05.07.2000

Socialist Party

Turning the tables

This article is intended to provide Socialist Party comrades with an update on the state of play regarding my appeal against expulsion.

There are two reasons why I have decided to use this paper: firstly, the ideas that I outlined in 'For democratic centralism' make it clear that I regard open discussion and criticism, in front of and involving the advanced layers of our class, a matter of the highest principle. Considering the entire motivation for my expulsion was hostility to the politics implicit in this stance, I consider it important to remain intransigent on this question. (That an increasing number of SP members, if my correspondence is anything to go by, are reading the Weekly Worker is also a factor!)

Secondly, the last time I sent a group e-mail to SPers - in response to Ian Page, comrades may recall - one Derek McMillan complained to my internet service provider and requested other recipients do the same in order that my account be shut down. He launched his attack from the safety of the Committee for a Workers International internal discussion list. This is the same comrade who, as a school teacher, was recently involved in a protest against his local education authority's policy of restricting the access of students to politically 'sensitive' web sites! Such hypocrisy!

This, of course, is fairly typical of the way in which the majority of SP loyalists handle political dissent. The bureaucratic manoeuvre, the underhand ruse. By contrast, I believe these people and their politics should be dragged - kicking and screaming, if necessary - into the light of day. Members and advanced workers can then clearly decide as to the correctness of this or that side's politics. As Lenin put it, "There can be no mass party, no party of the class, without full clarity of essential shadings, without an open struggle between various tendencies, without informing the masses as to which leaders and which organisations of the party are pursuing this or that line. Without this, a party worthy of the name cannot be built, and we are building it" (VI Lenin CW Vol 13, Moscow 1977, p159).

The bureaucratic method informs the behaviour of an entire layer of SP loyalists. We only have to look at the ducking and diving they deployed in place of open and principled discussion during the LSA campaign to see the damage they are visiting upon our party.

As to the specifics of my trial and appeal, it was originally the intention of the Peter Taaffe leadership to restrict it to 15 minutes at the forthcoming national committee. It was pretty clear that they originally intended to bury the matter as quickly and as painlessly as possible. The email I received from Ken Smith, EC member responsible for my region, was particularly revealing: "We envisage that this would consist of someone from Nottingham branch outlining the reasons why the branch took the decision to expel you (15 minutes). You would then have the right to explain why you are appealing (also approx 15 minutes). There then would be time for questions or points from national committee members and then both you and the person from Nottingham branch would have the right to respond for five minutes" (May 30).

My response (June 5) was as follows: "Regrettably, I do not find your proposals at all satisfactory. Firstly, in your initial letter and also in the letter I received from Charlie Taylor [Nottingham branch secretary] I was given to understand that I would be allowed to appeal to either the NC or the Appeals Committee. Now it seems that that choice has been removed. It would be foolish for anyone to pretend that the investigation and the resulting expulsion was not directly linked to my document 'For democratic centralism'. Indeed, it was this document that precipitated the sorry chain of events resulting in my expulsion. Given the NC's opinion and subsequent reaction as articulated by yourself, it seems that the NC cannot possibly be expected to hear my appeal in a fair and impartial manner. Any Appeals Committee is designed precisely to arbitrate on exactly questions of this nature. Therefore I must insist that the Appeals Committee be the body which hears my appeal.

"Secondly, given the ridiculously limited time frame in which you see the process being constrained, it would also seem sensible for the Appeals Committee, who will only have this item to deal with, to hear my appeal. Frankly, 15 minutes is insufficient to present even the bare outline of a case.

"Also, as my document and expulsion are linked, I must insist that all written material pertaining to the matter is made available. Specifically, this would include the minutes from the NC meeting of November 13-14 1999.

"Also, the following minimum conditions should be met:

• that any written submissions, statements and evidence supplied to the hearing are made available to the membership;
• that a full, verbatim record of the hearing is taken and made available to the membership;
• that I have the right to call witnesses and that this does not encroach on my allocated time;
• that I have the right to representation from a comrade in good standing.

"Finally, as I still have not (incredibly!) had written confirmation of my expulsion, I think it is reasonable to ask for this and to request that written confirmation from yourself be forthcoming regarding the above points. Also, a date for the hearing would be helpful ."

That such correspondence had to take place at all reveals, in my view, the rotten, anti-democratic regime in the SP under comrade Taaffe. An attempt by the leading body in the party to set itself up as judge, jury and executioner should tell comrades everything they need to know about the crisis in our ranks.

The fact that the most important of these demands - the right to appear before the Appeals Committee rather than the NC - was granted instantly shows, in my opinion, the political fragility of the leadership. Although I do have to thank a section of the Irish comrades for their support, raising the matter as they did through their official structure.

Comrades should be clear: this entire process - from the original 'investigation' right through to the arrangements detailed above - constitutes a political attack on the ideas contained in 'For democratic centralism'. There is no other explanation. The leadership is too gutless to commit itself in print in order to oppose what I consider to be correct, Leninist politics. There has still not been one word of political criticism. Instead I was banned from circulating the document, witch-hunted and expelled. The leadership stand exposed as politically and morally bankrupt.

The campaign against me is clearly one of a piece with the worrying sectarianism displayed during the GLA elections. The leadership are dragging the best traditions of our organisation through the mud. Who can doubt that they have forfeited the right to lead? It is my intention to appear before the Appeals Committee "not as the accused but as the accuser".

As for the left opposition, to be launched over the next week, the leadership have only themselves to blame, as the fiasco around the LSA has proved to be the final straw for many comrades. I have been asked to 'front' the opposition, as 'You are expelled. They can't touch you, but we know what will happen to us if we are identified.' While I will certainly comply with this request, it is surely a damning indictment of our party regime that comrades need to resort to such secrecy.

One final point: I would like to thank the many comrades that have sent messages of support. However, such support, while appreciated, is useless under the cover of darkness. Comrades need to direct protests at the leadership and/or at the very least join the opposition.