I find this hard to reconcile with his practice in his years of leadership, but this may just show how organisational cultures can dominate over personalities.

To those of us on the labour left who were in close contact with the Militant in the 1970s and 1980s, it was clear that the organisation thrived on secrecy and paranoia. This was how they built internal cohesion and attracted new members, much a religious cults did. I remember a conversation with Joe Higgins outside the British Labour Party Young Socialists Conference in the late 1970s where the Militant majority was using attacks on various minorities in the hall to justify ramming through long, obviously pre-prepared, motions in a triumphalist atmosphere. I remarked that I was disturbed by the group psychology and Joe said ‘there’s no psychology there, only workers hammering out a programme’.

It was only when some of the more senior members began to leave in the 1980s that we discovered that, as well as a disciplined external face, they were also very hierarchical internally. The masonic system of inner and outer circles, strict hierarchy, secret passwords, constant denials that the organisation existed, secret meetings and minutes kept in code etc. were an eye-opener. The biggest surprise was that the type of simplistic slogans used to promote the group in public were also used, and probably believed, in secret internal documents. Denying that their organisation existed also allowed them to avoid questions about their actual beliefs, particularly the role of the revolutionary elite, which might have put off new recruits, and to present themselves to the public as simply more militant democratic socialists.

As members started to defect, we also saw the nasty side of the Militant – harassment of ex-members (as John Throne describes in his own case when he left) which may or may not have been sanctioned by the leadership.

This sense of paranoia allowed the leadership to instill control. Any dissent was seen as endangering the group under siege. It also attracted a lot of new activists, who saw Militant ‘cadres’ as good honest activists being persecuted by made-up stories about who they were.

Any disagreement with the Militant was dismissed as ‘witch-hunting’ or ‘McCarthyism’, rather than discussed. My last encounter with John Throne, who I had known for over a decade, was when he burst in on a political discussion which I was having with one of his supporters to tell him to go to bed and not ‘waste time talking to this unprincipled reformist’.

The justification of this structure is the example of the Bolshevik Party. However, this avoids two issues. (1) That party only adopted military-style structures because of the need to survive Tsarist secret police and (2) these structures led to brutal suppression of alternative voices and, ultimately, of whole societies, which started long before Stalin took power.

I raise these points not to attack the Militant and the Socialist Party, but to try to understand where they are now. Joe Higgins has brought his party to a new level and it now embraces many of the causes which they denounced in the 1970s – feminism, environmentalism, anti-racism and many seemingly ‘reformist’ demands on tax and welfare. He has achieved miracles in uniting settled and Traveller communities and in exposing exploitation of migrant workers. We know that most of the Militant old guard have now left and been replaced by new members who don’t remember their history – but what do they actually believe in now?

It is important for the left to work together across a range of issues, and many of the best activists come from the Socialist Party and other Trotskyist groups. For this cooperation to be genuine, we need to know whether the Socialist Party, and for that matter the SWP, are genuinely interested in the particular cause they are fighting, or if they are just looking for an opportunity to pick up mebers and then split the campaign in order to strengthen the ‘revolutionary party’. We need to know if the inevitable split between the campaign group on most issues which happens to include the SP and the one which happens to include the SWP is based on principle or on factional advantage.

Most importantly of all, we need to be able to discuss ideology, vision and strategy seriously, without accusations of McCarthyism, sell-outs, etc. It should be as legitimate to discuss Trotskyism as it is to discuss social democracy, environmentalism and other elements of the left.

I hope we can have these discussions in a genuinely comradely fashion, leading to a new level of left cooperation, as we have seen in some Euroepan and many Latin American countries.