Ted Grant founder of Militant dies

by SP member Sat Jul 22, 2006 23:11

Ted Grant's dedication and hardwork to Trotskyism in Britain is an inspiration to all socialists. He will always be remembered as a key figure on the Revolutionary Left in the 20th century.

by former militant member Tue Jul 25, 2006 13:53

Peter Taaffe has posted his own obituary for Ted Grant on his group's website, which rehashed many past controversies between thhem, at

http://www.socialistworld.net/

by SP Member - Socialist Party/CWI Tue Jul 25, 2006 18:46

It is always sad to see the passing of a person who has dedicated all his life to the struggle for socialism.

As for the criticism of Peter Taaffe - much of the comments are directed at attempts by Alan Woods to use the death of Ted Grant to re-write the history of the 'Militant' and, more particularly, his role in it.

Taaffe presented a sober assessment of the role and politics of Ted Grant. Despite this sad time, revolutionary politics is not a place for sentimentality. Personally I would have used slightly more temperate language, but Taaffe is not necessarily known for his subtlety.

by socialist Tue Jul 25, 2006 19:55

http://www.marxist.com/ted-grant-obituary.htm

by Eamon Tue Jul 25, 2006 21:16

Not only is he not known for his subtlety, but his political analyses are also questionable.

I recall being at a Militant meeting in 1990, where he informed all and sundry how the '90's would be red'. If it had been a cautious perspective, then fair enough, we all get them wrong. But Taafe offered it up as an indisputable fact. Unfortunately for him, and for Militant, he was as wrong as you could be, as he has been about a lot of things since.

Re Ted Grant--he made a substantial contribution to the struggle for socialism internationally.

Yes, he got plenty of things wrong, and made his fair share of mistakes.

But I'm sure he'll be remembered as a far more significant figure than Taaffe.

by D'other Tue Jul 25, 2006 22:13

Both these obituaries are rancourous stuff. The Taaffe one really fell over itself to get the boot in on Grant's later theoretical flounderings. The Wood's one uses his barely buried body as a soap box to declare the ideological purity of the IMT and further haggle over Trotsky's bag of bones.

That description of Taafffe's lofty ambitions for the left in the 1990'sn reminds me of predictions of biblical proportion at the end of his Rise of Militant;

"One thing is clear, the ground has been prepared for colossal social and political upheavals in Britain and throughout world capitalism before this decade is out. Militant Labour has demonstrated in the past its ability to link its programme with mass movements of the working class.

"However, the dramas in which it has participated will be as nothing to the mighty unfolding of events which looms. Marxism will once more arise with such force that it will astound bourgeois sceptics and socialist "fainthearts" alike. Enriched by the experience of the last 30 years, in the tumultuous events which historically impend the ideas of Militant Labour will be embraced by tens of thousands, then by hundreds of thousands and millions."

Truly amazing stuff, no wonder little theory of worth is coming from the Trot mileu these days. I had a look at one of the links after the Woods piece to footage of his final speech to his organisation. He looked shaken, weak and far from lucid. The dedication of such people was remarkable, their demagoguery unforgiveable.

From: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/militant/mil2frame.htm...n.htm
Last Grant Speech to IMT: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-78774504820848...hl=en

by Blaank Tue Jul 25, 2006 23:43

Obituary

Ted Grant (1913-2006)
Ian Birchall

Ted Grant, who died last week, was one of the last survivors of the generation of Trotskyists who inherited the movement after the Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky’s murder in 1940.

Born Isaac Blank in South Africa, he was first drawn into politics by opposition to racism. He quickly evolved towards the tiny Trotskyist movement, and in 1934 came to Britain because he thought prospects for revolution were better here. He was soon involved in activity and took part in the famous 1936 Cable Street demonstration in London's East End against Oswald Mosley's fascists.

Because of an injury he was not called up into the army during World War II. Instead he became editor of the Trotskyist paper Socialist Appeal. It was a tough time to be a revolutionary. The Communist Party called Trotskyists “Hitler’s agents” and physically attacked paper sellers.

But while the Communists lined up behind Churchill, Grant put class first. In 1942 he wrote: “In every sphere the ruling class has revealed its complete senility and incapacity to even conduct its own war… Meanwhile the combines and big monopolies are assuming a stranglehold on the economic life of the nation.”

After the war new problems arose. The world was developing very differently from how Trotsky had expected. New analyses were needed. But when Tony Cliff - who would go on to found the Socialist Workers Party - put forward his theory of “state capitalism” Grant wrote a long reply, arguing that Trotsky’s pre-war arguments were still valid, and that Cliff’s theory meant rejecting all that was positive in the 1917 Russian Revolution.

By 1950 the thuggish Gerry Healy had taken over the main Trotskyist organisation, and Cliff and Grant were both thrown out. Grant maintained his own tiny group through the difficult period of the 1950s. Like Cliff’s group they worked inside the Labour Party. To begin with, this was not a matter of principle. As Grant’s follower Rob Sewell wrote, “Work inside the Labour Party was not based on a previously worked out strategy or tactic, but simply a matter of necessity.”

But over time it turned into a principle. The Militant (as Grant’s group became called after their paper) played little part in the campaign against the Vietnam War or the Anti-Nazi League.

But when Thatcher came to power in 1979 things began to look up for Grant’s group. The old Labour left round Tribune was in decline, the crisis in world capitalism made Marxism more credible, and Tony Benn’s campaign for Labour deputy leadership mobilised new forces.

Militant grew rapidly. In the mid 1980s it had several thousand members and three MPs. But success meant that the whole press, from the Guardian rightwards, began to denounce Militant; Labour leaders, first Michael Foot and then more viciously Neil Kinnock, launched a witch-hunt.

Often Militant supporters denied their revolutionary politics to stay in the Labour Party, claiming they sincerely believed socialism could come through parliament. Where they had won significant positions, as in Liverpool Council, these were not enough to secure real working-class victories.

Grant himself and other Militant leaders were expelled from the Labour Party. Militant went on to play an important part in the campaign against the poll tax which finished off Thatcher. But as the Labour Party moved ever further rightwards, many younger members of Militant argued that the time for work inside the Labour Party was finished. Grant bitterly opposed this, arguing that to leave Labour was like taking “a short cut over a cliff.” In 1992 Grant was expelled by the organisation (now the Socialist Party) which he had spent so many years building.

Grant was nearly eighty, but he did not retire. He and his associates rebuilt an international organisation. In the last few years his health deteriorated, but he never lost his commitment to socialism. Even a few weeks ago he was still eager to discuss developments in Venezuela.

The SWP had many differences with Ted Grant. The questions in dispute - including Russia and the Labour Party - were real and important ones. But over more than seventy years he stood by his belief that only the organised working class could put an end to the filth and brutality of capitalism. For that we salute him.

by former militant member Wed Jul 26, 2006 16:35

From today's Times
The Times July 26, 2006

Ted Grant
July 9, 1913 - July 20, 2006

Trotskyist who gave the Labour Party a scare through his leadership of Militant Tendency

AN UNRECONSTRUCTED Trotskyite revolutionary of the old school, Ted Grant was a founder and the leading force in the political group Militant Tendency, which was active within the Labour Party from the mid-1950s onwards, and caused the party leadership such serious concern in the 1970s and 1980s.

by pat c Wed Jul 26, 2006 18:55

Heres a chapter from Denis Tourishs book. Its got an extra 1,200 words than the published version. Its about the CWI but largely concentrates on Ted Grant.

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60567&res...42016

by SP member - Socislist Party/CWI Wed Jul 26, 2006 21:01

Give us a break...

not the crap from Tourish again.

by Deja Vu Wed Jul 26, 2006 22:12

SP member - give us a break. Not mindless abuse and denunciation instead of argument - yet again.

by SP Member - Socialist Party/CWI Wed Jul 26, 2006 23:22

in a comprehensive fashion.

But of course that matters little to those who just want to stir the sh*t.

by SP Member Thu Jul 27, 2006 01:58

The rules of indy which say u should not personal abuse people forbid me from telling you exactly what I think of your decision to post the link to what Denis Tourish wrote....
I just read for the first time what Tourish wrote about us and it is a carricature and a distortion from a former member of the CWI which would make a Stalinist falsifier proud. Are you prospering in your new role Denis as a class traitor?

by pat c Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:11

"The rules of indy which say u should not personal abuse people forbid me from telling you exactly what I think of your decision to post the link to what Denis Tourish wrote."

Dont use personal abuse, just criticise it politically.

" just read for the first time what Tourish wrote about us and it is a carricature and a distortion from a former member of the CWI which would make a Stalinist falsifier proud. "

If you pointed to sections of the piece which you think are false then people might take your views on board.

"re youprospering in your new role Denis as a class traitor?"

Now thats unfait. Unless you think all lecturers in Business Studies are class traitors? That could cause problems for members of some Trotskyist organisations.

I didnt post the article by Deis to attack Grant. I think it provides a better means of understanding him. Because whatever else you think of Ted Grant he devoted almost 80 years of his life to struggling against capitalism.

In the article it states that Militant fulltimers were paid a pittance but Ted Grant and Peter Taafe were paid the same pittance. That was the dedication.

Now you might think that parts of the chapter are wrong, well get down to challenging them.

by Nan Seary Thu Jul 27, 2006 13:03

'The rules of indy which say u should not personal abuse people forbid me from telling you exactly what I think of your decision to post the link to what Denis Tourish wrote'

Isn't that known as slaying the messenger? Pat C was not the author of that story which was intriguing. The story exists, you had not read it before. Why would you wish to conceal it?

by SP Member - Socialist Party/CWI Thu Jul 27, 2006 13:07

You know as well as I do that this piece of rubbish by Tourish was comprehensively answered by a member of the SP some time ago. Indeed you participated in the debate. Your interest in reposting Tourish's article, far from providing an understanding of Ted Grant (which it certainly fails to do), is to attempt to stir the sh*t. The characterisation of Tourish as a class traitor, which you object to and which I agree with, is based not on the fact that he is a management communications (not business studies) lecturer, but on the fact that he has rejected the ideas of socialism and attempts to use his academic credentials to write largely fictitious stuff about the left in an attempt to sow confusion and to undermine socialist ideas and organisations. It is not our fault that you cannot see the wood from the trees.

Seen as you have failed to supply the appropriate link, let me oblige:

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/60690

by pat c Thu Jul 27, 2006 13:15

"You know as well as I do that this piece of rubbish by Tourish was comprehensively answered by a member of the SP some time ago. Indeed you participated in the debate. "

It was answered but I doubt if anyone outside of your own ranks was satisfied with the answers.

"Your interest in reposting Tourish's article, far from providing an understanding of Ted Grant (which it certainly fails to do), is to attempt to stir the sh*t. "

That is unfounded abuse. The article gives a detailed assessment of Ted Grant.

"The characterisation of Tourish as a class traitor, which you object to and which I agree with, is based not on the fact that he is a management communications (not business studies) lecturer, but on the fact that he has rejected the ideas of socialism "

He has rejected YOUR ideas of socialism.

"and attempts to use his academic credentials to write largely fictitious stuff about the left"

You have not disproved any of his contentions.

"in an attempt to sow confusion and to undermine socialist ideas and organisations."

No, in an attempt to critique Leninist Parties who act in a certain manner.

"It is not our fault that you cannot see the wood from the trees."

Oh, I get the big picture all right, its just that mine doesnt agree with yours. You dont control my vertical and horizontal.

Theres no point in me continuing to debate with someone who does not have the courage of his convictions. Use your reall name if you want to here anymore from me.

by Fanya Kaplan Thu Jul 27, 2006 13:19

The SP/CWI have spent the last 15 years mocking and demonising Ted Grant. Why are they suddenly in love with him again? I reckon its because the Tourish story is just as damaging to the CWI Guru Taafe.

by Karl Radek Thu Jul 27, 2006 13:23

I read the piece from Tourish's book that Pat C linked and it rings very true to me having been close to the organisation in question at one time. Most of the people I knew were sound people and mostly genuine working class activists but anyone who cannot see that the cultish aspects referred to by Tourish are accurate is either being dishonest with themselves, or are still so immersed in the CWI that they do not realise it.

So much of it rings true; the claustrophobic internal life of the organisation, the pressure to part with money, the stifling conformity, the denigration and isolation of former or errant members. Brings back memories for me I can tell you! And what was worse is that it was all being done in the name of creating a world in which everyone would be free of the anti-human pressures of bourgeois society! Thankfully it did not take me long to realise the contradiction.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Thu Jul 27, 2006 16:02

I don't really see much point in getting involved in a discussion with the kind of anonymous contributor who posts up whines about left organisations on threads like these. Nor for that matter do I think there is any point in conversing with anybody so lacking in critical faculties as to take Tourish's writings seriously. That said, I'm a bit bored at the moment so I'll take the time to correct one very obvious untruth above:

The Committee for a Workers International has not spent the last 15 years mocking or demonising Ted Grant. He has been mentioned or discussed in a range of our publications in that period, always in a respectful way, mostly in a generous way and as often as possible in a balanced way. Criticising someone and their ideas is not "demonising" or "mocking" them, except in the minds of our anonymous friends who seem to be drawn to threads like these like particularly foolish moths to a particularly unhealthy flame.

As for the initial subject of the thread, I'm sorry to hear that Ted Grant is dead. For all that I think he became increasingly hidebound politically as time went on, he was by all accounts a decent man who devoted his life to the socialist cause.

by Dennis Tourish Thu Jul 27, 2006 16:07

It is always interesting to hear from my old friend, SP Member, even though it is rarely inspiring. I am afraid that his capacity for debate and discussion, and that of the CWI, seems to disimprove with time. All I will say is that my opinion of the CWI, and its attempted defence, have been debated several times on Indymedia. The links are provided in this discussion. I have no interest in rehashing them. Anyone who is curious can read the debates and make up their minds for themselves about who makes the most sense - and whether it is myself, or the CWI, which is most likely to engage in Stalinist falsification.

I don't think it adds to an understanding of anyone's position to throw around personal insults ('crap', 'class traitor') etc. But I do note the shaky CWI mentality this reveals - eg it is legitimate to demonise those you disagree with (rather than address their points), and if you impugn their motives then you somehow invalidate their arguments. It is an approach common on the Trotskyist left, and not least among the reasons why most working class people have no time for it. On the other hand, if/ when someone from the CWI has something new to add on the issues (although I do not anticipate that this will be anytime soon), I will always be happy to - calmly - debate the issues.

by Reality Thu Jul 27, 2006 16:25

I think that Tourish is the person that is bringing in false arguments and not arguing his political differences. Come Clean Denis. You don't agree politically with socialism. Why not argue this. Lets hear your poltics. Stop throwing out "cult" allegations. It's pathetic. Anyone who knows anything about the CWI/SP will know that they are not what is described by Tourish. All organisations from Residents Committees, to Chess Clubs, to Scout Clubs, to Revolutionary Political Organisations need to get new members and fund-raise. Seeking new members and raising money is normal and correct for any organisation. Guess what Denis. The CWI are a political organisation. They have a platform and a set of ideas/demands. The vast majority of members agree with that. That doesn't make a cult. It makes a Party. The clue's in the name socialist *Party*. Denis Tourish dresses up his "critique" of the CWI in academic clap-trap. He is trying to 'dazzle' with references. Any undergraduate can tell you that references to back up any argument can be found. He even puts PhD after his name. All it takes to get a PhD is money and 3 or 4 years work. It doesn't make you an expert on everything. Tourish's PhD was even on another topic!

by Nan Seary Thu Jul 27, 2006 16:33

But why the nastiness of your attack? All organisations have rules. But some organisations do not adhere to them. Are you saying that what Prof Tourish has written about did not take place? Prof Tourish is not trying to recruit anyone nor is he aiming for state power. You are. Therefore its up to you to answer the questions. If you just come out with bluster then ordinary people will only be more suspicious of you.

Getting a PhD is a little more difficult than you might think. Brains are also required. First you spend three or four years doing a primary degree; then, in most cases you spend another one or two years doing a Masters, Finally you will spend three or four years doing a doctorate. Money is certainly involved and if you are rich things are a lot easier. But most have to work part-time while qualifying and sometimes are lucky enough to get a stipend for the PhD.

by Dennis Tourish Thu Jul 27, 2006 16:57

I do not argue that every political organisation is a cult - clearly, there is nothing wrong with raising money, recruiting people to a cause/ movement, or having a clear political programme. However, I do argue that there are significant differences between how the CWI organises itself, and how most political parties, scout movement or trade unions do so. I believe, and think I have demonstrated, that its internal culture in consequence has a lot in common with cultic organisations such as the Moonies. It would be tedious to reiterate these similarities here - I have detailed them in other writings, and invite anyone interested to have a look at them. But I will highlight just the following - the CWI has an internal regime which stigmatises debate in any form that most people would recognise as being normal, and hence enforces a regime characterised by incredible levels of conformity and low levels of genuine disagreement between its members. Its leadership has an authority and power to fashion beliefs and direction that are also incredible, compared to what occurs in most other organisations. This also ensures that any substantial disagreement tends to lead to each side demonising the other, splits, disillusionment and the formation of new organisations, rather than discussion and resolution. Trotskyist organisations in general (and the CWI today is fully complicit in this) therefore tend to become organisatiosn of fewer and fewer people agreeing with each other about more and more issues. This is a state known as 'sectarian irrelvance.' There is much more, which as I have said has been rehashed in other discussions.

Am I basing my critique on 'academic clap trap?' ( an abusive expression I don't normally find in peer reveiwed journals, but which is so normal for the CWI as to be barely remarkable). Well, I draw on a lot of social psychological research into group conformity in particular to illustrate much of what I write. The CWI is not impervious to the social and pyschological processes that afflict all lesser mortals. Given that Lenin and Trotsky wrote little or nothing on these questions, I think we can learn from solid, experimental research conducted in other forums. It is, occasionally, wise to look up from sacred texts and seek inspiration elsewhere. As to my expertise, or lack of it: well, I base my analysis as much as anything on my 11 years membership of the CWI. It gives, shall we say, a certain insight! Beyond that I have a first class honours degree in Human Communication, which involved the extensive study of psychology and sociology, and a PhD in organisational communication that also remained firmly rooted in these academic traditions. I don't, by the way, think this by itself proves either that I am right or wrong. But I can't help noting that the CWI leadership in general pontificates on many issues to do with philosophy ,science and economics where its writers lack not only a PhD, but perhaps even an elementary education. This of course does not prove that what they write is 'claptrap' - but it does rather suggest that their followers should exercise a little caution in criticising people for -alledgedly - speaking about topics outside their area of academic expertise

As to what my politics are - I am afraid that is my business, and no one else's. I rather suspect that the CWI wishes me to oblige with a detailed political programme, so that when I criticise its internal regime they can deflect attention from that, and instead sound off about what I think or don't think about socialism. I have no intention of obliging them, and would merely, and mildly, point out that I don't have an internal regime to defend or take flak for; I am not building a revolutionary party and claiming the leadership of the working clkass; I do not insist that only I have the ability to protect and advance 'the genuine ideas of Marxism.' But all these are claims made by the the CWI. It is therefore legitimate to subject its practices to some critical study - when I have an internal regime to debate, we can shift the focus a little. If, on the other hand, the CWI wishes to argue that only revolutionary socialists can have anything interesting to say about the most effective ways to organise to advance discussion and debate, I can only shrug at such an elementary failure of logic and suggest that a few weeks attending classes in philosophy for beginniners might be beneficial.

by Former Militant Member Thu Jul 27, 2006 17:30

Another obit on TG from the Weekly Worker thsi week, organ of the Communist Party of Great Britain

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/635/grant.htm

by Rosa Thu Jul 27, 2006 20:48

Though not directly related to this debate about the CWI, the most recent issue (July 2006) of Leftline, online publication of the Irish Socialist Network, includes an article on the problems of internal organisation and democracy within left groups, from a non-Leninist marxist perspective.

http://www.irishsocialist.net/

by Karl Radek Fri Jul 28, 2006 09:43

Reality claims that the CWI have rules in the same way as Chess Clubs.

A Chess club would not vilify and ostracise former members, the CWI does.

A Chess club would not imprison or execute those former members if they had state power, the CWI would. And anyone who doubts this is ignoring the reality of every Marxist revolution since 1917. Thankfully, however, the very nature of the CWI and similar organisations will ensure that they will never take state power, short perhaps of the nuclear cathastrophe fantasised about by some of thier leaders.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Fri Jul 28, 2006 11:01

As stated above I have little or nothing to say to or about Denis Tourish, a man whose views and claims I am unable to take in any way seriously. I do however want to make a point about one remarkably dishonest element to his argument because it also plays a role in many of the arguments of the kind of hostile anonymous contributors who love these threads so much.

These people like to make the claim that the Socialist Party "demonises" its critics, oddly enough always using the same word. What makes this claim so remarkably dishonest is that the people claiming to be demonised are in all of these threads the people who began arguments by claiming that the Socialist Party is a cult and that therefore Socialist Party members are cultists, unable or unwilling to think for themselves. When these false, malicious and quite outrageous statements raise the ire of socialist activists, Tourish and his anonymous friends instantly fall back on the claim that they are being "demonised". Who exactly is "demonising", who here?

by Dennis Tourish Fri Jul 28, 2006 11:45

Mark raises an interesting point about demonisation. I think there is a fundamental difference between our respective usages of the term. I believe that when I describe the CWI as cult like in its internal dynamics, I provide facts, evidence, interview data, quotations from documents, quotations from ex-members and research in general to back it up. The difference between me and the CWI is that the latter simply throws around terms of abuse without any of this - thus, so and so is 'past it'; so and so is 'a class traitor', so and so talks 'academic clap trap.' There is a difference, and perhaps it is one that is obvious to anybody whose mind is not befuddled by cultism and who occasionally seeks the fresh air of genuinely open debate.

It might just be worth pointing out as well that I am not the only one who is openly critical of the CWI's fairly ghastly internal regime - it is a concern widely expressed by people, even if they don't draw all my conclusions. In feeling that all such criticism can be ignored, which is of course his right (we are all entitled to be wrong), I think that Mark inadvertently provides some supplementary evidence that his world view is rather insular, and deeply mistaken.

Incidentally, an excellent book has recently been published on cults, which has a lot of fascinating material on a particularly horrible California Marxist group (of which the book's author was once a leading member), known as the Democratic Workers Party. The full reference is: Lalich, J. (2004) Bounded Choice: True Believers and Charismatic Cults, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN: 0-520-24018-9

People interested in these issues might find some of it of interest.

by hs - sp Fri Jul 28, 2006 12:53

One could argue politically that the sp is over centralised and there is not enough horizontal organisation, aggregate meetings etc. But to push that over to it being a cult, is an incredible way to put it across.
Its hardly suprising members would take offence at this and be unsophisticated in their response. If you like dennis start the converstion with you are a cult member, you shouldn't be suprised with an offended party member and a rude response.
Comparisons with chess clubs etc is a little silly too. the SP isn't a chess club it's a political party, arguments therefore are politica and a little more serious, at least i've never heard of a split in a chess club for idelogical reasons!

My own take on it is we cannot seperate parties and groups from class struggles and the lessons people learn from such struggles, its hardly suprising there is not much factional disagreement within the Sp at the moment or that members are taking part in internal struggles, when their is little external struggle taking place. People involved in trade union struggle would take this into the party and vice versa.

Its also hardly suprising a party as small as the sp (and its smaller than most people realise) is not full of divergent factions arguing different positions.

Put to put this across as a cult is a step to far, your average FF or FG member has no say within their party, The sp does have structures, which may need dusting off! But they are there.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Fri Jul 28, 2006 13:01

The utter dishonesty of the above would be staggering Denis, if I expected anything better from you.

It would be perfectly open to you to make a case that the Socialist Party or the Committee for a Workers International has an undemocratic structure or that some aspect of its decision making process or attitude offends you. I would disagree with you and argue with you in a more or less reasonable manner depending on the nature of your criticisms and what I would regard as your reasons for making them. (That is - I would be less likely to spend time discussing these issues with someone outside of the left with no interest in the wellbeing of the socialist movement than I would with somebody actually or potentially sympathetic to the idea of a socialist transformation of society).

The fact is that you choose not to take that path. Instead you use terminology which can only be taken as insulting (or "demonising" as that's the term you seem to prefer) and which can only serve to cut off rather than open up genuine debate - cult, cultists, etc. Again that's your choice, and I'm certainly not in favour of denying your right to make your hysterical and oddly embittered allegations. What I do find amusing though is that when somebody rises to your baiting and has a go at you or (horror of horrors!) describes what you are saying as "clap trap" or something similar, you immediately resort to squeals about being "demonised".

Now it could be that you just have a remarkably thin skin, something which would at least fit with your faintly desperate need to brag about your academic credentials, but I have to admit that I suspect that instead it is simply a typically dishonest debating trick. It allows you to play to the gallery claiming that the mean old Socialist Party is victimising you, despite the fact that nobody in the Socialist Party had the slightest interest in you until you started making your bizarre smears about "cults". It also allows you to bait someone by falsely claiming that they are a cult member and then, when as will often happen they get grouchy about your insults, to use their irritation as further "evidence" of their cult membership.

The fact is Denis, that by falsely labelling the Socialist Party a cult, you attempt to delegitimise its politics and "demonise" its members. And, as your refusal to outline your own political views strongly implies, you do so from a political perspective which is hostile to revolutionary socialism. In this you are part of a long tradition of anti-socialist polemicists, many of them also people who regret their radical past and have turned to attacking the organisations and views they once belonged to and held. I don't question your right to do that, but equally I am not remotely outraged that such vitriol is met on occasion with contempt.

I have now wasted fifteen valuable minutes of life on you Denis, so rest assured that you won't be getting any further responses from me unless I get very bored indeed. I fully expect some typically patronising response from you and probably even some more whining about being "demonised". Feel free to amuse yourself as you wish.

by Dennis Tourish Fri Jul 28, 2006 13:04

Thanks HS for the tone of debate rather than abuse. However, it is evident from what we have both written here that neither myself or the CWI have anything new to say on this issue. I think that when your organisation's internal dynamics are discussed at length, and the issues located in a wide context, those of your members who think shouting things like 'crap' (to pick a milder expression that has been used over the years) is an appropriate response do your cause little service, and certainly do little to clarify the issues. If the issue of your internal dynamics is worth discussion, then discuss it - but while to hurl abuse around without even the pretence of an argument may be quite normal for the CWI, it serves only to suggest more strongly to others that there is something wrong with your practice. There have been occasions when CWI members such as yourself have risen above this, but it certainly is not the norm. In any event, with no new ground left to cover on this issue I will be leaving it alone, unless someone has something both new and substantial to add.

by Dennis Tourish Fri Jul 28, 2006 13:10

Peopel can make their own minds about Mark's treatise: most of it is frankly risible. I will correct him only on one point. I was challenged for writing about the CWI because it was claimed that my PhD was in areas outside anything to do - presumably - with psychology and human behaviour. I provided information to correct this. Mark is welcome to see this as boasting if he wishes - I see it as setting the record straight.

by Observer Fri Jul 28, 2006 13:26

There is a wider problem here than Mark's comments care to acknowledge. The CWI tends to think that insulting anyone who criticises it is a good response - and by insult, I mean throwing around words like 'shite', 'crap' and much else, with no attempt at arguing a case. There is a difference between abuse and polemics or debate - in the latter, you dissect someone's case, offer counter-evidence, lay out a logical argument. And you keep personal abuse out of it. But there has been a lot of personal abuse evident on this thread, and much more on others. It is plainly nonsensical as a method of approach. It does not win friends and influence people.

Mark also seems to imply that only those who are revolutionary socialists should be debated with in a respectful manner when they raise concerns about the internal regimes of revolutionary socialist groups. I find this very, very bizarre as an argument. Most people are not (yet) revolutionary socialists, and remain to be convinced that they should be. Many of them will have reservations about democratic centralism or the history of the left, or a hundred and one other things. Is Mark seriously suggesting that anyone not yet won to his side who has reservations and dares to express them should be told to fuck off? Is he also seriously suggesting that if psychologists or anyone else who has insights into how groups can function better, drawn from academic research, says something about these issues, their ideas are invalid because they are not revolutionary socialists? This is also, logically spekaing, nonsense.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Fri Jul 28, 2006 13:40

Observer, I can only suggest that you read my comments a little more carefully. If you do you will find that I stated: "I would be less likely to spend time discussing these issues with someone outside of the left with no interest in the wellbeing of the socialist movement than I would with somebody actually or potentially sympathetic to the idea of a socialist transformation of society". I have helpfully highlighted the part of the statement you seem to have missed the first time around.

So no, I am not implying that "only those who are revolutionary socialists should be debated with in a respectful manner when they raise concerns about the internal regimes of revolutionary socialist groups". To do so would obviously be nonsense. I regard it as a basic point that we should do everything we can to argue with and convince those who are not yet socialists of every aspect of our case. However, like everyone else I have limited time and energy. I don't think it's often a good use of either to get involved in lengthy discussions about such matters with people who are virulently hostile to everything I believe in. That includes people who are not asking questions out of concern for the wellbeing of the left, but who are instead making false allegations with the intend of delegitimising and yes, even "demonising" socialist organisations.

I hope that answers your question.

by Observer Fri Jul 28, 2006 13:52

Mark - thanks for the clarification. But I remain unconvinced. The problem I see with what you say is that most people are in fact 'virulently opposed' to what you believe! The left has become so isolated in the past two decades. And if you are to succeed, you need to win them over - thus, there are millions of people who voted Tory in the last election in Britain that will need to become socialists, if you are to assume power. How can you do this, if you say that there is no need to debate/discuss with people who are 'virulently opposed' to what you say? If they weren't your opponents, you wouldn't have to engage in a process to convince them of every aspect of the socialist case - they would be there or nearly there already. And very many of those people (as with many in the Green, socialist and other movements) have serious reservations about how revolutionary socialist movements have organised themselves and conduct internal discussions.

by By Any Means Necessary Fri Jul 28, 2006 15:48

"serious reservations about how revolutionary socialist movements have organised themselves and conduct internal discussions.."

With out doubt some so called revolutionary socialist movements have classed themselves as elites which mirror the ruling elites which they hope to replace...in this they are not movements, as a movement surely has the support of the working class and exists because of this.

Observer I however cannot agree with you that debate with the millions who voted Tory in Britain, as the so called democratic process in capitalist societies does not give the voter any choice in changing the political and social conditions.

A truely revolutionary movement exists outside the "democratic process" in order to replace this false process with "workers democracy".

The conditions for revolutionary change in capitalist societies are always right. It is up to revolutionaries to show solidarity with the oppressed and show them that power must rest in their hands and not in the hands of an elite.

What we are faced with is a black and white scenario, those who believe in supporting the status quo or those who understand that we can solve economic and social problems by a socialist revolution.

by Non-Academic Fri Jul 28, 2006 18:10

"All the other Academics must laugh at you for labelling a Party that gets 5.5% of vote in Dublin and a number of Cllrs as a cult. "

I'm sure academics would have a bigger laugh at you. You'd have to be clearer as to how you came to the figure 5.5%. You would have to state that this wasn't the percentage vote in Dublin for General elections or for that matter in the local elections.
The WP have a few cllrs. It doesn't mean that they are not a cult.
I think hs hints a bit closer as to your size. Smaller then you might think, is how he puts it.

by SP member - (Per Cap) Fri Jul 28, 2006 18:29

"The conditions for revolutionary change in capitalist societies are always right."

It always depends on the objective conditions. And at the moment they are not right.

by Archivist Fri Jul 28, 2006 19:51

The following extract from a socument on the Grant group's website offers another, at the least interesting, perspective on teh quality of democracy within the CWI. It may be of some interest.

(Copied and pasted text replaced with URL -ed)

by Appeal Fri Jul 28, 2006 20:06

To my fellow SP comrades why are you wasting your time engaging in this irrelevant squabble with people like Denis Tourish and the other anon posters. It serves no purpose - I am sure you have more productive things you could be doing. Coronation Street will be on in 25 minutes that is far more interesting than this nonsense.

by Robbieile Fri Jul 28, 2006 20:14

An anonymous SP member advises his anonymous comrades not to bother engaging with anonymous contributors. Appeal you are truly an outstanding representative of your organisation.

by Realist Fri Jul 28, 2006 20:31

"Non-Academic" says 'I'm sure academics would have a bigger laugh at you. You'd have to be clearer as to how you came to the figure 5.5%. You would have to state that this wasn't the percentage vote in Dublin for General elections or for that matter in the local elections.'

Look at results of last European Parliament Election. Held on 11 June 2004. The Socialist Party received 23,218 first preference votes. That was exactly 5.50%. (source: http://www.electionsireland.org/result.cfm?election=200...s=524). Show me where a cult can get such support from tens of thousands of working class people? Where do cults get cllrs and MPs elected. Tourish should engage in real debate. If you don't agree with a Party debate the differences. Stop hiding being 'academia' and wild baseless allegations. Tourish, your elitist views were exposed when you attacked people without "elementary education".

by Observer Fri Jul 28, 2006 21:03

I have read this thread carefully. I do not think that Tourish did attack people without elementary education. rather he simply pointed out that he was being denounced for talking about a subject without having a PhD in that area, while CWI leaders talk about a range of issues on which they may lack a PhD, a degree or any other academic qualification. I think his point was that there was some inconsistency in this position. It is, however, a minor point....

I think CWi supporters, when they wish to take up the cudgels, should engage with people's arguments as they are, rather than as they might wish them to be.

by Derek McMillan - Socialist Party Sun Jul 30, 2006 18:34 derekmcmillan1951 at yahoo dot co dot uk

Ted Grant

I was sorry to read about the death of Ted Grant in The Socialist 27 July. I first met Ted in 1968 when I was 16. One of his strengths was his ability to patiently explain the fundamental principles of Marxism to young and inexperienced socialists. I didn’t feel patronised. For him the movement and the ideas were all important; he was painstaking and perfectionist in relation to ideas and fond of open debate.

I ended up working with Ted and the others (in a very minor role) with Militant. He was not the easiest of people to work with but the role of Militant in that period is well-documented and we were all caught up in the work and the ideas and consigned personalities to their proper place.

He will always be remembered as someone who kept the ideas of Marxism alive under the most difficult of circumstances in the UK.

But Militant grew. It was very far from being a “one man band” like some of the “piddling little ultra-left sects” which Ted used to laugh at. And in the heat of the Poll Tax campaign and the struggle against Thatcher, new tactics were called for.

When I knew him, he was fond of saying, “Events, events, events will teach the broad masses of the working class more than any pamphlet or manifesto.” And events (the symptoms of the degeneration of New Labour) were to invalidate the position he came to adopt – seeking signs of life in the corpse of the Labour Left. He remained wedded to a tactic which was doomed to failure.

He is rightly honoured as a pioneer. He is not honoured by those who seek to gloss over his mistakes.

by Worker No. 1,734,992 Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:57

Isaac Blank knew that the name 'Ted Grant' would have more resonance in the UK.

Why did he not move to Ireland? Or some other part of Africa?

Ask the 200,000++ east europeans who have recently moved to Ireland why they had to do so, after several decades of living in a socialist paradise.

Blank / Grant wanted to run a feudal system in his new homeland, but most 'workers' know - and knew - that there is no career path in marxism unless you join the Party or the secret police. He never got that.

by Suicide is painless Tue Aug 01, 2006 16:10

To those of you who know Denis Tourish have any of you noticed the similarities between him and the character Frank Burns from MASH?

by former militant member Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:37

From Today's Independent
Ted Grant
Founder of the Trotskyite group Militant Tendency who never abandoned his revolutionary ideals
Published: 09 August 2006
Isaac Blank (Ted Grant), political activist: born Germiston, South Africa 16 July 1913; Political Editor, Militant 1964-91; died Romford, Essex 20 July 2006.

If consistency is a politician's greatest virtue, then the veteran Trotskyite Ted Grant was one of the most virtuous figures of the 20th century. His convictions did not alter from when he was converted to revolutionary Marxism as a boy of 14 to when he died at the age of 93.

None of Grant's predictions of the imminent collapse of capitalism came true, and in his old age he was thrown out of the organisation he founded, the group known as Militant Tendency, to die as he had mostly lived, in near total political isolation. It took an obdurate kind of bravery to hold on for so long to a belief system that so many others had abandoned. He had an impressive number of ex-followers who were inspired by him when they were young, some of whom are prominent in public life, like the highly colourful Scottish socialist Tommy Sheridan. Grant could also claim to be one of the last living links with Leon Trotsky. Though he never met Trotsky in person, he knew his son, Leon Sedov, who was murdered by Stalin's agents in the late 1930s.

He made a brief appearance on the national stage at Labour's annual conference in Brighton in September 1983, as Michael Foot pushed ahead with a decision to decapitate the so-called Militant Tendency, a Trotskyite organisation suspected of organising a party within the Labour Party. Five members of the editorial board of the newspaper Militant, including Grant, were allowed to appeal to the conference against a decision taken by the National Executive to expel them. As the vote went heavily against the five, Grant made his departure saying: "We'll be back." Like so many Ted Grant predictions, it was wrong.

He was born in Germiston, near Johannesburg, where his father emigrated to escape the anti-Jewish pogroms in Russia. It has been reported that his original name was Isaac Blank, but "Blank" may have been an invention. He concealed his identity to protect his relatives in South Africa, and perhaps out of an innate secretiveness.

His father abandoned the family home when Isaac was young, and his French mother took in lodgers, one of whom was Ralph Lee, who introduced the young boy to the works of Trotsky, who had just lost the power struggle in the Soviet Communist Party. In the early 1930s, Lee was expelled from the Communist Party and founded a tiny Trotskyite group, who decided that Europe was a more promising field of activity. The story goes that "Isaac Blank" and another young Jew made the long voyage on a German passenger ship, and to avoid the attention of Nazi sympathisers on board, borrowed the names of English crew members. One became Sid Frost, the other Edward Grant.

On arrival in Britain, the young Ted Grant followed instructions that came from Trotsky himself to join the Independent Labour Party and try to take it over from within. So began the tactic of "entryism" which Grant pursued for most of his life. However, the tiny band of entryists were soon embroiled in one of the rancorous, incomprehensible feuds in which Trotskyite groups have always specialised.

On the one side were a group of Bloomsbury intellectuals whose main asset was that Trotsky knew who they were; on the other, unknown young men and women mostly from working-class backgrounds, led by a Scottish seaman named Jock Haston. The South Africans all joined Haston's breakaway Workers International League (WIL). There followed a breach of a more personal kind, when Haston began an affair with Ralph Lee's wife, Millie, and Lee moved back to South Africa. He was expendable, but Millie Lee was not, because according to an informant planted in the WIL by Special Branch, her family was the little organisation's only source of funds.

From this unpromising start, the WIL suddenly achieved national notoriety after the Soviet Union entered the Second World War, when the Communist Party of Great Britain called for an end to all industrial action. When Tyneside shipyard apprentices struck, the Home Secretary, Herbert Morrison, was sufficiently alarmed by reports of Trotskyite infiltration to have Haston and three others charged with sedition.

WIL influence on Tyneside was a fact, because one of their undercover members was the full-time regional organiser of the Independent Labour Party (ILP), T. Dan Smith, later famous as the corrupt boss of Newcastle City Council. Smith's cover was blown when Ted Grant turned up in Newcastle in 1943 to announce breathlessly that Britain was in a "pre-revolutionary situation", drawing attention to himself and other Trotskyites, who were expelled from the ILP.

This was a period of high hopes for the young Grant. He really believed that when the war was over, capitalism and Stalinism would both collapse in a new wave of revolutionary upheaval. Disillusionment followed when, instead of taking to the barricades, the workers put their trust in the Labour government, and the Trotskyites reverted to the old habits of entryism and internal feuding. Grant became locked in a ferocious feud with an Irishman named Gerry Healy, which lasted four decades. Healy lost because his followers revolted against his practice of continuing the indoctrination of young female revolutionaries beyond working hours. It was revealed that 76 young women had been introduced to what Brian Behan described as "the erect forces of Healyite Labour".

By contrast, Ted Grant is not known to have entered into any sexual relationship with anyone. His only known vices were gob-stoppers and low-grade cowboy movies. Living alone, he devoured the national newspapers and novels by Jack London and John Galsworthy, listened to classical music, and dressed rather like a tramp, in a raincoat and cloth cap.

It was Gerry Healy who set up an "entryist" group inside the Labour Party, whose members were quickly identified and expelled. Ted Grant and a tiny group of followers joined later, their existence going unnoticed for many years until the 1970s, when it suddenly became apparent that there had been a well-organised takeover of the Labour Party Young Socialists. Tony Benn heard Grant tell the LPYS conference in Skegness in 1973 that Britain was on the brink of a revolutionary crisis (again). Benn thought that he sounded like "a theological leader, a teacher by instinct".

In 1975, Labour's National Agent, Reg Underhill, drew up a report alleging that the purportedly pro-Labour weekly newspaper Militant, founded a decade earlier by Ted Grant and a collaborator from Liverpool named Peter Taaffe, was actually a front for a secret political party with its own full-time staff, to which supporters were required to hand over one-tenth of their income.

Nothing was done; the leaked report only helped Militant to recruit by giving them publicity. In 1981, they took effective control of Liverpool Council, through the council's domineering Deputy Leader, Derek Hatton. In 1983, three of their members were elected Labour MPs. Another, John Macreadie, was elected General Secretary of the Civil and Public Services Union in 1986. In 1992, Tommy Sheridan was elected to Glasgow council from the prison cell where he was serving a sentence for refusing to pay the poll tax.

By the late 1980s, the organisation was claiming a membership of 8,000, but as it grew, Ted Grant's influence within it proportionately diminished. He stayed true to the messianic optimism of the little Trotskyite sects. When the stock market crashed in 1987, Grant forecast a repeat of the depression of the 1930s. During the Iraq war of 1991, he foresaw a repeat of the Vietnam conflict and a return to conscription. When Militant embarked on a campaign of civil disobedience against the poll tax, Grant warned against activism for its own sake.

Militant also had an implacable enemy in the Labour leader Neil Kinnock, who pursued a policy of identifying its members and expelling them from the Labour Party. Derek Hatton and others from Liverpool went down in a blaze of publicity in 1986. The MPs Dave Nellist and Terry Fields were expelled in 1990.

The expulsions triggered Grant's final quarrel with Peter Taaffe, who had supplanted him as Militant's effective leader, and who had decided to drop the pretence that it was only a loose group of like-minded newspaper readers and bring it into the open as a new political party. Grant persisted with the view that they should stay within the political mainstream, which was the instruction handed down by Trotsky himself half a century earlier. He circulated a letter to Militant supporters solemnly accusing Taaffe and his supporters of being a "Zinovievist clique" - a reference to one of Trotsky's rivals.

In a parody of what had previously taken place within the Labour Party, Militant's leaders equally solemnly pronounced Ted Grant and a few supporters "have their own small premises and their own staff, and are raising their own funds" and had therefore expelled themselves from Militant. When Neil Kinnock had laid precisely these charges against Militant, he was loudly accused of running a witchhunt.

Ted Grant spent his last 15 years living alone, co-operating with the tiny band of loyalists who had left Militant with him, always looking for signs that the revolution had begun. Latterly, he thought that developments in Venezuela looked promising.

Andy McSmith

Isaac Blank (Ted Grant), political activist: born Germiston, South Africa 16 July 1913; Political Editor, Militant 1964-91; died Romford, Essex 20 July 2006.

If consistency is a politician's greatest virtue, then the veteran Trotskyite Ted Grant was one of the most virtuous figures of the 20th century. His convictions did not alter from when he was converted to revolutionary Marxism as a boy of 14 to when he died at the age of 93.

None of Grant's predictions of the imminent collapse of capitalism came true, and in his old age he was thrown out of the organisation he founded, the group known as Militant Tendency, to die as he had mostly lived, in near total political isolation. It took an obdurate kind of bravery to hold on for so long to a belief system that so many others had abandoned. He had an impressive number of ex-followers who were inspired by him when they were young, some of whom are prominent in public life, like the highly colourful Scottish socialist Tommy Sheridan. Grant could also claim to be one of the last living links with Leon Trotsky. Though he never met Trotsky in person, he knew his son, Leon Sedov, who was murdered by Stalin's agents in the late 1930s.

He made a brief appearance on the national stage at Labour's annual conference in Brighton in September 1983, as Michael Foot pushed ahead with a decision to decapitate the so-called Militant Tendency, a Trotskyite organisation suspected of organising a party within the Labour Party. Five members of the editorial board of the newspaper Militant, including Grant, were allowed to appeal to the conference against a decision taken by the National Executive to expel them. As the vote went heavily against the five, Grant made his departure saying: "We'll be back." Like so many Ted Grant predictions, it was wrong.

He was born in Germiston, near Johannesburg, where his father emigrated to escape the anti-Jewish pogroms in Russia. It has been reported that his original name was Isaac Blank, but "Blank" may have been an invention. He concealed his identity to protect his relatives in South Africa, and perhaps out of an innate secretiveness.

His father abandoned the family home when Isaac was young, and his French mother took in lodgers, one of whom was Ralph Lee, who introduced the young boy to the works of Trotsky, who had just lost the power struggle in the Soviet Communist Party. In the early 1930s, Lee was expelled from the Communist Party and founded a tiny Trotskyite group, who decided that Europe was a more promising field of activity. The story goes that "Isaac Blank" and another young Jew made the long voyage on a German passenger ship, and to avoid the attention of Nazi sympathisers on board, borrowed the names of English crew members. One became Sid Frost, the other Edward Grant.

On arrival in Britain, the young Ted Grant followed instructions that came from Trotsky himself to join the Independent Labour Party and try to take it over from within. So began the tactic of "entryism" which Grant pursued for most of his life. However, the tiny band of entryists were soon embroiled in one of the rancorous, incomprehensible feuds in which Trotskyite groups have always specialised.

On the one side were a group of Bloomsbury intellectuals whose main asset was that Trotsky knew who they were; on the other, unknown young men and women mostly from working-class backgrounds, led by a Scottish seaman named Jock Haston. The South Africans all joined Haston's breakaway Workers International League (WIL). There followed a breach of a more personal kind, when Haston began an affair with Ralph Lee's wife, Millie, and Lee moved back to South Africa. He was expendable, but Millie Lee was not, because according to an informant planted in the WIL by Special Branch, her family was the little organisation's only source of funds.

From this unpromising start, the WIL suddenly achieved national notoriety after the Soviet Union entered the Second World War, when the Communist Party of Great Britain called for an end to all industrial action. When Tyneside shipyard apprentices struck, the Home Secretary, Herbert Morrison, was sufficiently alarmed by reports of Trotskyite infiltration to have Haston and three others charged with sedition.

WIL influence on Tyneside was a fact, because one of their undercover members was the full-time regional organiser of the Independent Labour Party (ILP), T. Dan Smith, later famous as the corrupt boss of Newcastle City Council. Smith's cover was blown when Ted Grant turned up in Newcastle in 1943 to announce breathlessly that Britain was in a "pre-revolutionary situation", drawing attention to himself and other Trotskyites, who were expelled from the ILP.

This was a period of high hopes for the young Grant. He really believed that when the war was over, capitalism and Stalinism would both collapse in a new wave of revolutionary upheaval. Disillusionment followed when, instead of taking to the barricades, the workers put their trust in the Labour government, and the Trotskyites reverted to the old habits of entryism and internal feuding. Grant became locked in a ferocious feud with an Irishman named Gerry Healy, which lasted four decades. Healy lost because his followers revolted against his practice of continuing the indoctrination of young female revolutionaries beyond working hours. It was revealed that 76 young women had been introduced to what Brian Behan described as "the erect forces of Healyite Labour".

By contrast, Ted Grant is not known to have entered into any sexual relationship with anyone. His only known vices were gob-stoppers and low-grade cowboy movies. Living alone, he devoured the national newspapers and novels by Jack London and John Galsworthy, listened to classical music, and dressed rather like a tramp, in a raincoat and cloth cap.

It was Gerry Healy who set up an "entryist" group inside the Labour Party, whose members were quickly identified and expelled. Ted Grant and a tiny group of followers joined later, their existence going unnoticed for many years until the 1970s, when it suddenly became apparent that there had been a well-organised takeover of the Labour Party Young Socialists. Tony Benn heard Grant tell the LPYS conference in Skegness in 1973 that Britain was on the brink of a revolutionary crisis (again). Benn thought that he sounded like "a theological leader, a teacher by instinct".

In 1975, Labour's National Agent, Reg Underhill, drew up a report alleging that the purportedly pro-Labour weekly newspaper Militant, founded a decade earlier by Ted Grant and a collaborator from Liverpool named Peter Taaffe, was actually a front for a secret political party with its own full-time staff, to which supporters were required to hand over one-tenth of their income.

Nothing was done; the leaked report only helped Militant to recruit by giving them publicity. In 1981, they took effective control of Liverpool Council, through the council's domineering Deputy Leader, Derek Hatton. In 1983, three of their members were elected Labour MPs. Another, John Macreadie, was elected General Secretary of the Civil and Public Services Union in 1986. In 1992, Tommy Sheridan was elected to Glasgow council from the prison cell where he was serving a sentence for refusing to pay the poll tax.

By the late 1980s, the organisation was claiming a membership of 8,000, but as it grew, Ted Grant's influence within it proportionately diminished. He stayed true to the messianic optimism of the little Trotskyite sects. When the stock market crashed in 1987, Grant forecast a repeat of the depression of the 1930s. During the Iraq war of 1991, he foresaw a repeat of the Vietnam conflict and a return to conscription. When Militant embarked on a campaign of civil disobedience against the poll tax, Grant warned against activism for its own sake.

Militant also had an implacable enemy in the Labour leader Neil Kinnock, who pursued a policy of identifying its members and expelling them from the Labour Party. Derek Hatton and others from Liverpool went down in a blaze of publicity in 1986. The MPs Dave Nellist and Terry Fields were expelled in 1990.

The expulsions triggered Grant's final quarrel with Peter Taaffe, who had supplanted him as Militant's effective leader, and who had decided to drop the pretence that it was only a loose group of like-minded newspaper readers and bring it into the open as a new political party. Grant persisted with the view that they should stay within the political mainstream, which was the instruction handed down by Trotsky himself half a century earlier. He circulated a letter to Militant supporters solemnly accusing Taaffe and his supporters of being a "Zinovievist clique" - a reference to one of Trotsky's rivals.

In a parody of what had previously taken place within the Labour Party, Militant's leaders equally solemnly pronounced Ted Grant and a few supporters "have their own small premises and their own staff, and are raising their own funds" and had therefore expelled themselves from Militant. When Neil Kinnock had laid precisely these charges against Militant, he was loudly accused of running a witchhunt.

Ted Grant spent his last 15 years living alone, co-operating with the tiny band of loyalists who had left Militant with him, always looking for signs that the revolution had begun. Latterly, he thought that developments in Venezuela looked promising.

Andy McSmith

by former militant member Fri Aug 11, 2006 17:44

Ted Grant – the final adieu
By In Defence of Marxism
Friday, 11 August 2006
On Tuesday the eighth of August at a quarter past one, the mortal remains of comrade Ted Grant were cremated in a simple but dignified ceremony at the East Essex crematorium. It was a beautiful summer's day, with a clear blue sky. Almost a hundred of Ted's old comrades and friends gathered to see him off on his last journey.

Many more were unable to attend because they were away on holiday, out of London or unable to get time off work. But many had travelled long distances to be present. There were quite a few from Scotland, as well as comrades from Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Greece, Russia, France and Spain.

From left to right: Brian Deane, Ana Muñoz,
Margaret Deane, Arthur Deane, Alan Woods
Among those present were veteran Trotskyists from the days of the RCP and the WIL, including Arthur and Brian Deane, the last remaining representatives of that remarkable proletarian dynasty, the Deane family from Liverpool, who had been Ted's comrades from the 1940s. Jimmy Deane, unfortunately, died a few years before Ted, who had loyally maintained contact with him right to the end. Also present was veteran former Labour MP Stan Newens.

At the appointed time, we lined up behind the coffin and filed slowly into the room, which turned out to be too small to accommodate such a large number of mourners. Those who could not find a seat stood solemnly on either side of the coffin, upon which a few bunches of red flowers were strewn. Ted left this life as he had lived it, as an austere proletarian revolutionary who had no time for pomp and ceremony.

The proceedings were introduced by comrade Rob Sewell, who had known Ted since he was a schoolboy in Swansea in the 1960s. Rob welcomed the comrades and paid a warm tribute to Ted as an outstanding Marxist and a great man, before introducing the first speaker, comrade Lal Khan, the leader of the Marxist tendency in Pakistan, which has made spectacular progress in recent years, and of which Ted was particularly proud. Lal Khan, who was a close friend of Ted, made a dignified yet emotional speech that produced a deep effect on all present:

"Ted Grant taught us all how to love life in a different way," he said. "The real meaning of life is to struggle for a better life for all, to fight to change society. Ted always wanted to come to Pakistan, but that was not possible. But though he never set foot in Pakistan, he is widely known, loved and revered there. It is no accident that the country where most obituaries of Ted Grant have appeared in the press is precisely Pakistan. Thanks to the ideas, methods and traditions we have learned from Ted, we have already built the biggest Communist Party in the history of Pakistan. We will honour his memory in the only way he would wish: by building a mass Marxist force capable of carrying out the socialist transformation of society."

Following Lal Khan, comrade Alan Woods addressed the gathering: "It is always sad to say a final farewell to somebody with whom one has worked and fought. Yet in all the forty-six years I knew Ted, I can never remember him being sad or depressed. On the contrary, he was always full of optimism and enthusiasm that was contagious and that he was able to transmit to all those around him. Right to the end he kept his faith - that faith which can move mountains. This was not religious faith. Ted had no time for religion - "spiritual booze" as he called it. No! This was faith in the ideas of Marxism, the theories of scientific socialism that he began to study from the age of 14 when he started to read Capital. It was faith in the ability of the working class to change society, which he had ever since he began his revolutionary career so many years ago, in the dark days in South Africa. He never lost this faith."

Alan went on to pay tribute to Ted as a great communicator: "He had a wonderful ability to explain the most complicated ideas in the simplest language. He was able to talk in exactly the same way to educated Marxists, ordinary workers, Labour Party members, trade unionists and even to bourgeois," he said. "The only person who came close to Ted in this respect was Pat Wall."

"Death comes to all of us," he continued, "and as materialists we do not believe in a heaven or hell beyond the grave. Yet immortality is possible. We live on in the memory of our friends, comrades and children. Ted had no family but the movement - that was the only family he ever wanted. And we will keep his memory alive by fighting for his ideas and the cause of socialism."

Alan finished his oration by quoting from a Latin poem called Exigi Monumentum ("I have raised a monument"). In this poem the author says he has raised a monument to his loved one, not in stone or in brass, but in the form of a poem that lives forever. "We will build a monument to Ted Grant - not in stone, or brass or ink, but an imperishable monument of proletarian organization that will transform the world."

After this moving tribute to Ted by his lifelong friend and comrade, Rob Sewell announced that a special Ted Grant Memorial Fund would be launched at the September 9th Memorial Meeting, to which everyone was invited. He then read out the words of Trotsky's Testament:

( ... )

I have no need to refute here once again the stupid and vile slander of Stalin and his agents: there is not a single sport on my revolutionary honour. I have never entered, either directly or indirectly, into any behind-the-scenes agreements or even negotiations with the enemies of the working class. Thousands of Stalin's opponents have fallen victims of similar false accusations. The new revolutionary generations will rehabilitate their political honour and deal with the Kremlin executioners according to their deserts.

I thank warmly the friends who remained loyal to me through the most difficult hours of my life. I do not name anyone in particular because I cannot name them all.

( ...)

For forty-three years of my conscious life I have remained a revolutionist; for forty-two of them I have fought under the banner of Marxism. If I had to begin all over again I would of course try to avoid this or that mistake, but the main course of my life would remain unchanged. I shall die a proletarian revolutionist, a Marxist, a dialectical materialist, and, consequently, an irreconcilable atheist. My faith in the communist future of mankind is not less ardent, indeed it is firmer today, than it was in the days of my youth.

Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full.

Then comrades stood as the curtains were closed and the coffin disappeared from our view. Somebody called out: "Goodbye Ted!" We sang The Red Flag and The Internationale and it was all over. We all felt that a whole era had ended at that moment. But life springs eternal, and the struggle continues. Ted would not want us to see it in any other way.

by Kevin Higgins Sat Aug 26, 2006 16:12 kphiggins at hotmail dot com

Just to let anyone who might be interested know, my poem 'Death of a Revolutionary: Ted Grant (1913-2006) has just been published on Nthposition.com. To view it click on the link below
http://www.nthposition.com/deathofa.php