Difference between CWI and IMT

[Idealism]

Self explanatory, i know little about either.

[LOLseph Stalin]

The main difference I think is on the tactic of entrism. Trotsky of course supported it, but the CWI has kinda moved away from that, feeling that it's not very effective anymore since most "labour" parties are shifting over to the right. The UK labour party is a good example. IMT on the other hand still supports entrism in most cases. The two split due to disagreements about this issue.

[Sam_b]

Trotsky supported it within reason. He certainly didn't support entryism into ridiculous bourgeois and imperialist political outfits, like New Labour for example.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Trotsky supported it within reason. He certainly didn't support entryism into ridiculous bourgeois and imperialist political outfits, like New Labour for example.

Yes. It would definitely depend on the party's actual politics I think. Like Canada's NDP party apperently has IMT entryists, but some of their policies still seem ok.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I prefer a politically and ideologically independent workers' organization in Canada rather than some bogus "Socialist Caucus" that cozies up to the NDP bureaucracy, stifles the development of political struggle for workers, while all the while touting the economic "struggle for socialism" as being a political struggle.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I prefer a politically and ideologically independent workers' organization in Canada rather than some bogus "Socialist Caucus" that cozies up to the NDP bureaucracy, stifles the development of political struggle for workers, while all the while touting the economic "struggle for socialism" as being a political struggle.


Also as a strictly parliamentary party, the NDP may not see the worker's struggle the same way either. I don't see them involved in demostrations or anything although I see them as a party that we should be voting for in this Bourgeois Democracy. They're definitely a better choice than the Liberals or Conservatives.

[Q]

In a recent discussion I had with InsertNameHere I elaborated a bit on the issue:


The position the CWI defends is that the old Labour parties have indeed shifted to the right, thus they have completely become capitalist parties after their betrayal. They have zero support among active layers of the working class. Being active inside these old formations is utterly useless.

It is indeed true that the old Labour parties have verbally shifted a bit to the left in some countries, as a reaction to this crisis. But they still fully support neoliberal policies and as a consequence remain very unappealing to workers. Workers see no fundamental difference between Labour or liberals, christian-democrats or other capitalist parties. And with good reason.

The CWI however is not on an "ultra-left" position as the IMT frequently claims. We do work inside parties that contain activist layers and have an anti-neoliberal outlook and are thusly regarded by the working class as a possible alternative. In the Netherlands we work inside the SP, in Germany we work in Die Linke, in Greece we work inside SYRIZA, in Italy we work inside the PRC, in Venezuela we work inside PSUV, in Brazil we work inside PSOL... to name a few.

In Canada I don't know if we work inside the NDP, like the IMT does. However, according to your admission in another discussion there are no layers of activists in this party, the party is very much parliamentarian. If the NDP isn't regarded by the working as an alternative to this system in general or neoliberal policies in particular, I have no idea what we should do inside it.

Now, we don't have a crystal ball, we can't predict the future. Labour parties could have an influx of workers who have no other place to go. In this case we should be flexible and again work inside these parties. But this is certainly not a given, it is far more likely that new formations will be formed, such as the WASG (now Die Linke) in Germany or SYRIZA in Greece. The IMT adopted a very dogmatic approach over the years claiming that workers will go back to their 'traditional' organisations regardless what happens. Only now they're (opportunistically in my opinion) shifting this view and actually claim that the WASG was formed by old members of the SPD (Labour party in Germany)! This is evidently untrue, but it shows that they're now going back on track to support actual mass workers organisations.

The differences between the CWI and the IMT were fundamentally the reflection of the problems of the post-Stalinist era. The difficult 1990's up until now. The CWI adopted the correct approach of being flexible according to circumstances, including independant work. The IMT dogmatically sticked to their line of "continueing 40 years of work"... I can only hope that this will change in the coming period and we will once again grow nearer to eachother.

Also:

Also as a strictly parliamentary party, the NDP may not see the worker's struggle the same way either. I don't see them involved in demostrations or anything although I see them as a party that we should be voting for in this Bourgeois Democracy. They're definitely a better choice than the Liberals or Conservatives.
That really has nothing to do with socialist goals in any meaningful sense of the word. Entryism is simply a waste of time if you're basing yourself on being active in "the least evil".

This said, I do believe that we should have, as communists, a principled unity (principles being core ideas of being a communist). This is different from theoretical or methodical unity, in which differences can occur and must see a continued open discussion. This is something both organisations fail at and for which I think was a big factor in the split in the first place. Resulting from this I think we should strive for reunification.

[F9]

Cleaned the thread from some "misleadings":rolleyes:

[Die Neue Zeit]

Also as a strictly parliamentary party, the NDP may not see the worker's struggle the same way either. I don't see them involved in demostrations or anything although I see them as a party that we should be voting for in this Bourgeois Democracy. They're definitely a better choice than the Liberals or Conservatives.

Then you should stop being a sympathizer of the NDP-loving IMT and get to work organizing. I suggest contacting the Workers Party of Canada and Quebec, if it's up and running (I know they have a small party organization in Montreal).

[LOLseph Stalin]

Then you should stop being a sympathizer of the NDP-loving IMT and get to work organizing. I suggest contacting the Workers Party of Canada and Quebec, if it's up and running (I know they have a small party organization in Montreal).

I'm not in Montreal, but in B.C. I need to find some other organizations in B.C. So far I only know of IMT.

[Idealism]

So what would be the IMTs position in America? to take over the Democratic party?

[LOLseph Stalin]

So what would be the IMTs position in America? to take over the Democratic party?

Since i'm not American, I'm no expert, but they wouldn't be trying to take over the entire Democratic party. That would be nearly impossible. IMT would kinda just be there working within the party, hoping to develop class conciousness. In certain parties these kinds of things would be more difficult than in others. I think the Democratic party would be one of the more difficult ones as they're still quite right wing. However, with parties like the Canadian NDP I feel there could be a better chance.

[Idealism]

Since i'm not American, I'm no expert, but they wouldn't be trying to take over the entire Democratic party. That would be nearly impossible. IMT would kinda just be there working within the party, hoping to develop class conciousness. In certain parties these kinds of things would be more difficult than in others. I think the Democratic party would be one of the more difficult ones as they're still quite right wing. However, with parties like the Canadian NDP I feel there could be a better chance.

So the idea is not to actually take over the party (in any country) but to raise consciousness through the mass parties?

[LOLseph Stalin]

So the idea is not to actually take over the party (in any country) but to raise consciousness through the mass parties?

Yes, and then hopefully they'll join the struggle for Socialism.

[Yehuda Stern]

To be fair to the IMT, since it seems all its spokesmen have evaporated (Alan Woods speech got really long again? Someone should call on humanitarian aid), they don't support working in the Democratic Party, as they rightly view it as a bourgeois party. Then again, they work in the Pakistani PPP, also a bourgeois party, and in the last elections in the US, they supported the Greens' Cynthia McKinney - despite sharply criticizing the CWI for supporting this bourgeois party in the two election campaigns before. Certainly, an incredible shift in class relations in the US has happened right under our noses which completely transformed that party. Or not.

Regardless, although the IMT and CWI have various tactical differences, their basic political positions are the same. Both still advocate entryism and building of reformist parties as substitutes for the vanguard party, and both still believe that various petty-bourgeois and bourgeois parties have created workers' states.

The only reason why they are still separated is that they serve different social bases, with sectarianism certainly not helping. The CWI has more of a base among the student left milieu, while the IMT finds its luck with certain layers of the labor aristocracy and the professional middle class. I don't know exactly who is to blame for the initial split - but today, both sides' leaders put the blame on the leaders of the other side. I've yet to see something approaching a Marxist analysis of the split by either side.