of it they just swallow it without destroying the whole party. If someone has big problems then they do seem to end up on the outside but naturally enough I would think.

There will be no examination of Sinn Fein’s internal policies because nobody really cares. Sorry but that’s the size of it. Do a post on SF and it will just fade into nothing.

Why because everyone knows SF is run in a disciplined manner and why is obvious. SF has elections for candidates and of course maybe its not wide open but then so what.

Sinn Fein is immune from such an analysis because their plan seems to be working. Some people might not like that plan but its working and they have built consistently.

Now on the other hand if Sinn Fein was as small now as they were in 2002 in the south then we’d all be having a different conversation.

Which goes back to a point I made before on this type of discussion. The issue is not the processes but rather the question of why the SP and other left parties are going nowhere.

If the SP still had 2 TDs, if it were looking at moving from 6 to say 25 seats (half of SF when they stalled) and if they were going to retain their Dublin MEP and run in other Euro constituencies where they might get at 3-5% at least then nobody would care about at all about this discussion.

LikeLike

Reply
que - December 22, 2013: Well yeah the SP does deserve credit for always partaking in a way that the SWP/PBPA does not but they avoid the internet unless they are leaving the party. That’s like refusing to issue a pamphlet in the 1800s.

I want to be devil’s advocate on the question of “present their constitutions/programmes/internal structures before the working class. ”

Do right wing parties who we work on the presumption represent not the working class but the middle to upper classes likewise present their ‘constitutions/programmes/internal structures’ before their respective members. They do some bit but its still fairly opaque isn’t it and sure who knew who ran Fianna Fail even though all classes had the same information presented to them.

So whats the driver for presenting it to the working class- because we want to say look we are of you and this is open and transparent.

I think part of the problem the left is facing is it holds it self to a standard higher than the right i.e it wants to be more democratic and more transparent, more everything the right is not but then the reason for determining why the right doesn’t feel the same need is somewhat glossed over. The right doesn’t because mainly they think its good enough as it is. The left then is forced to be not so transparent, to be less than very democratic because running a party is not the same as running a collective.

Am I being unreasonable in seeing that as another gap between the ideal and the demands of the real world.

LikeLike

Reply
CMK - December 22, 2013: So, que, this whole conversation is basically a variation of ‘crab in the bucket’? SF have escaped from the bucket, so are immune from criticism, but the SP are still within the bucket and must be attacked? Some of the oddest things I’ve ever read here. SF are positioning themselves as savours of the working class, and are finding that many in the working class are receptive to their message. At the same time they are administering Tory economic rule in Northern Ireland with a smile and are busy tapping dozens of Irish-American capitalists for funds for next year’s elections and when they eventually ascend to office here they’ll implement the Fiscal Treaty, the Two Pack and the Six Pack remorselessly and hours of fun will be had looking back on youtube clips of of Pearce Doherty, Padraig MacLochlainn, Mary Lou McDonald and the rest of them fulminating against austerity while from 2016 these same politicians will be insisting that James Connolly and Padraig Pearse died so that Ireland could one day have a balanced budgetand meet its obligations under European treaties.

LikeLike

Reply
Ed - December 22, 2013: CMK, it’d be well worth talking about SF’s internal regime, but as far as I can see we already know the most important thing: it’s the parliamentary party that really counts (and the more TDs, MEPs, MLAs they have the more that’s likely to be). I don’t know if there are any groups of SF members trying to challenge the leadership line; there was that blog ‘SF Keep Left’ a while back, and Eoin O Broin argued for them to move to the left in his book about republicanism a few years ago, but I don’t know what he’s doing about that in practice. But if there was some kind of dissenting current, they probably wouldn’t need to expel them; they can put forward as many motions as they like at party conferences, as long as the leadership controls the Dáil party, it won’t make much difference. If SF has to make a call about whether to enter government after the next election, I’d expect the TDs to decide. Fair enough?

LikeLike

Reply
Johnny Forty Coats - December 22, 2013: Actually, I’d expect such a decision to be made by the party’s ard-chomhairle. A decision taken by the TDs alone would be seen as partitionist.

In either event, we would know who was making the decision and who had elected them.

But who are the members of the CWI and how are they elected or selected?

LikeLike

Reply
Liberius - December 22, 2013: I’m not sure I’d take that line of argument as being of any serious importances though as it’s an essentially isolationist concept where by no group can have links outside of the construct of the nation state without being viewed with suspicion. The fact that many CWI apparatchiks are ‘foreign’ wouldn’t matter in the slightest if the organisations local branches could be trusted to be fair and honest about their methods of working. Additionally it could be argued that an overly rigid view of international links is in it’s own right a fallacious idea, after all what does anyone from rural Mayo know about running urban Dublin? Also why should Dubliners take direction from a party run by an outsider who doesn’t know if he’s from Belfast or Louth?

LikeLike

Reply
Ed - December 22, 2013: No, with every conventional parliamentary party (and SF has certainly become one of those, despite its insurrectionary roots), it’s the parliamentary party whose members always carry the most weight when important decisions are being made. Regardless of who gives the formal rubber-stamp, what counts is what the parliamentary leadership wants to happen. The whole history of social-democratic and green parties is there to instruct us on this. When party members try to bring the parliamentarians under control, very soon they find that there’s a massive imbalance of power. You can pass motions at party conferences but if you don’t have TDs or MPs who are willing to put them into practice they immediately become a dead letter.

LikeLike

Reply
que - December 22, 2013: crab in a bucket. I like it.
Sinn Fein is not immune and should never be immune from any criticism.
But right or wrong fair or unfair the fact of success renders the question uninteresting for Sinn Fein. If the Socialist Party was steadily rising then they’d be laughing at most comments on it.
Its not that the SP should be attacked.No more than any other party but what I am pointing out is that like all parties the question is about how you defend yourself or render attacks purposeless. Every party above a certain level never deals with questions of internal structure provided they maintain strength. The lesson is not attack the small but that nobody seems to give a toss about this stuff except the small parties.

LikeLike

Reply
DublinDilettante - December 22, 2013: Johnny Forty Coats, such an ardent crusader against jargon and obfuscation as yourself should consider whether “I’m an unreconstructed nationalist looking for an angle” would function just as well as your reams of posts on this subject.

LikeLike

Reply
que - December 23, 2013: Because somehow thinking the closeness of the SP or the SWP to London might lead to a situation where decisions not in the interests might be made clearly marks him out as a simplistic nationalist?

Hardly reasonable surely.

LikeLike

Reply
Johnny Forty Coats - December 23, 2013: Liberius, I don’t have the slightest objection to Irish parties having links with like-minded groups abroad. They nearly all do. Here’s a recent example from the left of the spectrum:
http://www.communistpartyofireland.ie/c-liospoin.html

But there’s an enormous difference between maintaining such links on a basis of mutual independence and non-interference in each other’s internal affairs on the one hand, and being subject to the oversight of an “international” on the other.

DublinDilettante, national sovereignty isn’t an “angle” for unreconstructed nationalists – it’s our core value.

LikeLike

Reply
Liberius - December 23, 2013: What constitutes non-interference though? I’m sorry, but at the heart of the logic of that argument is a nationalistic idea the nation state is inviolate and thus the only legitimate rulers are ones with no or little connection outside it’s borders.

I’m perfectly willing to accept that I’m something of a minority in not believe in the ‘inherent’ good of the nation state and as such my take on on having solid international links is that it provides a backstop against any kind of devolution into isolationist policies.

LikeLike

Reply
DublinDilettante - December 23, 2013: Grand so. How’s that “core value” (interesting that nationalists are so comfortable with corporate argot, but makes sense) working out for you these past hundred years?

Don’t give a toss about national (as opposed to popular) sovereignty myself. If the Trotskyist parties could be more effectively directed from London (and they’re not – but then, you know that), happy days. I’d gladly see the concept of Ireland wiped off the political map if it advanced the cause of socialism by an inch.

LikeLike

Reply
revolutionaryprogramme - December 23, 2013: Working class solidarity and unity across national boundaries

or

Accepting the inviolability of bourgeois nation states and the cross-class alliances this idea promotes

I know which is my “core value”…

LikeLike

Reply
que - December 23, 2013: @DublinDilletante,

You don’t see that as a very destructive sentiment? You might imagine its positive to blithely say for the advancement of socialism by one inch you would happily and casually let the idea of Ireland be destroyed.

I know you might believe that’s very positive and international but I cant see that as any thing other than a very hateful sentiment as opposed to being broad minded and internationalist.

LikeLike

Reply
Johnny Forty Coats - December 23, 2013: As you ask, DublinDilettante, Irish national sovereignty has made considerable progress since 1913. Ordinary citizens (not “subjects”) can now visit the throne room and other state apartments in Dublin Castle. A popularly-elected president (who would describe himself as a socialist) is installed in the Viceregal Lodge. A parliament elected by universal suffrage (well, the lower house anyway) meets in the former premises of the RDS. The British army has departed from 26 counties and keeps a low profile in the other six. Under native governments, the country has been industrialised, the infrastructure modernised, and the population has risen by 50% – in marked contrast to the deindustrialisation and demographic collapse that characterised British rule in the 19th century. There’s still a lot left to do, but quite a lot has been done.

And how is the cause of Trotskyist revolution coming along these days? Do you think the CWI or IST is the more likely to succeed? Or would you put your money on the International Bolshevik Tendancy?

LikeLike

Reply
CL - December 24, 2013: “The Labour Party wanted a 3 per cent increase in USC on those earning more than €100,000 a year but this was rejected by Fine Gael and Mr Noonan on the advice of the multinationals.”
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland/us-chamber-backs-low-rate-of-executive-tax-1.967622
Some sovereignty.

LikeLike

Reply
revolutionaryprogramme - December 24, 2013: @Johnny Forty Coats – I know which of those organisations my money is on 🙂

But seriously it is much more likely that the best any of the groups in existence now will do is a tiny footnote in a history book – if even that.

And it is true that there has been some trickle down from the Irish bourgeoisie selling their economic sovereignty (and a good degree of political sovereignty) to US/British capital.

But it seems to me that you set your sights pretty low in terms of what is possible for working people having real “sovereignty” over our lives if, as seems to be implied by your comments, you think all the positive change that is possible can only occur within the current framework of the Irish nation in its place within the world capitalist hierarchy of nation states.

Surely the past few years where working people have had their lives devastated in so many ways while our rulers – both Irish and US/British – had enriched themselves directly at our expense shows you the fallacy of this approach.

LikeLike

Reply
que - December 24, 2013: It occurred to me today that back in the colonial days there was similarly quick decisions made to let cultures be traded off in the name of progress. Back then they happily wiped out the idea of ancient cultures to share the benefits of western education and integration into the western economic model. And there was no shortage of people who thought that was progress and missioned on that basis. Kill the Indian in him and save the man. Its a huge ask to say hang on this time it really is for progress cause we really want to help whereas before they thought they were helping but they were wrong.
Its just such an unnecessarily high minded and 19th century attitude and pretending its otherwise is unnecessarily confrontational and seeming to seek division. Disastrous approach men.

LikeLike

Reply
que - December 20, 2013: While being someone who truthfully did appreciate the ‘perspicacity and significance’ of the piece I am unconvinced that the undemocratic nature of the party might be an issue. In a party of 200 someone has take charge and give direction, whether the issue having a ‘healthy and vigourous’ debate on it or something else would be likely to lead to utter chaos.

The main problem is that in a piece about the SP in 2013 there is a clarification of why exactly Lenin choose the slate system and who an understanding of that might be useful in understanding the structural problems the SP faces today.

100% behind MarkP on this – anyone seeking to criticise the SP by using arguments about the what and why of the Bolsheviks is not usefully contributing to the solution but I would go a bit further and say they actively a part of the problem.

Commenting that Lenin did the same but look the motive was different or amongst the Bolsheviks prior to the revolution there was a vibrant internal debate is not a useful contribution and left the analysis down.

We cannot recreate 1917 Russia and 1917 Russia is not the same as 2013 Ireland though broad themes may be common the degree of variation is extreme.

Would the SP be in a better place having arguments about the intentions of Lenin and the internal life of the Bolsheviks post and pre-revolution.

The question does not need answering surely.

LikeLike

Reply
Ed - December 21, 2013: Well que, as if to confirm my point above about this sometimes being the way the debate has to be conducted in a certain milieu – I saw a leading member of the SP dismiss the people who wrote this statement, on the grounds that they published it on the Spirit of Contradiction website, and one of the people who is most involved with that site has written some articles that take a positive view of Karl Kautsky’s contribution to Marxism (not my cup of tea but that’s another day’s work), so therefore, through the relentless logic of guilt by association, the ex-SP members are Kautskyists, which is the German for ‘Menshevik’. So we’re back to railing against the danger of Menshevism in a few easy steps. If you think it’s odd to be citing Lenin in the context of today’s political debates, citing Kautsky as some kind of bogeyman is one step further down the same road, he’s not exactly a household name, even for people on the left.

Now this sort of thing might be grand if you just want to put a hex on people and avoid responding to what they’ve said, but it doesn’t really count as a response. The stuff about how the Bolsheviks really organized could have been left out of this statement, the core of it is an argument about the way the SP organizes itself, which is very similar to one that was made by another ex-member in an article for the Irish Left Review a while back. What they say about the SP’s organizational culture is either true or it isn’t true; they’ve made a number of specific claims, such as there being no real political discussion in the branches, conference delegates effectively being selected by the leadership, the leadership being re-elected without any challenge year after year etc. Either that stuff is true or it isn’t true. It would be a bit more convincing if someone came back and said ‘actually, that’s not the way it is, we do have real political discussions among the membership’ rather than just calling them Kautskyists.

LikeLike

Reply
WorldbyStorm - December 21, 2013: That’s to me the crucial takeaway from all this. In truth any organisation that represents or seeks to represent workers, or even just be an expression of same, should operate clearly and openly. Even if procedures are different to what might be expected it is untenable that those who would perhaps wish to join them (or if they want to attract workers to join them) don’t have information about them. How can a decision like that be made in an informational vacuum?

Claims were made, they’re very easy to refute, or even simply to explain.

LikeLike

Reply
CL - December 21, 2013: Regardless of the level of working class consciousness, elite vanguardism is unnecessary in an advanced capitalist society like Ireland?

LikeLike

Reply
Mark P - December 21, 2013: The Socialist Party does operate clearly and openly. There is no mystery about its procedures or its structures.

The basic unit is the geographical branch. There is an annual decision making conference. Delegate ratios are so high that pretty much anyone who wants to be one will be, and all other members are invited to conference with speaking rights anyway. The leadership bodies are elected by a method to be determined at each conference (this has been both by slate and by individual). Not that the method is particularly relevant when the organisation is small and the leading bodies large anyway. Major decisions are discussed in the branches, or at general meetings (aggregates), often to the point of tedium.

To give an example someone directly asked about above, in the period when the Socialist Party was moving towards leaving the ULA two meetings of my local branch were devoted to discussing it, then there was a special conference session. And then there was a national committee meeting where any rank and file members who had expressed dissenting views or otherwise taken an unusual interest in the ULA were invited to attend and participate. That included dmfod and I, by the way.

I could go on in detail, arguing with people here about each tendentious claim and accusation endlessly, but really there would be absolutely no purpose in doing so. As far as I am aware, there is not one person participating in this discussion here who is remotely likely to consider joining the Socialist Party in the near future, regardless of what our internal structures are like. Because they dont share our core politics. And in general, we simply could not care less what our political opponents (as many of the more hostile commenters here might be politely described) or the mostly nice but ineffectual and depressing Teachers Club Left milieu think about how we organise. We don’t give care how they organise and we don’t care about how they think we should organise. Which, incidentally is why I won’t be responding again to the outraged squeaking this comment will no doubt provoke,

The views of the six people who wrote this document were discussed inside the SP when they left seven months ago. This included inviting them to address a members meeting of the SP on their views after they had left. At this point however, very much later, nobody in the SP has the slightest interest in getting involved in back and forth squabbling with any of them. They made their decision to leave, that’s their right and good luck to them in whatever their new project is.

As far as that Facebook comment you mention is concerned, yes that was a silly line of argument. But silly lines of argument know no distinction of political organisation or current when it comes to snidey Facebook bickering.

LikeLike

Reply
WorldbyStorm - December 21, 2013: MarkP, only this year I asked for an outline of the procedures and structures of the SP, out of sheer curiosity, not as a stick to beat it with. None was forthcoming.

Nor is it possible from the website – the public face to the world – to determine these structures or procedures. So for say someone interested in joining there’s little or no information on them, which is a real deficit.

So in that respect, and given this is a site where there are often daily interactions with SP members, it’s inner workings have actually been quite a mystery.

Your outline is very useful, but it would also be helpful to understand what are the leadership bodies (okay, I’m presuming the broad account in the original statement is correct that it comprises of an NC and so on but if that’s incorrect it would be useful to know) and what is the relationship between them and with the branches, etc, how they are elected, how long is the tenure of people on them (i.e. a year, more, how often are elections to them), etc.

In a way – because the SP is not a coercive organisation, participation is voluntary and people are free to leave as they see fit I’m probably less exercised than some on all this. That said, and you yourself have expressed some reservations here on this thread already, slate systems are problematic, in the WP for example, for all its faults, names of those on the CEC and other bodies were openly published every year at the Ard Fheis, etc…

One last thought. You’re probably right that there’s no one participating in this discussion who is thinking of joining – but there will most likely be those who are not commenting but lurk (and that’s a significant cohort) who may feel differently, and they’ll have this and other threads to return to in effective perpetuity.

Now, perhaps you’re right that some are opponents and some are nice but ineffectual and depressing and regardless of internal structures opinions won’t be swayed. But for those who are in neither camp I suspect that pictures will be built up, assessments made and decisions taken precisely on a range of issues including structure, tone, ‘core politics’ (which in my own experience is difficult to detach from either structure or tone, etc, etc).

LikeLike

Reply
Jolly Red Giant - December 21, 2013: WbS – there is a repeated (ad nauseum) assertion about the ‘mysterious’ nature of the SP – there is nothing mysterious about it.

As Mark pointed out – branches are organisaed in geographical areas – branches elect a branch committee to organise the business of the branch. Most branches meet once a week to discuss a political topic and local political issues plus branch activity for the coming week. Branch meetings last 90mins to 2 hours.

Each branch elects delegates to the Annual conference – and as Mark points out – the delegate to members ratio basically means that anyone who wants to be a delegate can attend as a delegate. Individual members can also attend with full participation rights except for the right to vote. Even non-members who have expressed an interest in joining can attand and participate. The conference is open (except for the financial section).

For the first couple of decades the National Committee was elected by the slate system whereby the outgoing national committee would propose the incoming slate and anyone who disagreed would have to propose an alternative slate for consideration. That is no longer the case and hasn’t been since before the ‘foundation’ of the Socialist Party. The national committee can still propose members for the incoming national committee, as can branches and even individual members (indeed a member can propose themselves without a seconder). Delegates vote on a member by member basis. Occasionally there are no extra candidates proposed outside of the national committee proposals but a vote is still conducted. There are (usually – a maximum) 28 members on the National Committee – including 3 members of Socialist Youth and at least 1/3 from the North.

Branches and individual delegates can propose motions and/or position papers that are distributed to all members prior to conference, discussed in branches and voted on at conference – motiosn and position papers can even be put forward during the conference if delegates (or observers) regard it as appropriate.

When necessary aggregate meetings of branches are held to discuss particularly important topics / issues. On occasions the SP will even allow non-members or ex-members to attend and propose alternative political positions to the SP membership (as happened in the situation seven months ago).

Along with the National Committee there is a National Executive that is elected by the National Committee for the day-to-day running of the SP. There are also two regional committees – one for the 26 counties and one for the six conties that have delegates from each branch. The NE, NC and RC can also invite members to attend as obervers as they deem fit.

At any time during the year any member can propose a motion to a branch or a position paper to a branch for discussion. Even if the branch rejects the motion / position paper the member has a right to request it be sent to the national committee for discussion – can request it to be circulated to other brances and can ask to attend branch meetings to discuss it.

Any number of members if they are in disagreement with the political position or methods and approach of the SP can at any time – if they deem it necessary – form a faction with full factional rights within the SP. Any member or group of members who feel their rights are not being properly represented have a right to request the intervention of an appeals committee (which comrpises of six rank-and-file members who hold no party position) to investigate their concerns.

All of this is outlined in the party constitution that is lodged with the registrar of political parties.

Now – at any time the membership of the SP can decide to change the structures of the SP – it has done so in the past (including in opposition to the position of the NC).

So it is not secretative – it is not complex – and (some could actually argue) is overly democratic. The SP is the most democratic political party on the island. At the end of the day – the internal workings of the Socialist Party is a matter for the members of the Socialist Party – not the musings of other lefts who 1. have no interest outside of curiosity or 2. are politically hostile to the SP. The SP will operate in a way that is in the best interests of teh SP and its membership – not on the basis of what other lefts (and non-lefts) claim it should be doing.

LikeLike

Reply
Liberius - December 22, 2013: It must be stated that the registrar of political parties does not publish the party constitutions that it receives thus it is of no help what so ever to anyone hoping to understand the internal workings of a political entity on this island; that may not be directly the problem of the socialist party seeing as they are not responsible for the actions of an Oireachtas controlled body, but, surely it in it’s own right could facilitate transparency by publishing it’s own constitution on the website it runs which also must be point out is much more sophisticated than the websites run by others. That being said this isn’t a problem exclusively associated with the socialist party as the only parties of the left in this state whose constitutions I’ve been able to find are the CPI’s and the WUA’s, which I’ve linked below, although WSM’s ‘Administration documents’ might form a third if we can excuse the aptly anarchic nature of their presentation.

http://www.communistpartyofireland.ie/bunreacht-en.html
http://wuag.wordpress.com/constitution-and-rules/

LikeLike

Reply
WorldbyStorm - December 22, 2013: I guess given Mark P’s declaration that he wouldn’t say any more someone had to enter the fray, but it is interesting that you have jumped in given your lack of engagement on this thread here from a while back…

Weekly Worker Article on the SP

…when you simply didn’t answer the questions on party structures and processes raised by others or my own direct questions. Indeed you were quite unequivocal about it when you said…

As regards the mechanism for electing the leading bodies of the Socialist Party – again WbS – while you might be curious and my replying might satisfy your curiosity – it really is nobody’s business other than the membership of the Socialist Party.

Let’s also be clear, I didn’t say the SP was ‘mysterious’. Unfortunately, and no doubt unintentionally, you’re misquoting me. I suggested that the inner workings are quite a mystery – that’s a distinctly different point.

And so they were, those inner workings – you said way back when, it was nobodies business but the SP’s membership.

Truth is until today we’ve had no clearish outline of how the SP organises itself – from those within it.

Now, one small question I have as to your latest response, can you explain why it is that those who have left are adamant a slate exists but you are adamant one doesn’t?

And just to +1 Liberius as regards the fact that the registrar of political parties does not publish party constitutions, something you mentioned on the previous thread.

It is entirely reasonable for people to be curious. A party or organisation or formation that sets itself up to represent in whole or part the working class must expect that the working class – either in its entirety or in individual elements of same, will want to know precisely and in detail how it is organised on their behalf. I wouldn’t join a credit union that didn’t make clear how it was organised, or any other body. The idea that political parties which seek to exercise – at some point or another – state power are somehow different is absurd.

As I said in my previous comment, I’m not that fussed how the SP organises and arranges its affairs. If you have a slate system or not, well well and good if people realise that’s the way it is from the start. I do however, and this goes for all those parties that don’t make public processes and structures, think that it necessary to be open and transparent.

In fairness both you and MarkP have come on here and been open this evening which is enormously to your credit and that of the SP more widely.

LikeLike

Reply
Pasionario - December 22, 2013: Why not publish the party constitution and the names of party officers? Seems pretty basic to me.

LikeLike

Reply
Jack Jameson - December 22, 2013: Socialist Party activists who are dismissive of non-members’ interest in how the party functions and decides policy and campaign actions should also remember that while we may never actually join, some of us (as I have consistently) have voted SP.

I think that entitles our curiosity to be satisfied even if some in the SP think they have no obligation to the public they seek to represent.

LikeLike

Reply
WorldbyStorm - December 22, 2013: That’s a crucial point Jack re voters and their entirely legitimate expectations – and indeed the fact that many, probably most, of us here will have given a 1, 2 or 3 to SP candidates at local, national and European elections. Otherwise the relationship becomes an hierarchical one where the party bona fides have to be taken on trust. That works only so far. In a period like this where people rightly are deeply sceptical of focuses of power – however sincere those involved, and those involved in the SP are sincere – it’s simply untenable.

LikeLike

Reply
Johnny Forty Coats - December 22, 2013: It’s important to distinguish between formal structures and the actual practice. I’ve no doubt the constitution of the Workers’ Party looked very democratic on paper, with no mention of the role of the industrial cumainn in changing policy behind the backs of the rank and file members, and no mention of the role of “group B” in special activities.

Where the SP is concerned, all the evidence provided by former members indicates that the selection of branch delegates by the leadership and the presentation of a recommended list of candidates to conference are common practices, although I’m willing to accept that they are not mentioned in the constitution.

To be honest, I’d be even more concerned about the role of the London-based CWI in vetting the policies and leadership of its Irish section. And how is the CWI itself selected? What is its membership? Who is its would-be Lenin (every would-be Comintern must harbour at least one would-be Lenin)?

To put my cards on table, I’m not a Trotskyist, a Leninist or a Marxist. I support public ownership of the financial institutions and utilities, and a significant role for the state in manufacturing industry, purely on grounds of ethics and efficiency. I respect Marx for his economic insights, but I’ve no time for dialectics and I don’t believe there are any laws of historical development. As a democrat, I wouldn’t vote for any Trotskyist or Leninist party if I thought it had a snow flake’s chance in hell of coming to power, although I might vote for one as weak as the SP is in order to provide an opposition voice to the establishment.

LikeLike

Reply
WorldbyStorm - December 22, 2013: well obviously JFC I’m in good company here, my position would functionally not be that far from yours, I’m Marxist in the sense of seeing class as a (perhaps along with gender the) key dynamic in society, but not a Leninist. Much of what you outline as potential aims I would agree with, my only thought is that within the context of democratic legitimisation (i.e. citizenshave the right to say, no as well as yes to leftist policy) I would hope the society would keep pushing leftwards.

Excellent point re formal structures and internal practice, and yes, absolutely, the WP was problematic, to put it tactfully, during this period (though I would add it had a lot more factions than people tend to think during the period I was in it from the early 1980s to the split).

LikeLike

Reply
Pasionario - December 22, 2013: Mark P: “To give an example someone directly asked about above, in the period when the Socialist Party was moving towards leaving the ULA two meetings of my local branch were devoted to discussing it, then there was a special conference session. And then there was a national committee meeting where any rank and file members who had expressed dissenting views or otherwise taken an unusual interest in the ULA were invited to attend and participate. That included dmfod and I, by the way.”

But no ballot, right? That’s the crucial thing. The rest looks like window-dressing for a decision already taken by the higher-ups who then invite members with “dissenting views” to be lectured about why they’re wrong.

LikeLike

Reply
Pasionario - December 22, 2013: JRG: “At the end of the day – the internal workings of the Socialist Party is a matter for the members of the Socialist Party – not the musings of other lefts who 1. have no interest outside of curiosity or 2. are politically hostile to the SP. The SP will operate in a way that is in the best interests of teh SP and its membership – not on the basis of what other lefts (and non-lefts) claim it should be doing.”

It’s remarkable that you never mention the people who VOTE for the SP. That constitutes a clear interest in a political party which merits more respect. Because without them, you lot would be nowhere. But I guess that’s just “bourgeois democracy”.

There is also the small matter of the public money which the SP receives like all other parties with elected representatives. You are entitled to it. But we are entitled to a bit more transparency in return.

Clare Daly made some similar criticisms on her way out the door, if memory serves.

LikeLike

Reply
Bob Smiles - December 22, 2013: SF TDs or MPs not the key decision makers – kitchen cabinet around the beard and the Belfast leadership make the major decisions. All of them members of what the stickies called group b

LikeLike

Reply
Ed - December 23, 2013: Well that’s where it gets interesting, and where it would be worth talking about SF’s internal regime in its own right; coming from the background of being an armed nationalist movement obviously gives them some special features that you don’t get with most political parties in Western Europe. As far as I can see, that’s one reason why you haven’t had any organized opposition to the SF leadership, people who don’t have a military record won’t carry as much weight in the arguments. But even so, it just ends up being another factor pointing in the same direction, towards the same outcome; if Adams and co want to bring SF into coalition after 2016 they’ll get what they want, if they could stand down the IRA against a much trickier internal opposition, they’ll be able to manage any dissent from the membership over this. That’s my impression anyway.

If and when Adams steps down and the ‘kitchen cabinet’ takes a step back, it’ll be the likes of McDonald and Doherty who you’d expect to take the reins. Anyway this is all just in response to CMK asking why people aren’t talking about SF as much as they are about the SP. They should be, and I’d expect people to talk about SF more and more as we get closer to the next election if they’re still holding steady around 20%. But maybe it’s harder to find a hook for that kind of discussion when you don’t have any kind of dissent from members or ex-members coming out in public. Que is probably right in saying that you’re less likely to get internal dissent when things appear to be going well and the party is growing, and when you don’t have much internal dissent, the question of how the party organizes itself doesn’t really come into play so much. But if there’s no dissent, they’ll march all the way into government in the South and make damn all difference to the way things are run.

LikeLike

Reply
11. HS - December 20, 2013: The Craig Murphy article is here:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/972/socialist-party-ireland-not-for-the-public-domain

LikeLike

Reply
Johnny Forty Coats - December 20, 2013: It’s revealing that a representative from the London head office, Tony Saunois, was present to argue that the complaints of those who resigned were “rationalisations for their abandonment of Trotskyism” and to lay down the line on the failure of the ULA and CAHWT.

No political group that is answerable to foreign body will ever develop into a mass party in this country. Fraternal relations on the basis of equality and independence are fine, oversight and interference in the internal affairs of Irish parties are completely unacceptable.

LikeLike

Reply
richotto - December 20, 2013: The story of John Thrones expulsion pointed to this relationship in a very stark way. According to his account it was a simple matter of the powers that be in the CWI taking the decision over the heads of the SP.

LikeLike

Reply
que - December 20, 2013: Johnny, thats not very international of you. There is no head office but simply a location with more comrades who are all part of a shared global movement. What you call oversight and interference is nothing of the sort.

Chetony on labour in Ireland:

#Ireland Labour support melting like snow in summer. 6% in the polls. Miliband’s future with austerity policies in government.

Somehow it got back to Uk politics but remember thats a facet of the same struggle so its not that they can be myopic about Ireland and refocus it back to the home front its that we maybe aren’t international enough

LikeLike

Reply
Johnny Forty Coats - December 21, 2013: That’s very true Richotto. For those who may not be familiar with the background, there’s a revealing audio interview (14 minutes) with John Throne here:
http://dublinopinion.com/2009/11/19/john-throne-on-the-cwi-and-expulsion/
Another aspect that comes through very clearly in the interview is the CWI’s Mormon-like approach to missionary work, with John Throne going to preach the gospel among the American infidels.

Que, I can’t quite decide whether you are being ironic or not. The Trotskyist sects model themselves on the Communist movement in the era of the Comintern, but when Communist parties slavishly changed their policies to accord with the latest line from Moscow, they were at least surrendering their critical faculties to a Russian leadership that was governing a major world power and that might have been in a position to render them some practical assistance in the future. Our Trotskyist sects, in contrast, are happy to operate as the Irish franchises of London-based bodies that have crashed and burned spectacularly in their home market.

LikeLike

Reply
12. revolutionaryprogramme - December 20, 2013: My view on this – http://revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/response-to-the-socialist-party-resignation-statement/

Executive summary:

These kinds of statement are useful as they are an opportunity to assess what lessons have been learned by resignees and what political direction they are heading in. A document by a group of revolutionaries leaving the SP/CWI would start with an analysis of the genuine method of the Transitional Programme and how far it departs from the alternative minimum-maximum programme put forward by the SP/CWI and would move onto a detailed critique of the reformism in practice that results from this.

Unfortunately the bulk of the document is instead spent outlining details of the bureaucratic practices of the SP. As a result it is of some limited interest; however as a rounded political critique of the SP/CWI it is very weak.

LikeLike

Reply
que - December 20, 2013: I cannot understand what you are saying truthfully. What exactly do you mean by a minimum maximum programme?

LikeLike

Reply
revolutionaryprogramme - December 20, 2013: If you read any of the SP’s major public programmatic statements (election manifestos, budget submissions etc) then what you have is a detailed set of radical demands that outline a reform of capitalism (the classic “minimum programme”) with references to working class socialist control of society tacked on the end (the “maximum programme”) with no organic and coherent link between the two.

That is what I am referring to.

LikeLike

Reply
que - December 20, 2013: ah okay thank you for that explanation. I think thats a valid criticism to make. I cannot understand the process by which the SP expects to switch stages from a very small group to alarge group capable of effecting a revolution. I can’t see the plan beyond a sense of faith in the idea that something like the Anti-austerity-alliance will somehow catch on and before you know it the Socialist Party will be a real player. I can’t understand the faith that such an approach will work.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark P - December 21, 2013: That you can’t see how such an approach can work is hardly a surprise, que, as it doesn’t make sense and isn’t the Socialist Party’s approach.

The Socialist Party does not expect to be “a real player” under current circumstances and does not put forward any short term plan to become one. We are well aware that we are a small organisation, with views and goals that are shared by only a small part of the population. We think that in the process of a substantial fight against austerity that many more people will be open to more radical ideas, but even in that context we would not expect our small party to be suddenly transformed into a “real player” in mainstream politics.

What’s more, even when we do see (as we certainly hope we will) substantial steps towards a working class party with mass support, we would only expect an enlarged SP to be one current inside that. We would advocate our views, but in all likelihood a new party of real substance would contain a mish mash of different views and would at least in its earlier stages probably be dominated by reformism (at least that’s been the general experience in Europe).

That the SP is relatively modest in its understanding of its place in the world, while being very confident in its views, seems to confuse quite a lot of others on the left.

LikeLike

Reply
que - December 22, 2013: Okay so if there is to be a new party for which the Socialist Party is one component and able to still advocate its views but doing so in a party likely to be more reformist in its nature than the Socialist party would itself be then how is that going to work . If you are going to push a reformist line then do it right now and become bigger now.

I have two major issues with that plan:

(1) If the ULA could not be made to work then why would you expect an actual party would.

(2) What is going to draw groups who are more reformist than the SP into a single mass party where the SP remains a tendency when given all the history of the SP in Labour or in the ULA every other group in the new party would be asking themselves what happens when we disagree.

You’d be asking people to believe that the new party was actually the new party (and not a ULA). You’d be asking people to next accept that the SP would agree to do things it didn’t like, more reformist acts, and not walk away.

I think its a fair enough approach and it does answer my stages of growth question for your party but I think its not going to be easy to do.

LikeLike

Reply
13. Kevin Higgins - December 21, 2013: Poem dedicated to Kevin McLoughlin (and his fellow politburo members) in celebration of their latest great success. “When you read Animal Farm, it’s to see / how the pigs did it.” http://www.mentioningthewar.blogspot.ie/2013/11/issue-16-of-wordlegscom.html

LikeLike

Reply
Bob Smiles - December 22, 2013: Don’t give up the day job

LikeLike

Reply
14. CL - December 22, 2013: Because dogma is the enemy of truth the quest for certainty always ends in an epistemic cul-de-sac; hence the fragmentation and factionalism of the left in the face of one of capitalism’s greatest crises.

LikeLike

Reply
15. PhilF - December 22, 2013: One of the characteristics of the Bolshevik Party was that minority opinions were allowed to be expressed publicly, for instance in the party press. Is this the case in the SP?
Phil

LikeLike

Reply
16. richotto - December 22, 2013: ” At the end of the day – the internal workings of the Socialist Party is a matter for the members of the Socialist Party – not the musings of other lefts ” (JRG)

Its a pity having gone to some effort to explain the internal SP system JRG ends on such a negative note. Incidentally no mention of the role that has been played by CWI in the implementation. Even the old USSR sounded from its adherents perfectly democratic on paper. The proof of the pudding is in the implementation and there has been a regular supply of those willing to take issue with the official version.
In fairness any party looking to assume responsability in public life should be held accountable for its internal democratic structures. For most parties the only clear exercise of authority that can be discerned is that over their own members. If they do not play fair by their own how could outsiders expect to be treated properly given the opportunity of power?
Furthermore the SP would be depending on a pool of left wing voters, contributors and canvassers on an ad hoc basis.

LikeLike

Reply
WorldbyStorm - December 22, 2013: Good point re the negative note. Still it’s good that they have been so informative.

LikeLike

Reply
Jolly Red Giant - December 22, 2013: I said to myself when I was writing that post – ‘should I make the effort?’ – on reflection I shouldn’t have bothered – the usual suspects will always find fault.

LikeLike

Reply
WorldbyStorm - December 22, 2013: JRG don’t be downhearted, your effort was both timely and appreciated. You most certainly should and did bother.

LikeLike

Reply
17. richotto - December 22, 2013: Fair enough. There was an effort to engage by some pro the leadership line SP people but its a bit unreasonable to suggest that by bothering deal with the questions raised at all that should instantly satisfy the objections of alleged anti democratic practice on the ground by those who having dedicated a large part of their time and rescources and have felt the need to resign or been expelled. Apart from SF and some former members I don’t notice proportionately anywhere near as much similar bitterness and allegations of foul play around other parties internal workings. These things are not said that easily.

LikeLike

Reply
WorldbyStorm - December 22, 2013: Though in fairness to the SP that could be because in relation to other parties people don’t feel there’s a way of changing them, whereas perhaps those who leave the SP feel that there is in that case? I always think that the level of hurt can be indicative of a sort of affinity to a party even/particularly when people walk.

LikeLike

Reply
Jolly Red Giant - December 22, 2013: Let’s be clear about something – I am not engaging with anything in the issued statement.

The stuff in the statement is nothing new – in fact it could be a copy and paste from other statements of former members of the SP (and many other left organisations) in the past. I was addressing one point and one point only – WbS’s assertion that there was some ‘mystery’ around the internal workings of the SP.

Now – I have no interest in prolonging this thread – and will not comment further apart from the few words below.

I am not ‘pro the leadershp’ of the SP – I think richotto is reflecting a view of another political party where personal political ambitions and affiliation with party factions can further political careers. In fact I do not know a single person in the SP who is ‘pro the leadership’ including those in the leadership themselves.

The SP is a revolutionary party (que RP’s regurgitiation of the criticism of the SP’s ‘transitional programme’) – it is not an electoral political party. People join and people leave for a variety of reasons. I have been a member of a wide variety of different organsiations from FF (yes many years ago) to the LP (for 12 years) to trade unions to community groups to sports clubs – and the SP is by far and away the most democratic organsiation I have been a member of. People who are members of the SP have rights and responsibilities. Members have a right to raise any disagreements they have within the SP – in fact they have a responsibility to do so. When they leave they do not continue to enjoy the rights they had as members. On occasions people leave and then decide to vent their disagreements (why I don’t know – maybe it is for cathartic purposes) – but they do not then have any rights within the SP in relation to these disagreements. For the SP to engage with such issues is 1. an element of naval gazing 2. an academic exercise and 3. a distraction to the work at hand.

Some people here claim that the SP should justify all of this nonsense to the working class. This is utter hogwash – working class people couldn’t care less why people join the SP or leave the SP. The SP and its members stand before the working class on a daily basis in every activity they carry out – every campaign they engage with – every election – every trade union meeting – every time members of the SP talk to someone. Again – the internal structures of the SP are a matter for the members of the SP – no one else – the membership address and alter the internal structures as they see fit.

Last point – I have been a member of the SP for over 30 years. My membership is not based on loyalty or personal friendships or being ‘pro the leadership’. I could care less if the SP ‘lead’ the revolution as long as the revolution is successful. My approach has been the same since the day I joined – I ask the question – which political party is best positioned to assist working class people in building a mass movement of the working class towards socialist revolution? – in my view it is the SP – and I will remain a member until another organsiation, group ,party appears that demonstrates to me that it is better placed to fulfill this role.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark Byrne - December 22, 2013: There are now more TDs sitting in the present Dáil who are ex-members of the Socialist Party than actual Socialist Party TDs. That is quite an achievement. What a truly disfunctional organisation.

LikeLike

Reply
WorldbyStorm - December 22, 2013: “Some people here claim that the SP should justify all of this nonsense to the working class. This is utter hogwash – working class people couldn’t care less why people join the SP or leave the SP. The SP and its members stand before the working class on a daily basis in every activity they carry out – every campaign they engage with – every election – every trade union meeting – every time members of the SP talk to someone. Again – the internal structures of the SP are a matter for the members of the SP – no one else – the membership address and alter the internal structures as they see fit.”

Let’s be clear, it is absolutely for the SP to develop it’s own internal structures as it sees fit, even those who disagree with those structures appreciate that. But structures and processes are not something that should be kept away from easy access to query and understanding from working class people.

That’s a distinctly different thing.

My direct personal experience is that people are very sussed about these matter and while you rightly say in the main they don’t care who joins or leaves an organisation my experience is that they are a lot more exercised about the nature of an organisation.

And they know as well as anyone that these aren’t academic things. That structures and processes generate outcomes, they see that in their workplaces, in unions, in business, etc. etc.

If you seek to represent people, if you go before them and ask them for a vote, if you assert a right to speak for them then at the very least one has to be open and transparent to them. Otherwise it’s just an hierarchical relationship with some in the know and most not. That’s not, I’m certain, your intention.

LikeLike

Reply
que - December 22, 2013: ‘ The SP is a revolutionary party ‘

ah go way with yourself.

LikeLike

Reply
18. 6to5against - December 22, 2013: Whatever the rights or wrongs of their internal systems, isn’t the bigger issue here that this is linked to the tendency towards ideological purity that will always debar the SP and others from any form of coalition and/or government.

That’s not to try to slag them off. They can – and do – have a role outside government. But do they themselves see a route to power outside of revolution.

LikeLike

Reply
que - December 22, 2013: Well I would think MarkP’s post under post numbered 12 explains the non-revolutionary route.

I think this ideological grounding is too extreme (and in this I am going to refer to the criticism).

A movement without an ideology would be useless but something with too much ideology is more about a personal revolution, and egoists revolution. I have my view and if you disagree theologically we can push you out because the ideology is so pure its really a question who can match with it.

That’s certainty alright but then how big will it ever become and naturally enough will someone who disagrees on a few things have a place in it. But are those who leave equally as bad. If the procedures of the Socialist Party are to be microfounded on lenin and the Bolshevik era are they not looking to create their own personal ideology process whereby if you couldn’t prove its historical antecedent vis-vis Lenin etc then it is not valid.

Not only will that debar them from govt. it will debar them from power via a revolution because for the conditions to be so dire that a revolution would occur (and we can see that means worse than Greece is right now) there will be multiple other parties rapidly growing to response to the actual events who wont have the same very exclusive ideological rigours.

So if this ideological rigour will hold them back now, keep them out of govt. and have them as also rans in the event of an actual revolution then whats the point of it – the purity, not the ideology.

Whats driving this need for ideology?

LikeLike

Reply
19. john throne - December 24, 2013: For those interested in discussing the incorrect internal life of the revolutionary left groups and the wrong perspectives we all shared over the past two to three decades please check out the blog weknowwhatsup.blogspot.com. There you will find a number of documents from the Workers International Network which is a group of us trying to learn the lessons of the past and from our own mistakes. I was the first member of the CWI, then Militant, in Southern Ireland in 1970. I was the first full timer in the organization in all of Ireland. When I left in 1983 it had around 400 members. Now it has around 100 or slightly more. Some serious mistakes were mad.

I was partly responsible for some of the mistakes that were made. I would be interested in discussing these. I was expelled from the CWI in 1996. People like Joe Higgins supported this expulsion in order to protect their own positions. There are more people who consider themselves revolutionary socialists outside the left groups than inside them. There is something seriously wrong with the revolutionary left.

John Throne.

LikeLike

Reply
20. Johnny Forty Coats - December 26, 2013: Those with a particular interest in the topic might like to know about a recent academic study of what was probably the Militant tendency’s high-water mark:
http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/1521

I haven’t read it.

LikeLike

Reply

	Hamid on Broadcasting moratorium…
	Hamid on What you want to say – 15th Ma…
	Tomboktu on Another attack on election…
	Tomboktu on Broadcasting moratorium…
	irishelectionliterat… on Another attack on election…
	Hamid on What you want to say – 15th Ma…
	6to5against on That Irish Labour campaign…
	Paul on That Irish Labour campaign…
	Wes Ferry on That Irish Labour campaign…
	Wes Ferry on That Irish Labour campaign…
	Tomboktu on That Irish Labour campaign…
	Tomboktu on That Irish Labour campaign…
	Michael Carley on What you want to say – 8th May…
	Et Pluribus on What you want to say – 8th May…
	banjoagbeanjoe on That Irish Labour campaign…

The Cedar Lounge Revolution

Resignation statement of a number of members of the Socialist Party December 19, 2013

Comments»

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Admin Controls

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Culture and Society

Discussions

Left online magazines

Links

Political formations

Polling Resources

Resources

Taking a well-earned rest

Contact Us

Archives

Pages

Cedar Lounge Revolution on Twitter

Feeds

The Cedar Lounge Revolution

Resignation statement of a number of members of the Socialist Party December 19, 2013

Share this:

Related

Comments»

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Admin Controls

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Culture and Society

Discussions

Left online magazines

Links

Political formations

Polling Resources

Resources

Taking a well-earned rest

Contact Us

Archives

Pages

Cedar Lounge Revolution on Twitter

Feeds