Stephen Morgan
A number of comrades have expressed their shock and sympathy
over the issue of my “sacking” from the CWI. I had thought of just leaving it
there, but I've concluded that I should explain what happened in context and
thereby get it out of the way, once and for all so to speak. I am not trying to
push this on anyone, so just ignore this article, if you like. However, I think
it will give another angle on what happened, because I was indeed part of the
Taaffe clique, which later attacked John, Roger and many other comrades, and
then turned on me. Therefore, I think some of my stories might help illustrate
things from an “insider's” point of view, as well as add to the articles already
written by comrades.
My “sacking” was, in fact an expulsion by other means. The
reason was that the Taaffe group had no grounds to justify my expulsion before
the membership and my illness gave them an ideal opportunity to wield the
scalpel. At the time, I was suffering from nervous exhaustion after the
difficult underground and semi-open work in the Stalinist states before and
during the counter-revolution. I was also drinking too much though that never
happened “on duty.” Excessive boozing was very much a part of the culture in
Militant, including among the very top full-timers. I was still a very capable
comrade, who needed time off to convalesce and I remember you made personal
point pf trying to help me in practical ways at the time.
I was later diagnosed with bi-polar disorder, luckily not
the severe type, and now, thank God, the Doc things its over permanently, as I
have been free of any symptoms for a number of years. In 1990 I had only a few
symptoms and, anyway, it is not a crippling disease if you know how to deal
with it. Plenty of people work in very high positions and cope with it. In my
defense, I invoke the fact that I'm in good company with other bi-polar
sufferers like Jack London, Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Ernest Hemingway,
Mark Twain and celebrities like Catherine Zeta Jones and Robin Williams. Its
very common among all sections of the community, not just celebrities, who are
useful only as popular examples to demystify it.
Lenin suffered a nervous breakdown after the split between
the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks and was unable to work for a year. Trotsky
also suffered what appeared to be a serious depression in 1925, when in his
words he took a year off from politics. The same was true of many other leading
Bolsheviks.
Incidentally, Lynn Walsh suffered from terrible depression
for many years, undermining the amount of work he could put in for the
organization. He would often not arrive at the British centre until mid-day and
leave early. I remember him saying to me some time before that he wouldn't wish
this illness on his worst enemy. Roger Silverman, now leading the WIN group has
also courageously admitted to a period of serious depression out of which he
finally emerged due to the right treatment.
Why do I mention this? Firstly, because there is a lot of
ignorance and prejudice about mental illness and it is necessary for some of us
“to come out” in order to counter that. Secondly, because shop stewards at the
workplace must defend members from bosses who exploit a person's illness to
sack them and, thirdly, because I don't underestimate the readiness of certain
people to use it in an unscrupulously in order to try to undermine my
credibility politically.
But the clique knew that, just as much as they couldn't
justify expelling me for anything, they couldn't say to the members that they
sacked me because I was ill or exhausted. So, a story was concocted out of part
truths and lies. After the phone call to dismiss me in Cyprus, I went to
Brussels rather than London, where I had a developing relationship with my
future wife. Halima had been a comrade, but not very well integrated into the
group. Using subtle sexist and racist undertones the story was spread that I
had left the group to go live with my future wife, Halima.
I discovered this when I attended a European youth demo
which comrades had organized against racism in Brussels. On route I bumped into
Bob Labi. (I've always liked Bob and I can't say he was responsible for any of
this) Anyhow, he told me that the Austrian comrades were searching for me. The
Austrians were particularly “close to me,” as I had set up the Austrian section
some years before. Bob said they couldn't believe I'd left full-time work and
wanted to see me and what sort of “exotic” woman could have possibly enticed
Steve away from full-time work - “exotic” I suppose because Halima was
Moroccan. So, in fact, people didn't know I had been sacked. Instead, it seems
a tale was spun that apparently, I had been hypnotized away by a
belly-dancer!!!!!
But, what was also interesting, is that, I don't know for
sure, but it seemed that Bob Labi, another IS member and part of “our” clique,
thought that was also the reason I “left” and didn't know I'd been sacked. The
reason I mention it is, because there was mostly definitely a clique within a
clique in the IS, a “triumvirate” of
Peter Taaffe, Lynn Walsh and Tony Saunois, who prepared the plans in advance of
the shadow IS. Myself, another international full-timer and obviously Roger and
John were little more than fellow travelers, with whom they would part ways
later.
But why was I “sacked”? Other comrades have alluded to the
fact that other leaders in the CWI at the time didn't want independent
thinkers, who could challenge their authority politically and weaken their
monopoly on power. This applied to the leaders in both factions in the CWI
split. At the first incling of a split I unhesitatingly went with Taaffe. When
they called me in Budapest to secure my loyalty, it was almost a forgone
conclusion. I was not a person who liked old habits of behavior or thinking. I
was a fighter and Taaffe was a good tactician, who created a campaigning
organization. Moreover, it was a change of an epoch, which needed people to
“think out of the box” and to act adventurously, in order to make the best of
it.
However, that was also my downfall. I was an independent
thinker and sometimes went my own way outside the CWI centre. In Hungary,
before the counter-revolution, I entered the Communist Party and won over a
youth section in the capital. In Yugoslavia, I worked with a dissident Navy
Admiral. But that wasn't so much the
question, as the problem that I had a tendency “to think before being
told” rather than awaiting the decision
of the high priests. I had a habit of raising issues in sections before I had
approval and agreement of the IS in London.
What annoyed me a great deal was that the conclusions I drew
from my experiences on the ground were considered secondary to the
theoretically worked out position of the IS or EC. I was certain from my work
in Yugoslavia, that it was moving towards disintegration and civil war, but
that was considered alarmist, because I
failed to recognize that the political level of the masses was far higher now
due to the progress of unification and the gains of the planned economy.
But even more seriously, when we discussed the problem of
the capitalist counter-revolution at a meeting at the international centre,
(and comrades know that the Grant/Woods wing excluded capitalist restoration in
the Soviet bloc and Taaffe and Lynn Walsh argued for it.) I put forward another
opinion that following the collapse of Stalinism in the Soviet Bloc, the
deformed workers' states in the 3rd World would also soon disintegrate and face
capitalism restoration. Even Taaffe and Walsh had not really considered this or
formulated a position on it.
So, I was immediately jumped on by both sides, who lectured
me with the old “wooden” perspective, that because of the relatively new
character of the regimes, their planned economies had the ability to develop
for decades and they would only fall when their own bureaucracies had become
“an absolute fetter on the economy. And, by that time, I was told this could
become a political revolution, which would again coincide with revolution in
the West. Yawn, yawn, yawn.
Another example of dangerous “thinking for yourself” was
during my work in Ireland. At a CC meeting in Belfast in 1987, I raised the
idea that the new EU investment in Ireland might stimulate the economy and lay
the basis for a boom. To give them their due, the Irish comrades had always
been a bit more independently minded than the British section and there was a
mixture of some emotional denial of the possibility, some confusion, but no
dogmatism or aggression. One comrade argued it was impossible on the grounds of
the massive unemployment and poverty, while some mulled it over and others
looked to Peter Hadden for guidance. Peter himself accepted that it was a
possibility worth serious consideration.
Anyway, remember! That's not what you were supposed to do!
Whether it was the question of the deformed workers' states or boom in Ireland,
or whatever, you could not raise such points for discussion unless they had
been discussed 5 times at the IS (or more often it was the British EC which
decided the IS position), it had been rubber stamped by Peter Taafe,
undersigned by LynnWalsh and, at that time, sprinkled with Holy Water by Ted
Grant.
However, they couldn't move against me immediately because I
was a valuable ally against Grant and Woods, in the CWI office, in the UK and
among CWI sections. When I was called back from Hungary, it wasn't because of
political reasons. It was because they wanted all hands on deck to fight the
internal battle and make absolutely sure that those who seemed to be with them
would not step out of line. As far as they were concerned, the consolidation of
new groups in Eastern Europe could go hang. The victory of the clique came
first.
It was important that I was reigned in tight and quickly.
The cohesion of the British section was not only threatened “vertically” but
also geographically. I believe that at the time, the Scottish turm and then the
establishment of a Scottish section was also linked up with Taaffe's desire not
to include members of the Scottish leadership in the British EC. Taaffe, it
seems, suddenly became hypersensitive to the National Question. Now, it's quite
amazing to look back and remember that when Militant was a British section, the
extremely capable Scottish comrades were never given representation on the
British EC. It was entirely English (except one Welshman).
Of course, you could argue a revolutionary party is not
federalist, but the Scottish leaders were hardly even ever invited to London
for discussions. If you are so sensitive to the National Question, that you are
going to make such a “concession” such as the break up of the British section
and support the creation of an independent Scottish section., I think it would
have been possible to bend revolutionary rules a little before that on national
minority representation in the EC. I believe the problem was that the Scottish
leaders tended to be independent thinkers and strong characters, who weren't
going to be pushed around. That's not something that Taaffe likes to deal with.
A factor related to that, and why I was “reigned” in
quickly, was a potential problem with the Welsh comrades. Both Woods and Rob
Sewell were Welsh and Ken Smith, another Welshman in the national leadership
joined their group immediately. I am also Welsh. So, if I had also joined with
Woods group, there was a potentially powerful group of Welsh leaders, who could
influence the Welsh comrades. Taaffe was very worried that they could face big
problems in Wales. That didn't materialize, but it was delicate situation for a
while.
However, I had been at war with Woods from the moment he
returned to live in London from Spain and long before the split. Comrades would
gather near the door to listen to the showdowns I would have with him. I got to
know him and his methods very well and they were no better than Taafe's turned
out to be. But, I was in an unusual position. With the exception of Peter
Taaffe, I had good relations with all the other comrades in his clique and
considered a few of them, like Tony Saunois and Bob Labi as personal friends.
But being the way I was, I always sort of had one foot in the clique and one
foot outside. I never really fitted in and preferred to observe from without as
well as from within.
Comrades didn't know but the split was being organized by
both factions secretly, long before open factions developed. I was part of a secret, shadow IS chaired by
Taaffe, which operated entirely independently of the structures of the CWI and,
indeed, of the British section and took totally independent decisions from the
legitimate bodies. It wasn't a faction initially, simply a secret group around
part of the leaders deciding how to maneuver against Grant and Woods and use
others, like John Throne and Roger Silverman as temporary tactical allies.
John and Roger were regarded like outsiders and unreliable
misfits, who didn't fit in and couldn't be trusted. They were both evaluated
and talked about in the same manner comrades sometimes rather haughtily discuss
potential new contacts for joining the organization. Their strengths and
weakness were discussed and it was evaluated what they are capable of, what
their political level was, what sort of commitment they had and any problems
they might pose. There were lots of personal jibes against both of them,
attacks on their record as full-timers, dismissing their work and devaluing
their contribution. I was told that they'd past there prime and weren't up the
tasks of the moment. Roger's work in the Indian sub-continent was rubbished and
the work of John in US was equally dismissed as a failure. This was all part of
an attempt to consolidate me and a few others. In a cult, it's a psychological
tactic. The insults at others are part of your initiation into the secrets of
the high priests, to flatter you and ake you feel important by implying you
were a better comrade than the two of them put together.
The tone was already one of they were expendable, but that
for the moment they had to be mollycoddled into supporting us to defeat Woods
and Grant. Had Roger and John sided with Grant and Woods, Taaffe knew his group
would have been seriously undermined in Britain and internationally. In my
opinion, the future expulsion of John and the removal of Roger from the
leadership was already planned at this time in broad terms and they had already
decided to look for the opportunity to get rid of them once the split had been
carried through.
The problem with me was, you can't have one foot in and one
foot of a clique. You are either in or out. And if you decide you're in, then
you have to sell your soul to the devil. They were never entirely sure with me
about what I would do and if they could count on me to act as they wanted. I
proved them right at an exceptional CWI meeting of different sections on the
question of the split. While supporting Taaffe politically, I attempted a sort
of last ditch attempt to find a compromise with Ted and Alan. I didn't want to
see the CWI split up so I made a rather futile suggestion that Ted and Alan remain
in the organization, but concentrate their time on theory and writing only. I
went to discuss with the Spanish and Italian sections over whether they would
support this idea. Worse still, I got up and made a last appeal to Alan and Ted
to stay.
That put my nail in the coffin. I had no intention of
joining Woods and Grant because I agreed politically with Taaffe. But that just
wasn't good enough. My political support for Taaffe never wavered. John may
remember a Belgium CC meeting where I ripped into Alan Woods politically, for
about 30 mins, especially over the Liverpool question and the Scottish turn.
But as far as the Taaffe clique were concerned that wasn't
good enough, especially with their vision of
a future where they wanted to be left unchallenged by independent
thinkers and people with the courage to act on their own. I had broken rank
publicly with the clique and acted on my own without reference to any of them.
They knew that once the split came, the internal crisis
would mean that even in Taaffe's section, that the flood gates would open and a
surge of free thinking and critical analysis would ensue. This would be the
case not only in the British organization, but throughout the sections of the
CWI. Obviously, a clique like that couldn't allow independently-thinking,
international full-timers like John and Roger and me to go roaming about on our
own. There was the obvious danger that we could become poles of attraction for
democratic factions and our political authority and ability to organize could
seriously undermine Taaffe's unassailable position.
I was also very well-known in the British section, as only a
few years before, I had been the LPYS representative on the Labour Party NEC. I
had also worked a lot in Ireland, both North and South. I had excellent
relations with the Irish comrades. I had gained respect in the North as the
only international full-timer, who had worked there consistently during the
Troubles. Myself and all the comrades in the South also got on very well and I
was respected there. Even two years ago, when I was applying for a job, Joe
Higgins didn't hesitate to give me a reference from the European Parliament.
I think the problem for Roger, John and myself was, that we
didn't think in the same ways as Peter Taaffe and his entourage. Even after the
Woods/Grant split, I think we all remained a little naive and trustful.
Perhaps, we felt that most of the problems stemmed from the IMT and that after
the difficult and unpleasant affair of the split was over, things would be
better, even much better than before and open and honest discussions would
flourish without any dirty tricks.
We were wrong, of course. Looking back, it is ironic, just
after Militant had been the focus of a witch hunt by the Labour bureaucracy, a
similar “witch hunt” took place inside Militant's own ranks with the aim of
also extinguishing free debate and democracy. Who was more ruthless is anyone's
guess. The witch hunt spread internationally through the CWI and, on the same
criteria, of being independently-minded, leaders of sections in the CWI, who
posed a potential threat to Taaffe were likewise removed.
I hope that this look back may be of some use in
understanding what went on. But, I felt I had “to clear my name” once and for
all and I sincerely hope that I wont have to come back to it again in the
future.
Stephen Morgan
June 29th 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment