IMT cultist thinks expressing opinions is a ‘privilege’

IMT member Jack Shaw, cultist and ex-comrade of mine, who was with me in the Warwick branch (in which I can confirm that he was a conformist dullard with very little politics of his own and very little idea about anything), has commented on Twitter proclaiming that expressing opinions in a political organisation, which should be a basic right of being in any such entity, is a ‘privilege’ to be gifted by the benevolent leadership:

There's also a question of democracy. A large group chat or circle runs the risk of bypassing the organisation's democratic processes.
Also the right to broadcast your opinion to large numbers requires a lot of discipline and should be a democratically-acquired privilege

— Jack (@bolshawvik) August 9, 2023

He acts like the Warwick branch didn’t have cliquey group chats where people were badmouthed and slandered without any due process or democratic process whatsoever, including yours truly. Ha. Indeed, in the run-up to my leaving, I know for a fact that a group chat was formed containing Thomas, the branch secretary, Ben, and Lorenzo, another member of the branch, to discuss my dangerous political disagreements. (They were part of a sacred circle who were the only ones I was allowed to discuss my dissent with.) Who knows what wild slanders and accusations were thrown at me and what conspiracies for my destruction were hatched? (If I had done anything equivalent to that, I would have been expelled for bypassing democratic structures.) I left that toxic groupuscule before they actually had to do anything. When I saw that they were using the ‘rulebook’ (which was conveniently hidden from me until I raised disagreements) in a cynical way to isolate me and prevent me from being heard, I just thought to myself, what’s the point? They’ll probably expel me anyway. Best to leave now. My research on Trotskyist organisations online had led me to the realisation that I would just end up like previous dissidents in these groups, and that I was wasting my time. I do not regret my decision.

It is a strange interpretation of ‘democracy’. A ‘Sunday School’ Bolshevism where you must put your hand up to be allowed to speak and only do so when given the nod by someone in authority. (Let us bear in mind that no one in the Bolshevik Party prior to the 1920s followed such a ridiculous schema for raising differences.) A former member has replied to this idiotic tweet, linking an excerpt where Lenin spoke about what democratic centralism actually means. Unfortunately for him, Jack doesn’t read, so he might be wasting his time there. In fairness, the stultifying ‘political education’ of the sect would be enough to put anyone off reading. By the way, I was told when I joined (and every new member is told the same thing) that branch is the place to express differences if you have them, as it is more in line with the ‘democratic process’ than private conversations in group chats etc. Yet when I raised my differences I was told not to do this as it was disruptive to the unity of the organisation, so it’s clear that even if you try to use the ‘democratic structures’ you can still be denounced for trying to subvert the democratic structures! (As countless dissidents in the IMT and other Trotskyist organisations, including the IMT members who raised hell over the rape cover-up in the Canadian section, can testify.) Whatever you do or don’t do will be used against you and you will be slandered and hounded out anyway, even if you play by their rules.

This is one of these things that makes me realise I am closer to liberalism than socialism. I prefer J.S. Mill’s belief that we should always protect the dissident and let him be heard, even if it is not to the liking of the majority, than the moronic position expressed above. If that makes me a renegade, so be it. Trotskyist ‘democracy’ either ends up being the tyranny of a bureaucratic clique on the one hand, or the tyranny of the majority on the other. I prefer to live under neither of these arrangements, nor does the overwhelming majority of the human race.

Expressing your opinion should be a right of every civilised society, not a reward granted in return for loyalty. Speaking of which, I was a loyal member for two and a half years and dedicated time, money and energy to ‘building the organisation’, but I still didn’t deserve to have a say apparently. It doesn’t matter how dedicated and devoted you are – you have no rights beside those the sect chooses to grant you. The IMT is telling us a lot about the kind of society they would create if they took power. I want no part of it and will be on the other side of the barricades when they make their ‘revolution’. (Not that that will ever happen.) Anyone who wants to know more about how these wretched organisations truly operate should read a post I made on the matter a while back.

In closing, I would like to quote Dennis Tourish on his experience in the Irish section of the CWI (the predecessor organisation of the IMT, back when its British section, Militant, was still extant). Tourish was a full-timer for about six years and had been a member for five years before then, making about 11 years membership in total. All this loyalty and dedication over many years was not enough to save him from being hounded out by Peter Hadden and his acolytes. His crime? Raising his differences in a one-on-one, private correspondence with another member and trusted friend, John Throne. (Something Lenin himself did on many occasions!) It is worth quoting him in full:

Most people who have disagreements with the CWI leadership walk away, figuring that the hassles of exercising their democratic rights to disagree render it not worth the effort. A courageous few, principally John Throne, took a different stand – with somewhat depressing results. It does not seem to occur to SP member that when so many people evidently disagree with the leadership but balk at openly discussing it, this could be indicative of a very serious problem in terms of how their party is organised. I can think of few other organisations where factions are ‘allowed’, but no one chooses to form one; where people are encouraged to openly critique the leadership, but so many decide not to; where debate is tolerated, but anyone who tries it gets expelled or slandered; where the leadership can be recalled and replaced, but a general secretary stays in post 40 years; and where if anyone leaves, whatever their record, it is entirely their fault and a blameless leadership can continue sailing blithely towards destruction.

For example, it is now raised that I did not openly raise criticisms of the CWI before leaving. This is supposed to demonstrate that I am in some way an evasive and nasty person, who does not discuss things openly – ergo my critique of the CWI now must be invalid. There isn’t even a shred of formal logic in this reasoning, never mind dialectics. Leave aside that it is my arguments about the CWI that count, not my personal history – such topic shifting distractions are normal for this organisation. It also seems to be raised here to suggest that the CWI has an impeccable democratic regime, but that countless numbers of fools inexplicably fail to avail of it. Funny, that.

The details of why I left are too boring to go into in much detail. I apologise for rehashing them here at all. They are only important insofar as they further illuminate what the internal life of the CWI is really like, and refute the distorted impression SP member is trying to create of its tolerant internal regime.

The idea that I did not try to raise my concerns within the organisation is ridiculous. To summarise: I was very concerned about the behaviour of the leadership in Northern Ireland, particularly the arrogant and authoritarian behaviour of Peter Hadden. These problems had been discussed frequently and informally by leading comrades in the area over a number of years – maybe SP member would regard this perfectly normal activity as some kind of impermissible manoeuvring (it wouldn’t surprise me). I went one step further, and frequently discussed these issues with the man himself. The pattern was always the same. He would initially deny there was a problem, then agree enthusiastically that I had a point, and to give him credit make some effort for a few days to be a normal human being – before reverting once more to type.

My mistake at this stage was to imagine that the problems of authoritarianism were his personal failings. I did not see that that they were actually systemic to the organisation and part of a flawed model of party building – in this, as in other things, Hadden is only a faithful echo for his guru, Peter Taaffe. I apologise for exaggerating his significance.

When I moved to Dublin, in 1983, I received several phone calls from very anxious and long-standing members still in Belfast complaining that the problems were getting worse. (Interestingly, they have all long since left.) So I raised the issue with Dermot Connolly and Joe Higgins, at that time the two other people who sat with Hadden on the then Political Committee (effectively, its top leadership). They were horrified at my suggestion that the problem was so bad it should be discussed openly and frankly on the central committee, and then possibly amongst the wider membership, although they also agreed that this gentleman did indeed have fundamental problems in terms of how he related to the membership. Their argument was that to discuss it would disorientate people! In other words, a party would only be built if everyone could be convinced that it was led by a monolithic, infallible and all seeing leadership, arriving at identical conclusions by a process of osmosis due to their alleged mastery of the Marxist method. They urged me to drop it, and said they would oppose any attempt to openly discuss this inside the organisation. (Remember: SP member argued that the SP leadership desperately wants all these kinds of problems to be openly discussed. I am reporting here on their actual horror when anyone tries to do so.) In this case, rather than encouraging any such thing I was told that I risked having my political reputation destroyed if I proceeded, and that such was Hadden’s political importance in Northern Ireland they would support him, even if they agreed that his leadership style was creating enormous problems.

In some despair, I then wrote a purely personal letter to John Throne, explaining what had happened and asking his advice on how to raise these questions openly in the Irish section, as was my intent. John was away at the time and I don’t think even got the letter until much later. But comrade Hadden did get his hands on it, and started a heresy hunt against me. He actually heard about it because, rather than conspiring, I openly told Dermot Connolly and Joe Higgins I had sent it. Remember: this was a personal letter to a friend, no different to the many letters Lenin wrote before 1917 to his friends in the Bolshevik party (and incidentally Lenin defended his right to a private correspondence with any member of the party he wished). But the argument against me was that I had somehow violated the norms of democratic centralism, had manoeuvred criminally against its leadership, was angling for Hadden’s post for myself (God forbid), and was in general a despicable person. If memory serves me, John himself was accused of being party to my completely non-existent conspiracy, and slandered within the wider international organisation for his alleged involvement. Others were told that John had started a conspiracy, and that I was one of his willing stooges in Ireland. Facts were neither here nor there. A subsequent meeting of the then EC passed a resolution condemning my alleged manoeuvring. I am sorry to say that in my own disorientation at that time (what the hell was going on here?) I voted for it myself.

I was much younger and more naive in those days, and had less idea of what it was about then than I do now. I wish I had gone forward with my case, though I know it would have ended in my expulsion. But the problem is clear -an internal regime completely intolerant of dissent, in which the leadership is paranoid about open discussion, in which no effort will be spared to destroy the reputations of anybody openly taking on those who support Peter Taaffe, in which formal guarantees mean nothing, in which every act of dissent is seen as disloyalty at best and the open face of a conspiracy at worst, and in which the leadership is actually petrified of open discussion in front of its own members never mind the working class.

Now, this case is not terribly significant initself. It is only important in that many, many ex-members could tell similar stories – moreover, the ex-members of innumerable Marxist-Leninist organisations could do the same. Please note the pattern. There is never is a right way to go about raising dissent in the CWI, or any similar organisation. You inquire about how to openly raise an issue, but the big guns of the leadership try to talk you out of it, and tell you that you risk the destruction of your political credibility if you carry it forward. You talk to people informally (a perfectly normal activity) – this is a conspiracy. You write to them instead – you are by-passing official structures. You raise it on a committee – you should have informally discussed it first, rather than risk disorientating the membership. You submit a critical article to the Internal Bulletin, but are denounced for not discussing it informally (at the risk of starting a conspiracy!), before committing your views to writing. But whatever you do, it will be wrong. The trick is to make your despicable behaviour in how you express your dissent the issue, rather than engage with the dissent itself. The full weight of the apparatus is then mobilised to destroy the person concerned. Unless you are Peter Taaffe, Hadden or some other Leader, in which case whatever you want to do goes. I am certain that Finn and Clem faced similar pressures, and as busy people with a real life and above all a sense of proportion figured they had better things to do. I personally just felt demoralised, and left for a breather which has thankfully turned into a long and more satisfying alternative life.

I would be not be at all surprised if SP member or someone tries to refute my account above. They might even now say that my antipathy to the organisation is inspired by hostility to Peter Hadden – more psychoanlaysis, which is no more valid when it comes from the CWI than it was when Freud practised it. In point of fact, I am very grateful to the man. If he hadn’t been what he is, I might have stayed longer, and wasted even more of my time. I publicly offer him my thanks. But the facts are as I outline them here, and I will be not be drawn into a detailed cut and thrust on it. It is in any event certainly the case that many members believe that if they try to raise these types of issues then something similar to what happened to me will happen to them. These fears are well founded. This is why so many people play such a critical role, and then seem to vanish into the ether, having decided not to utilise the CWI’s marvellous machinery for internal democracy. This is the real reason for the absence of factions, the absence of debate – and in a wider sense, why, rather than it being greater than ever before, the influence of the CWI is weaker than ever before.

My motivation in writing on the subject is the hope that activists other than the CWI leadership, those interested in genuine social change, can learn from the failures of the Trotskyist party building project and begin to explore better and more effective forms of organising. The CWI is no better and no worse than many other similar organisations that have sidetracked the energies of people struggling to create the social change that is so clearly needed. There is a need for a fundamental reappraisal. SP member is hung up on the shibboleths of the past, and seems congenitally incapable of imagining that there is a different way to behave. It is my own personal belief that the CWI as presently constituted will be little more than a footnote to mainly British political history. It is my personal hope that its many thousands of ex-members and even some of its present ones draw sound lessons from the whole experience, and in whatever struggles await us all in the future apply them to avoid creating such utterly dysfunctional forms of organisation again. Enough time has been wasted, the efforts of enough good people across the whole of the left have been squandered. Cultism in all its forms, and to whatever extent it is manifest, is part of the problem rather than part of the solution. It is time for a new beginning.