Left Continues To Re-write History.

by Panopticon Mon May 24, 2010 15:59

I was a member of the SP at the time, an NC member and Dermot Connolly was not expelled. Stop making stuff up John. And don't be sore cause your name wasn't mentioned in the obituary. It was for Peter.

by Archivist Mon May 24, 2010 16:25

I think Panopticon spectacularly misses the point. It isn’t a question of ‘being sore’ at not being mentioned in an obit for Peter Hadden. It is that the account of his life in the SP obits is very partial. One might imagine from them, for example, that no one else had any hand in developing Militant’s position on sectarianism in the north in the 70s. It is presented as the result of one man’s genius. Now, this is factually wrong - people like John Throne, Manus Maguire, Finn Geaney and countless others made huge theoretical contributions on these issues. Joe Higgins also stresses Peter Hadden’s role as ‘the giant at my shoulder for 35 years.’ Dermot Connolly might have something to say about that – I thought he had some rather important input into SP policy for a number of years? There is a tendency within the CWI, when someone leaves, to airbrush them out as if they never existed – a little touch of Stalinism that does it little credit.
Beyond that, no movement can rely on the genius of a solitary individual and hope to thrive. I personally think this was one of Peter Hadden’s weaknesses. Far from being encouraging to the efforts of others, as SP obits assert, his behaviour would suggest to me that he found it threatening – and discouraged it. The man’s memory is not well served by depicting him as a faultless automaton. It precludes the possibility of learning from his mistakes, which is also important.
In that spirit, it is clear even from the SP’s obits that in the past 15 plus years the party in the North has failed to progress. In fact, it has lost members and influence throughout the north. Now, the SP obits paint this as a result of a ‘difficult situation.’ There is some truth in that, obviously. But it beggars belief to suggest that the SP itself, and Peter Hadden in particular, didn’t also contribute to such a noticeable decline. There is little point in not acknowledging this, since to ignore the mistakes of the past means only that they will be repeated in the future. Peter Hadden had many talents and merits. He also made serious mistakes, including organisationally and politically. Everyone does. The left in general and the SP in particular would benefit by presenting a more rounded view of such issues, and of their past.
What we don’t need is an organisational model built around the notion of an infallible genius at the helm, surrounded by a throng of marvelling helpers.

by sper - sp Mon May 24, 2010 18:58

what do you expect? A history of the cwi and its splits? come on, theres plenty of space (here included) for such a conversation, I don't think an obituary is the place for it.

by Historian. Mon May 24, 2010 19:30

When Spain descended into the horror of the Spanish Civil in 1936 each and any Spaniard on all sides accused the other Spaniard of re-writing Spanish historty.

Same as Belfast and Dublin peope.

History is bullshit.
.
.

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party / CWI Mon May 24, 2010 20:25

Not surprisingly John Throne posts a thread boo-hooing about the lack of acknowledgement from the SP for his own role in the SP.

I will state clearly - John Throne played a very important role in the formative years of the Militant/ Socialist Party in Ireland, along with Joe Higgins, Dermot Connolly, Peter Hadden and others. John Throne left the Militant in Ireland in (from what I recall) 1984. Others continued to play a very important role after this period. The Socialist Party/CWI is not afraid of its own past and does not attempt to hide any aspect of it.

John Throne states:
"The Militant, later the Socialist Party, and people like myself who was a founder of the MIlitant, and Peter Hadden, were just as guilty of this as anybody else. It would have been good to have some acknowledgement of this."

It is interesting that John Throne is 'willing' to admit to 'mistakes' while he was a member of the CWI, but is unwilling, repeatedly, to admit to the fact that he flagrantly attempted to undermine and circumvent the democratic decisions of the membership of Socialist Alternative (CWI in USA) that led to his expulsion.

In response to 'Archivist'
As has been said - this is an obituary for Peter Hadden. I am sure that when Demot Connolly dies (and I sincerely hope that it isn't for many years yet) that both the SP and Joe Higgins will acknowledge the significant and very important contribution he made to the SP/CWI over 30+ years.

Finally - Archivist is talking nonsense about the role of Peter Hadden in the North over the past 15 years. Archivist says that Peter Hadden made serious organisational and political mistakes over this period - let Archivist outline what these mistakes were and we can address them. Those within the SP and the CWI acknowledge that without Peter Hadden the SP organisation in the North could very well have collapsed on more than one occasion since the begining of the troubles. Peter Hadden provided the theoretical bedrock that sustained the SP in the North at a time when many other organisations were falling apart or splitting. Peter Hadden wasn't and 'infallible genius' - he was a revolutionary socialist (and he would be highly insulted to be called anything else). His contribution to the workers movement, particularly in his analysis of the national question, will be recognised for a long time to come.

by Bewildered of Paris - none Mon May 24, 2010 21:07

This is a bizarre and egotistical "story" (in fact a bizarre and egotistical comment on another story). It is entirely inappropriate to complain that you weren't discussed in someone else's obituary unless, perhaps, you are a member of the deceased's immediate family.

by Paddy Hackett Mon May 24, 2010 22:27

Hi John
What is the difference between your politics and that of Joe Higgins?

by Archivist Tue May 25, 2010 08:41

There seems to be a few members of the SP who are 'bewildered' that their eulogies for Peter Hadden have aroused some criticism. Let me try to help them. An obituary for a political activist is never a purely personal issue. It is also, and perhaps primarily, a reckoning of that person's overall contribution, organisationally and politically. It therefore needs to acknowledge both where they were right - and where they were wrong, so that people learn the best lessons from their lived experience. In the process, in the interests of historical decency and accuracy, it needs to acknowledge the input that the said person had from others during their life as well.
All analogies are inexact, but maybe one would help. Lenin died in January 1924. Imagine if the obituaries for him at that time - what happened later is a different matter - wrote about his role in the Bolshevik Party and Revolution as if only Lenin had any ideas; as if only he made an organisational contribution; as if he deserved credit, for instance, for the theory of Permanent Revolution. Imagine if such obituaries failed to mention anyone else responsible for such issues, thereby implying that Lenin alone deserved the credit. Imagine if the building of the party in the period before 1917 was presented as solely his achievement. Would there be something a tad wrong with that?
When Ted Grant died, Alan Woods wrote an obit for him that was open to the same criticisms as I am making here. Peter Taaffe wrote an ill-tempered riposte that had at least one virtue - it stressed that Ted's contributions were the product of a collective effort on the part of many people, including himself. All that logic has gone completely out the window in the case of Peter Hadden. The obits for him by the SP aren't that different in tone to those Alan Woods produced about Ted Grant.
I object to the SP's approach to Peter Hadden for precisely these reasons. It is frankly dishonest and inaccurate, and I don't believe that anyone's interests including the memory of Peter Hadden is best served by such an approach.

by Bewildered of Paris - none Tue May 25, 2010 11:04

Maybe members of the Socialist Party are bewildered too, I can`t speak for them.

Personally I have no problem with people making critical remarks about someone who has died, as long as people don`t abuse that right and whoever is making critical remarks remembers not to gratuitously offend the family of the deceased. Tact is important when people are bereaved.

I don`t however think it`s at all appropriate for someone to start a thread here with an article complaining that they didn`t feature in someone else`s obituary! That is a bizarrely egotistical thing to do. It`s even more bizarre when the person complaining has apparently had no regular close contact with the deceased for 25 years or more. The author of this piece needs to get some perspective.

by Ciaran Murphy - Singer Tue May 25, 2010 17:48

Although i didnt agree with him, I used to notice Peter Hadden in Belfast every Saturday for years, campaigning and rallying, doing his best for what he thought was best, he dedicated every minute of his life to his beliefs, revolutionaries get precious little praise when alive. Allow the man a bit of respect in death!

by S-Seeker Wed May 26, 2010 12:21

When reading the links above, and also the disintergration of the attempted "United Left" within the Unite Union it becomes abundantly clear why the working class is being shafted without putting up much of a fight. The "Left" are too busy fighting amonst themselves to have much time or energy to fight with anyone else. I truely despair.

by London SP member - SP Wed May 26, 2010 14:20

The SP obit to Peter Hadden did not mention John Throne or for that matter many other people who worked with Peter in the early days in N Ireland or for decades afterwards. An obit cannot be expected to a running list of people. But it did mention that the first Militant supporters were in the North by Peter's return in 1971.

The obit also regularly associates the "party" and "comrades" alongside Peter' s work and achievements. There is no idolatory approach. It is a clear record of Peter and the Miltant/SP's work and achievements, largely in difficult circumstances.

Why would a SP obit make the critique of Peter and his politics that non-SP members on his thread demand? Peter and the SP and CWI comrades collabrated politically for decades. If others believe Peter made political mistakes etc, let them write their own account.

The comparison with the Grant obit by Peter Taaffe is irrelevant. In that case, Grant was already in a different organisation for well over a decade, after a split in the CWI. Indeed it would have been "dishonest" if the obit did not mention the 1991/92 split in Militant etc.

by younger socialist Wed May 26, 2010 15:43

I must say Peter sounds like a good guy but I am too young to remember him. However I am mystified about the comment on his contribution to the debate on the National Question?

Surely Connolly said all that is needed to be said on the national question. I have not read anything in the last 10 years that improved on what Connolly had written on this issue. I suspect that perhaps what Peter wrote was a revision of Connolly? Maybe even a 2 nations type of revisionism? If that is the case it wont have any lasting effect on the debate anyway.

by Anonther Wed May 26, 2010 16:30

Younger socialist your statement is incredible. You know nothing about Peter Hadden. You don't know anything about what he wrote or stood for, yet you decide, that doesn't really matter, I will make false claims against him and write him off. Buffoonery! Peter Hadden wrote polemics against the two nations theory! Go away and read some of his books, then come back here and make a coherent argument.

by Panopticon Wed May 26, 2010 16:35

1) Have you read any of Peter Hadden's Material?
2) If not how can you make such a sweeping statement?
3) Do you think Connolly's writings have everything to say on the national question, considering he was executed pre-division?

by Gearoid O Loingsigh Wed May 26, 2010 18:27

Yes Connolly was murdered by the Brits before partition, but he did actually talk about it. It was in the air long before it happened, as the Unionists were the ones who raised its spectre. doesn't mean that there are no contributions to made other than Connolly's. However, Hadden and the SP will be remembered for their sops to loyalism. The old Militant slogan used to be about a United Socialist Britain and Ireland. whilst I have no problem with socialists uniting and indeed today one would be in favour of a United Socialist Europe. The SP/Hadden line was just a sop to Loyalists. You can keep your Britishness etc.

This actually led to them putting UVF thugs like Ervine and Billy Hutchison on platform as "socialists"! Though Billy's "Get the fucking Fenians off the streets" comment to the police when he wanted Catholic children to take back door into the Holy Cross school so as not to upset "protestant sensibiilities" must have embarrassed them.

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party / CWI Wed May 26, 2010 19:38

ranging from stupidity to down right lies -

Gearoid - please provide evidence that the Militant ever used the slogan "a United Socialist Britain and Ireland"

As regards the PUP - The SP never claimed Ervine or Hutchinson were 'socialists' - the PUP for a period moved in a left direction and the SP considered the possibility that some left current could develop within the PUP that might see the emergence of a non-loyalist left that would be worth discussing with - note all the qualifications that I have used in this statement. In exactly the same way that the SP did not rule out sharing a platform with sectarian republicans because of the possibility of a left element developing within republicanism, the SP adopted the same attitude towards the PUP.

Yes Connolly talked about partition - so did Peter Hadden - which would ahve been very obvious to you if you had bothered to read anything that Peter wrote - to quote the opening paragraph of 'Divide and Rule' written by Peter Hadden in 1980 -

"The partition of Ireland was a conscious act on the part of British imperialism chiefly intended to divide the working class along sectarian lines. As the recent troubles have made the publication of works on Irish history more profitable, a host of academics have presented ever newer accounts of the division of the country. In the midst of this welter of publication the above straightforward fact about partition has often been lost sight of. In particular this has been the case among those who have spent their energies seeking some justification to rationalize and excuse the division of Ireland, so that they, in turn, may excuse themselves from opposing this division. Above all, this is true of those who justify partition with the completely false idea that the division of the country somehow reflects the existence of two separate nations in Ireland."

by Dermot Lacey Wed May 26, 2010 21:39

First of all sympathies to the former Comrades of Peter Hadden. While clearly I am not and was not and will not be a supporter of The Militant/Socialist Party I do respect people who stand by their Political Principles.

My recollection is that Militant stood for a Socialist Federation of Britain and Ireland and at one stage advocatred the arming of the Trade Union Movement as a means to counter Sectarianism. Personally I thought both proposals daft.

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party / CWI Wed May 26, 2010 22:21

You are also wrong (although it would be far for the first time that Dermot Lacy was wrong about the Socialist Party).

The Socialist Party has never stood for a socialist federation of Britain and Ireland - the position of the Socialist Party over the past 40 years has been consistant and as outlined on the current SP website -

"a socialist Ireland as a free and voluntary part of a socialist federation of Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales and, on a wider scale, of a socialist European federation."

To demonstrate the stupidity of the claim being made - Britain is an imperialist entity, it is impossible for an imperialist entity to be socialist - to suggest that any socialist organisation would advocate a socialist Britain is to demonstrate that this particular individual does not have the slightest clue what socialism actually is.

And yes - during the height of the troubles in the early 1970's the Socialist Party advocated that democratically organised community and trade union defence groups should be established to defend communities and workers from attacks by sectarians and the British state forces.

Dermot Lacy would clearly prefer that either 1. republican paramilitaries 2 loyalist paramilitaries and/or 3. British imperialist state forces should be the only groups to be armed (and as a consequence the only groups entitled to use those arms).

by Séamus Thu May 27, 2010 09:17

the position of the Socialist Party over the past 40 years has been consistant and as outlined on the current SP website -

"a socialist Ireland as a free and voluntary part of a socialist federation of Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales...

Is this not just a case of splitting hairs between that and a "socialist federation of Britain and Ireland "?

And doesn't the SP use the same cookie-cutter 'solution' for the Palestine/Israel question - "a voluntary socialist federation of the Middle East"?

It's a convenient though unconvincing attempt by the SP to completely sidestep the national question. It's almost as bad as their myth that the trade union movement in the Six Counties has been somehow free of sectarianism.

by Dermot Lacey Thu May 27, 2010 09:41

Quite simply Seamus is correct and Jolly red giant is wrong - again.

by Marxist Thu May 27, 2010 13:17

Peter was a good party activist and did not sell out but lets not get carried away with ourselves here. Nobody from that milieu gained any great renown or international recognition as a major theorist including Ted Grant or Peter Taaffe. Their main claim to fame is that they were anti stalinists of sorts who believed in the tactic of entryism in the labour party! But they were average enough political talents really.

They were quiet unlike the intellectual giants of the Frankfurt School, such as Erich Fromm who made sophisticated contributions to theory and were on a much higher level of political development altogether to the minor theoreticians of militant / socialist party.

by passerby Thu May 27, 2010 13:46

As a visitor to the thread I'm amazed at the attention to ideological detail shown by posters who knew and/or worked for the cause of the recently deceased. Did the minutiae of political theory help the political movement achieve much with the public in Britain or the north of Ireland? Surely in the end it is the reception of social and political theories among the public, and among the working classes especially, that determines how useful theories are to positive social change. In the recent British general election the vast majority of voters backed centrist economics candidates from the three big parties. In the north of Ireland the only seriously left leaning candidate got 2900 votes.

The mention of Erich Fromm as a heavyweight social thinker of the Frankfurt School amazes me. He analysed the social psychology of fascism in his well regarded book, The Fear of Freedom, written after he fled nazi persecution (he was Jewish) to the USA. For the rest of his life his works like The Sane Society indicate a freelance non-marxist libertarian Jewish philosopher who drew on his intimate acquaintance with biblical scholarship and social theory to advocate a quasi anarchist orientated humane co-operative society. Fromm's best seller, The Art of Loving, drew liberally on old testament wisdom allied to his deep studies of social psychology. Fromm was a gifted English stylist into the bargain, which helped his works to become best sellers.

Whether Peter Hadden was an original ideological thinker or not; whether he was a skilful political tactician, or whether he was a consistent party player in the advancement of his cause should not be the theme at the moment of his passing. His friends or former co-workers can be more positive at the moment and remember his sincerity and hard work over the years.

by London SP member - SP Thu May 27, 2010 14:24

Seamus and Dermot are both factually and politically wrong on the SP’s position on Ireland and national question.
The SP calls for a socialist Ireland, with full rights for minorities guaranteed. But we don’t leave it there. The SP also advocates a socialist Ireland as part of a socialist federation on an equal and voluntary basis with England, Scotland and Wales, and on a wider level with as socialist federation of Europe and globally.
Similarly the SP calls for an independent Socialist Palestine and also advocates a socialist federation of the Middle East.
This is not avoiding the national question. It takes into account the right to self-determination and solving Ireland’s national question and under what circumstances this is possible (i.e. as part of a socialist change of society).
The call for a socialist federation is not some add on. It is the only practical way of developing the productive forces, to see the end of all inequalities etc and the removal of the causes of national oppression and conflicts etc. More than ever, in a globalised economy, no country can build socialism on its own.
The socialist federation call also acts to pose to the working classes of these islands that their future is bound together, through mass struggle, and under socialism, running a new society together, on an equal and democratic and voluntary basis. The socialist federation also raises the sights of workers and youth and helps to cut across all national divisions and nationalist politics, of all hues. Indeed, as class struggles develop, workers’ unity across sectarian and national divisions will inevitably arise.
This is in line with Marx and Engels, who called for ‘federation’ between Britain and Ireland, “after separation”. Lenin and Trotsky called for the right to self determination for oppressed nations and also for socialist federations, as practised in the early years of the Soviet Union. Trotsky in the 30s called for a ‘United Socialist States of Europe’.

by London SP member - SP Thu May 27, 2010 14:31

The CWI does not promote its ‘theorists’ to something they are not, as ‘Marxist’ claims. But the CWI has developed the ideas and practice of Marxism in various fields. The CWI does not have all the answers, of course, and looks forward to developing Marxism with others, as the class struggle develops.

Choosing Erich Fromm as “major” Marxist thinker says a lot about ‘Marxist’.

Fromm's politics and theories were indebted to a version of "state capitalism" and to Fromm’s ties to the politically reformist Socialist Party of America (SPA). Fromm supported Democrat Eugene McCarthy for the 1968 presidential nomination.

Fromm rejected Lenin's revolutionary party as an elitist organization. He said the "destruction of Socialism" began with Lenin (so Lenin is, in effect, responsible for Stalinism). Fromm criticized Marx and Lenin for the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ (today, we'd say a society run by the working class for the working class) as "nebulous and misleading".

Fromm rejected Marxism and the working masses. He argued that the middle class was the more alienated class. Fromm’s ‘humanistic socialism’ was a rejection of mass working class struggle, revolutionary parties and sweeping away the rule of the capitalist class. His ideas were a mix of ethical and religious idealism, Utopianism and ‘new human relations’ but on the basis of the continuation of class society and oppression (therefore making impossible his goals).

On the basis of these ideas, Marx himself would not have been welcome into the Frankfurt School of Fromm etc, let alone the 'theorists' of the CWI.

by aunty state capitalist Thu May 27, 2010 16:02

Isn't it ironic when a little micro party criticises a giant in socialist theory such as Erich Fromm. How many votes did the SP get in London then in the recent UK election? or in any other part of England? Been rejected again by the British working class have ye? It is correct to say that Fromm was more that just anti stalinist he made the logical advance in thinking and also questioned Leninism. In fact he said "the destruction of socialism . . . began with Lenin" Fromm rooted his ideas in a humanistic interpretation of Marx and rejected Leninism and Stalinism as an authoritarian corruption of the ideas of Marx unlike the militant or socialist party which has still not got this far in its thinking. He also stressed the need for a decentralised form of socialism and not some federation of Ireland and Britain and even a socialist EU! I suppose you believe in Santa and the tooth fairy as well as these Utopian federations?

Among his towering breakthroughs in theory he looked at the ideas of Marx in order to produce a radical analysis of capitalism and the personality disorders it causes. Fromm, in books such as The Sane Society, Man for Himself, and To Have or To Be? and The Fear of Freedom developed a powerful and insightful critique and analysis of capitalism which discussed how it controlled the individual and built psychological barriers to freedom and living. His many works make huge contributions to many contemporary topics of the utmost importance such as alienation, ethics, the authoritarian personality, freedom, individualism and what a future society should be like.

Fromm's analysis of capitalism and the modern mode of life are far more advanced than the simplistic crude Leninism of the Socialist Party, especially in context with today's consumerism. For Fromm, the way we live, work and organise together influence how we develop, our health both mental and physical and our happiness more than we suspect. He questions the sanity of a society which puts property over humanity and adheres to theories of submission and domination rather than self-determination and self-actualisation. His damning indictment of modern capitalism shows that it is the main source of the isolation and alienation prevalent in today. Alienation, for Fromm, is at the heart of the private or state capitalism system. Incidentally many other good marxists hold views on state capitalism and not just Erich Fromm.

by London SP member - SP Thu May 27, 2010 18:57

Previous comments made a false (and odd) comparison between Fromm and the SP/CWI. No-one denies that Fromm did not add to our general understanding, in various ways, as did others from the Frankfurt School. But the fact is that Fromm’s Freudo-Marxism and Utopia ideas, and also that of Marcuse, by the way, represent attempts by middle-class radical intellectuals to synthesize psychoanalysis and Marxism, which led to a collapse into forms of subjectivism.

Fromm rejected the working class and became a petty-bourgeois liberal. Marcuse rejected the working class and became an advocate of "third-world" guerrillaism and terrorism. Both rejected Lenin's conception of the revolutionary party.

The views of Marcuse, Fromm and other representatives of the Frankfurt School reveal deep political disorientation and opposition to historical materialism.

We can all learn from Marxist and radical thinkers and academics but for any serious socialist organisation, "Marxism is not an academic science, but a lever of revolutionary action,” as Trotsky said.

‘aunty state capitalist’ asks: “How many votes did the SP get in London then in the recent UK election? or in any other part of England? Been rejected again by the British working class have ye?”

What has this to do with a discussion on Fromm? By this reckoning, does having Joe Higgins elected to Brussels somehow confer more authority to the Irish SP’s view on Fromm? Marx and Engels were never elected to public office – does that negate their ideas? By the way, at least the SP/CWI stands in elections on the basis of the independent interests of the working class. Fromm actively supported bourgeois Democrat candidates in the US.

“He also stressed the need for a decentralised form of socialism and not some federation of Ireland and Britain and even a socialist EU!”

Actually, socialism by its nature is the most possible decentralised form of running society, on the way towards a classless communist society (Left opponents to the CWI only seem to see in ‘socialist federation’ today’s capitalist state structures, class relations and oppression, which makes you wonder about their understanding of 'socialism'). At least with Aunty we know he/she blames Lenin for the original sin of Stalinism etc and is hostile to all Leninism and Trotskyism.

“Incidentally many other good marxists hold views on state capitalism and not just Erich Fromm”

No doubt. But there is a world of difference between the ‘classic’ state capitalism as described by Engels in the 19th century and the erroneous and non-Marxist variety put forward by Cliff etc to try to explain the former Stalinist states.

by Marxist Fri May 28, 2010 11:38

London SP member says: Fromm and other leading thinkers from the Frankfurt School "rejected the working class and became an advocate of "third-world" guerrillaism....." So did Che Guevarra and most Irish Marxists and even many labour party activists support the Cuban revolution of Che and Fidel Castro. By the way you forget to mention that Fromm and other members of the Frankfurt school opposed the Nazis in Germany in fact they were very lucky to escape from it. What about Fromms massive theoretical contribution on Alienation? possibly unequalled in this field.

You forget to point out that he opposed the Vietnam war! but you make a point about him supporting a couple of Democratic Party candidates, well so does many US Marxists who believe it is better to keep the republican war mongers out of power as well as millions of black people and american trade unionists. As for him of rejecting Trotsky's model of a revolutionary party, well so have the entire british working class including millions of Trade Union members who did not elect even one of the multitude of British Trotskyite candidates including Socialist Party ones in the Election a few weeks ago.

At least you give half hearted praise to his groundbreaking work in psychology, especially in the field of social psychology. His outstanding work demonstrates that modern capitalism is the main source of the isolation and alienation as well as consumerism that influence our mental and physical health and our happiness.

by Former Comrade Wed Jun 02, 2010 21:22

....a good man and a great revolutionary socialist. May he rest in peace.

by Leon - the socialist movement Fri Aug 13, 2010 20:37

One of the elements of real socialism completely missing in Throne's original message is any hint of empathy, kindness, sadness... in short, any humanity over the death of Peter Hadden. Throne's heart, as well as his head, so to speak, has been eaten away by the ever-growing cancer that is Throne's own, massive ego. Throne, a so-called marxist, is just another severely alienated individual who, one would hope, could use the marxist method to at least identify his own alienation and complete lack of basic, human sympathy. Does the word "condolences" mean anything to Throne? Does he even know this word?