Socialist Appeal and Socialist Alternative

[KC]

While undoubtedly a small organisation, and with conditions being very difficult for revolutionaries in the United States, the WIL/SA still propagates what I believe to be the correct analysis and strategy of the IMT.

Perhaps this is a conversation for another thread, and perhaps you don't know the answer as you are in Ireland and I don't know how much you know about Socialist Appeal, but what are the concrete differences between Socialist Appeal and Socialist Alternative?

I'm not looking for a discussion on the differences between the IMT and the CWI, as I'm not interested in such a boring discussion; nor do I think the differences in tactic between the IMT's British section and the CWI's British section, for example, are relevant to the work of either of these groups in the United States. I am looking for specific differences in strategy, tactic and/or outlook in terms of their work in the United States.

[Kassad]

Perhaps this is a conversation for another thread, and perhaps you don't know the answer as you are in Ireland and I don't know how much you know about Socialist Appeal, but what are the concrete differences between Socialist Appeal and Socialist Alternative?

I'm not looking for a discussion on the differences between the IMT and the CWI, as I'm not interested in such a boring discussion; nor do I think the differences in tactic between the IMT's British section and the CWI's British section, for example, are relevant to the work of either of these groups in the United States. I am looking for specific differences in strategy, tactic and/or outlook in terms of their work in the United States.

I used to read a lot from the International Marxist Tendency. They're really focused on Ted Grant's contributions to Marxism. Also, they're very vehement in their support for Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution, so I don't know where Socialist Alternative stands on that. Either way, I'm also interested in the answer to KC's questions from an actual Socialist Appeal supporter.

[KC]

I used to read a lot from the International Marxist Tendency. They're really focused on Ted Grant's contributions to Marxism. Also, they're very vehement in their support for Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution, so I don't know where Socialist Alternative stands on that. Either way, I'm also interested in the answer to KC's questions from an actual Socialist Appeal supporter.

The reason that I am asking is because I have talked to members of Socialist Alternative that have worked on a few occasions with Socialist Appeal members, and when I asked him what the differences are he could come up with nothing aside from their international affiliations. If that is the case, then it is absolutely ridiculous that these two parties do not merge.

I know that Socialist Appeal's position on the 2008 elections was to call for a "new workers' party," which in my opinion is pointless (for very obvious reasons), whereas Socialist Alternative's position was to support Nader, which in my opinion was opportunist (again for pretty obvious reasons), but this is the only issue on which I know they have/had differing opinions, and this is nowhere near close to being a valid reason for these two organizations to exist separately (especially considering the fact that the support of Nader was a very hotly debated issue within Socialist Alternative).

[The Deepest Red]

Perhaps this is a conversation for another thread, and perhaps you don't know the answer as you are in Ireland and I don't know how much you know about Socialist Appeal, but what are the concrete differences between Socialist Appeal and Socialist Alternative?

I'm not looking for a discussion on the differences between the IMT and the CWI, as I'm not interested in such a boring discussion; nor do I think the differences in tactic between the IMT's British section and the CWI's British section, for example, are relevant to the work of either of these groups in the United States. I am looking for specific differences in strategy, tactic and/or outlook in terms of their work in the United States.

The truth is I don't know enough to really comment, but I am all for the IMT and the CWI uniting where and when possible or approitate. At a glance it would make sense in relation to the United States as there is no mass workers party to speak of.

[Kassad]

The reason that I am asking is because I have talked to members of Socialist Alternative that have worked on a few occasions with Socialist Appeal members, and when I asked him what the differences are he could come up with nothing aside from their international affiliations. If that is the case, then it is absolutely ridiculous that these two parties do not merge.

As logical as this is, KC, you're smarter than that. You know how much name recognition and generally, organizational recognition plays a factor in the construction of socialist parties and organizations. People develop egos and despite the fact that there are minute differences between organizations, you won't see them merge.

[KC]

As logical as this is, KC, you're smarter than that. You know how much name recognition and generally, organizational recognition plays a factor in the construction of socialist parties and organizations. People develop egos and despite the fact that there are minute differences between organizations, you won't see them merge.I understand that, and that is why it's ridiculous.

Here we come to the most urgent question of our movement, to its sore point—organisation. The improvement of revolutionary organisation and discipline, the perfection of our underground technique are an absolute necessity. We must openly admit that in this respect we are lagging behind the old [American] revolutionary parties and must bend all our efforts to overtake and surpass them. Without improved organisation there can be no progress of our working-class movement in general, and no establishment of an active party with a properly functioning organ, in particular. That is on the one hand. On the other, the existing Party organs (organs in the sense of institutions and groups, as well as newspapers) must pay greater attention to questions of organisation and exert an influence in this respect on local groups.

Local, amateurish work always leads to a great excess of personal connections, to study-circle methods, and we have grown out of the study-circle stage which has become too narrow for our present-day work and which leads to an over-expenditure of forces.
Lenin (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1899/articles/arg4auq.htm)

BTW, I'm going to request the posts on Socialist Appeal/Socialist Alternative be split off into a new thread, as I'm genuinely interested in discussing it.

[KC]

I'd like to resurrect this to see if any Socialist Appeal/Socialist Alternative members could offer any actual explanations.

Any takers?

[Eat the Rich]

From what I know, Socialist Appeal(WIL) calls for the creation of a party of Labour in the states. This is not necessarily their call in elections.

Also I do not find critical support to leftist candidates to be opportunist. If the WIL or Socialist Alternative do not hide their positions and explain that this support is critical and there is agreement on certain points, I don;t consider using Nader's or McKinney's campaign as a platform to advocate for genuine Marxism, as something opportunist...

From what I know, the WIL does not hide their positions in such campaigns and operates in a non-opportunist way. I am not so sure about Socialist Alternative.
Anyways the differences are minute, but then a problem arises. If those roganizations merge, what will happen to their international affiliation? When a Labour party is created i the States, what will the orrientations of the organization be?

Anyways, I don't think that these are reasons to keep these organizations as separate. The main problem though is the international affiliation.

[KC]

Also I do not find critical support to leftist candidates to be opportunist. If the WIL or Socialist Alternative do not hide their positions and explain that this support is critical and there is agreement on certain points, I don;t consider using Nader's or McKinney's campaign as a platform to advocate for genuine Marxism, as something opportunist...

There is a difference between "critical support" and endorsement.

[Eat the Rich]

There is a difference between "critical support" and endorsement.

That's just semantics. Endorsing a candidate does not mean agreeing with all the points on the candidates platform. So endorsing is in itself critical support.

I'm assuming that the objection is the "You're supporting bourgeois (or petty bourgeois) parties/candidates" angle. McKinney herself drew around her a whole layer of people that the WIL/SA wanted to connect with that had rejected the two bosses' parties in the U.S. Also, most of the people that objected to the SA's support of her on this ground, never read the Reconstruction Party Platform, which was the program on which she ran. This document was clearly not a bourgeois program. Her campaign also formed what it called a united Power to the People (not the greatest formulation, I know) Campaign that was meant to let her supporters know that support for her did not have to mean support for the Green Party, which SA will be the first to admit is a petty bourgeois disaster of a party.

SA will not, have not, and will not in the foreseeable future be orienting to the Green Party, which I think is the source of much of the misunderstanding on this point (not by you). Part of what made McKinney unique as a candidate was that she was not a Green. She had a measure of support amongst a certain layer of black workers, which definitely got overshadowed during Obamamania, and she was running on a left reformist program.

[Eat the Rich]

So it's okay for a communist organization to support a bourgeois party / candidate if they agree on "certain points?"

Of course it is not OK. Cynthia McKinney though, was not a bourgeois party/candidate. You need to understand that not all non-"communist" parties/candidates are necessarily bourgeois.

I will reiterate what I posted above.

Myself
I'm assuming that the objection is the "You're supporting bourgeois (or petty bourgeois) parties/candidates" angle. McKinney herself drew around her a whole layer of people that the WIL/SA wanted to connect with that had rejected the two bosses' parties in the U.S. Also, most of the people that objected to the SA's support of her on this ground, never read the Reconstruction Party Platform, which was the program on which she ran. This document was clearly not a bourgeois program. Her campaign also formed what it called a united Power to the People (not the greatest formulation, I know) Campaign that was meant to let her supporters know that support for her did not have to mean support for the Green Party, which SA will be the first to admit is a petty bourgeois disaster of a party.

SA will not, have not, and will not in the foreseeable future be orienting to the Green Party, which I think is the source of much of the misunderstanding on this point (not by you). Part of what made McKinney unique as a candidate was that she was not a Green. She had a measure of support amongst a certain layer of black workers, which definitely got overshadowed during Obamamania, and she was running on a left reformist program.

[Eat the Rich]

Yeah right, Cynthia McKinney, a professional Democratic Party politician for eight years, is a proletarian militant. :lol:

Mousolini was a Marxist in his early years, does that mean that he was still a proletarian militant until the end of his life? With the way you argue, probably yes..

Castro started off as a Revolutionary democrat, does that mean that he does not have a proletarian ideology now? My point is, read her programme and then make your conclusions.

[h0m0revolutionary]

My point is, read her programme and then make your conclusions.


Her programme is that of the Green Party (US).

That isn't a proletarian programme.

[Eat the Rich]

Her programme was actualy the Reconstruction Party Platform. Again, it seems like you didn't read my post, so I will repost it again.


Myself
I'm assuming that the objection is the "You're supporting bourgeois (or petty bourgeois) parties/candidates" angle. McKinney herself drew around her a whole layer of people that the WIL/SA wanted to connect with that had rejected the two bosses' parties in the U.S. Also, most of the people that objected to the SA's support of her on this ground, never read the Reconstruction Party Platform, which was the program on which she ran. This document was clearly not a bourgeois program. Her campaign also formed what it called a united Power to the People (not the greatest formulation, I know) Campaign that was meant to let her supporters know that support for her did not have to mean support for the Green Party, which SA will be the first to admit is a petty bourgeois disaster of a party.

SA will not, have not, and will not in the foreseeable future be orienting to the Green Party, which I think is the source of much of the misunderstanding on this point (not by you). Part of what made McKinney unique as a candidate was that she was not a Green. She had a measure of support amongst a certain layer of black workers, which definitely got overshadowed during Obamamania, and she was running on a left reformist program.

[Eat the Rich]

The point you miss is that it's not a question exclusively of platform (not that the Reconstruction Party Platform advances the interests of the proletariat) but one of class.

Besides, McKinney is a member of the Green Party. She has been since 2007.

Again in your opinion (and mine as well), the interests of the proletariat, ie socialist revolution, are not advanced by the Reconstruction Party Platform. That does not mean though that it is not a proletarian platform. This adresses the class question you raised before.

Regarding the quote: first of all it does not show anything substantial about McKinney and the numerous times she has repeated her disagreement with the Green Party etc., plus the Reconstruction Party Platform which in no way resembles the Green Party Platform, all nulify your argument.

[Q]

Anyways the differences are minute, but then a problem arises. If those roganizations merge, what will happen to their international affiliation? When a Labour party is created i the States, what will the orrientations of the organization be?

Anyways, I don't think that these are reasons to keep these organizations as separate. The main problem though is the international affiliation.
I think the cause of our disunity, in essence a sectlike behaviour, is the result of a deeper mechanism. Let me quote myself from another thread:


Democratic centralism works under a few basic premises. Unity of action is only one aspect, often too much emphasised. The other aspect I would summarise as transparency of disagreement. As (I think it was) Rosa Luxemburg already put it quite well: democracy is not about those who agree, but about those who disagree.

Many organisations don't practice this form of transparency. These organisations emphasise the unity aspect in the sense that there is a "unity in ideas" that everyone has to uphold in public. They only allow, formally, disagreements to develop inside the organisation. However, this is just a paper reality as disagreements don't get published in the party press or discussed among broader layers of the membership. There is no air for disagreements to grow. The result is that disagreements don't develop, the organisation gets dogmatised and splits occur or many people just leave the scene. As KC pointed out, this is the sickness of the sect.

Public factions and tendencies and allowing the party press as a platform for conflicting views is essential for any healthy organisation. Not only to educate the membership and to develop the organisation, but also to educate the working class movement (or at least the layer that follows the said organisation) in tactics and strategy. This mechanism is what makes communists the political leadership of the working class, as opposed to a sect imposing their view on the movement.

Thus, I conclude that the fight for radical democracy within our movement is of the highest order if we are to overcome our sectlike existence and unite.

Why do I say sectlike? Because I don't believe the causes of our split in 1991 (that is: the split in the Militant in the UK, which resulted in the founding of the IMT) were deep in any sense. We may portray the thing as if the 1914 split in the second international happened all over again, but that is just utter nonsense. The fact that both organisations strive for "collective thinking" like I portrayed in the quote above was the exact cause of the split.

I mean, are we putting differences in tactics or the views on the case of Venezuela for example really between uniting ourselves in one common organisation? And if that manages to keep us apart, two organisations that are virtually two drops of water by any outsider, what tells that of the achievability of our goal to rebuild the workers movement and revolutionary parties of the masses?

[Eat the Rich]

Public factions and tendencies and allowing the party press as a platform for conflicting views is essential for any healthy organisation. Not only to educate the membership and to develop the organisation, but also to educate the working class movement (or at least the layer that follows the said organisation) in tactics and strategy. This mechanism is what makes communists the political leadership of the working class, as opposed to a sect imposing their view on the movement. I agree completely. But this, at least in the IMT exists. For example, there is a disagreement right now on a specific topic which I cannot disclose, in a certain section. The whole of the international, has been informed about it. Not only that, but the two sides have been given a platform through the international email list plus documents produced with the expenses coming from the budget of the international and distributed to every member (including probationary members) and sympathizer.

Maybe it is the CWI that lacks transparency and that is not intended to be a sectarian attack, just a genuine concern. Besides, the leadership of the CWI has a record of being bureaucratic.



Why do I say sectlike? Because I don't believe the causes of our split in 1991 (that is: the split in the Militant in the UK, which resulted in the founding of the IMT) were deep in any sense. We may portray the thing as if the 1914 split in the second international happened all over again, but that is just utter nonsense. The fact that both organisations strive for "collective thinking" like I portrayed in the quote above was the exact cause of the split.I do not think that the split was that deep either. But in a time of retreat, in a time where our ideas matter more than logistics I think it was necessary. It was necessary to keep the ideological purity of "Trotskyism". We should not kid ourselves, the CWI prior to the 1991 split was the only Trotskyist international that consistently upheld the ideas of Marxism. All other international and sects, had abandoned long ago the ideas of Bolshevism.

In these conditions, following the expulsion of Woods and Grant, a new international had to be formed, in order for Marxism to survive the difficult years of the 90s. Look at the state of the Socialist Party in Britain. I don't think that it is easy for you to see it as a CWI member, but it is light years away from the ideas and methods of the Militant and Bolshevism.

But this is the past. I think right now, with the rejuvenation of the workers movement, there can be room for conciliation. The conditions that led to the degeneration of the Militant do not exist anymore. But this conciliation cannot and will not come from the top. It will come from the honest activists from the different sections of the IMT and the CWI. This is mostly because of the fact that the international leadership of the CWI, consists mainly of the leadership of the degenerated Militant, which has abandoned Bolshevism a long time ago.

The IMT is therefore open as an international, for activists of the CWI all around the world, to our international collectively and as sections and build the Marxist unity, necessary for the turbulent years to come.

[Q]

I agree completely. But this, at least in the IMT exists. For example, there is a disagreement right now on a specific topic which I cannot disclose, in a certain section. The whole of the international, has been informed about it. Not only that, but the two sides have been given a platform through the international email list plus documents produced with the expenses coming from the budget of the international and distributed to every member (including probationary members) and sympathizer.

Maybe it is the CWI that lacks transparency and that is not intended to be a sectarian attack, just a genuine concern. Besides, the leadership of the CWI has a record of being bureaucratic.
In the CWI we have the same mechanisms. In fact, in the "China debate" we do use the party press (Socialism Today) to explain the differences between the different ideas, although that might just be an anomaly since the differences are relatively small and the "rebels" consist of a whole section, which puts on some pressure by itself. But your example is not what I meant with public disagreement. You say the disagreement cannot be disclosed, thus it is not public or transparent.


I do not think that the split was that deep either. But in a time of retreat, in a time where our ideas matter more than logistics I think it was necessary. It was necessary to keep the ideological purity of "Trotskyism". Yes, the "purifying" argument has been used countless of times in any number of splits and expulsions. But, and this is my main point, the idea that we should strive for "ideological purity", is a classic sectarian error. People will always disagree on any number of issues and long ago the mechanism of democratic centralism was thought out to resolve these differences, through open debate in the party press. As soon as this basic democratic mechanism is blocked, people have limited choices left to them. Many of them simply leave, in the case of groups they split away.


We should not kid ourselves, the CWI prior to the 1991 split was the only Trotskyist international that consistently upheld the ideas of Marxism. All other international and sects, had abandoned long ago the ideas of Bolshevism.

In these conditions, following the expulsion of Woods and Grant, a new international had to be formed, in order for Marxism to survive the difficult years of the 90s. Look at the state of the Socialist Party in Britain. I don't think that it is easy for you to see it as a CWI member, but it is light years away from the ideas and methods of the Militant and Bolshevism. Bombastic language.


But this is the past. I think right now, with the rejuvenation of the workers movement, there can be room for conciliation. The conditions that led to the degeneration of the Militant do not exist anymore. But this conciliation cannot and will not come from the top. It will come from the honest activists from the different sections of the IMT and the CWI.I agree. Therefore the need for complete transparancy of disagreement is absolutely vital.


This is mostly because of the fact that the international leadership of the CWI, consists mainly of the leadership of the degenerated Militant, which has abandoned Bolshevism a long time ago. Here we go again. What exactly do you want to add to the discussion with such empty phrases? They sure don't convince anyone of the "pure" intentions of the IMT, it only highlights the sectarian nature. On this basis there is never going to be any conciliation whatsoever.


The IMT is therefore open as an international, for activists of the CWI all around the world, to our international collectively and as sections and build the Marxist unity, necessary for the turbulent years to come.So basically, you're saying "ok CWI'ers, we like you, we like you to join our ranks, forget about Peter Taaffe, we're way cooler" and you honestly believe that is going to convince anyone? If that is the case, further discussion is pointless. I could aswell try to convince a brick wall.

[Eat the Rich]

In the CWI we have the same mechanisms. In fact, in the "China debate" we do use the party press (Socialism Today) to explain the differences between the different ideas, although that might just be an anomaly since the differences are relatively small and the "rebels" consist of a whole section, which puts on some pressure by itself. But your example is not what I meant with public disagreement. You say the disagreement cannot be disclosed, thus it is not public or transparent.We had a debate on China as well. Transparency in such debates is a given even for the CWI... I am talking about debates that go deeper than that and are not necessarily theoretical in nature.

For the debate to be transparent (especialy a debate of such nature), you do not need to inform people on the internet, sectarians and especialy cops about it. But the fact that a debate of such nature is carried not on an EC, IEC and CC level, but all members get involved in it, or at least get informed about it through internal press, is something indicative of the quality of democracy within the IMT. Besides, this was one of your points, that ordinary members are excluded from many debates and do not get informed about them. I am merely pointing out that this is not happening in the IMT. I am guessing though that it is happening in the CWI, since you mentioned it (and I am guessing that you mentioned it from experience).


Yes, the "purifying" argument has been used countless of times in any number of splits and expulsions. But, and this is my main point, the idea that we should strive for "ideological purity", is a classic sectarian error. People will always disagree on any number of issues and long ago the mechanism of democratic centralism was thought out to resolve these differences, through open debate in the party press. As soon as this basic democratic mechanism is blocked, people have limited choices left to them. Many of them simply leave, in the case of groups they split away.
There are countless reasons that you do not account with, regarding the 1991 split. The bureaucratic methods used by the leadership (bureaucratic centralism), the objective conditions that favoured degeneration etc. Especialy the latter, was really important for the creation of the IMT. In times like the early 90s, preserving this purity was essential. If Ted and Alan had not done so, the membership of the IMT -then and now -would have been stuck in an organization that has moved away from the ideas, tactics and principles of bolshevism, which I think the IMT preserves.


So basically, you're saying "ok CWI'ers, we like you, we like you to join our ranks, forget about Peter Taaffe, we're way cooler" and you honestly believe that is going to convince anyone? If that is the case, further discussion is pointless. I could aswell try to convince a brick wall. I am saying that our organization is open to honest activists, especialy the rank and file of the CWI. I cannot unprincipaly merge though, with the international leadership of the CWI, which has been showed to be bureaucratic and undemocratic (expulsion of Ted and Alan), that has adopted ideas, tactics and perspectives far removed from Bolshevism and has created a monster that is now called the SPEW.

[Q]

For the debate to be transparent (especialy a debate of such nature), you do not need to inform people on the internet, sectarians and especialy cops about it. But the fact that a debate of such nature is carried not on an EC, IEC and CC level, but all members get involved in it, or at least get informed about it through internal press, is something indicative of the quality of democracy within the IMT. Besides, this was one of your points, that ordinary members are excluded from many debates and do not get informed about them. I am merely pointing out that this is not happening in the IMT. I am guessing though that it is happening in the CWI, since you mentioned it (and I am guessing that you mentioned it from experience).
Sorry to have confused you. In the previous post I already mentioned though that we have the same mechanisms that you talk about. There are no differences between the CWI and IMT in this regard. My point however is that this is not transparent in the least. If you cannot talk about the casus openly, something which I find hard to believe, then find another form.

There is another factor in transparency, which I pointed out in the original quote that dealt with it. That is the mechanism of class leadership. For example: say we have a different opinion on nuclear fission power, with you for it and me against it. We both happen to have very strong opinion in the field and have delved into the matter to some extent. So we debate about it in our paper which happens to be a weekly. You write an article defending fission power, two weeks later I respond with an article attacking your position. These differences reflect the differences within the working class and thus our debate becomes integral part of the workers movement (or at least to some extent, depending on our influence). Through this mechanism, we gain the political leadership of a greater movement.


There are countless reasons that you do not account with, regarding the 1991 split. The bureaucratic methods used by the leadership (bureaucratic centralism), the objective conditions that favoured degeneration etc. Especialy the latter, was really important for the creation of the IMT. In times like the early 90s, preserving this purity was essential. If Ted and Alan had not done so, the membership of the IMT -then and now -would have been stuck in an organization that has moved away from the ideas, tactics and principles of bolshevism, which I think the IMT preserves.

I am saying that our organization is open to honest activists, especialy the rank and file of the CWI. I cannot unprincipaly merge though, with the international leadership of the CWI, which has been showed to be bureaucratic and undemocratic (expulsion of Ted and Alan), that has adopted ideas, tactics and perspectives far removed from Bolshevism and has created a monster that is now called the SPEW.
Yeah yeah, the CWI leadership is evil, the IMT leadership is the holy grail of bolshevism, we know your opinion on the matter by now. Oh, a slight fact you seem to get wrong over and over: Woods and Grant weren't expelled, they walked out because they didn't receive the majority.

[Tower of Bebel]

For the debate to be transparent (especialy a debate of such nature), you do not need to inform people on the internet, sectarians and especialy cops about it. But the fact that a debate of such nature is carried not on an EC, IEC and CC level, but all members get involved in it, or at least get informed about it through internal press, is something indicative of the quality of democracy within the IMT. Besides, this was one of your points, that ordinary members are excluded from many debates and do not get informed about them. I am merely pointing out that this is not happening in the IMT. I am guessing though that it is happening in the CWI, since you mentioned it (and I am guessing that you mentioned it from experience).
There are countless reasons that you do not account with, regarding the 1991 split. The bureaucratic methods used by the leadership (bureaucratic centralism), the objective conditions that favoured degeneration etc. Especialy the latter, was really important for the creation of the IMT. In times like the early 90s, preserving this purity was essential. If Ted and Alan had not done so, the membership of the IMT -then and now -would have been stuck in an organization that has moved away from the ideas, tactics and principles of bolshevism, which I think the IMT preserves.

I am saying that our organization is open to honest activists, especialy the rank and file of the CWI. I cannot unprincipaly merge though, with the international leadership of the CWI, which has been showed to be bureaucratic and undemocratic (expulsion of Ted and Alan), that has adopted ideas, tactics and perspectives far removed from Bolshevism and has created a monster that is now called the SPEW.
The IMT's article on bureaucratic centralism and how to combat it emphasized the formation of cadres as the only real solution. But a cadre, and especially it's development, is something intirely subjective. Marxists need leaders, and those can only become fully developed in relation to the class struggle. The concept of a cadre depends on the party and the stage of development of that party (from a propaganda group to a mass party).

Besides, everything you wrote about the IMT can be found in the CWI ("our organization is open to honest activists"; "preserving this purity was essential"; "all members get involved in it, or at least get informed about it through internal press"; etc.). Are you going to substantiate?

[Q]

As a picture says more than a thousand words, I'd like to sum up the discussion thusly:

http://i28.tinypic.com/2dsmqmw.jpg

[Revy]

"Socialist Appeal" is actually the Workers' International League. Socialist Appeal is their magazine.

The Workers' International League (IMT) and Socialist Alternative (CWI) are actually very similar in that they both call for a labor party, and they both have supported Green presidential campaigns or Nader (though the WIL supported McKinney instead in 2008).

[Crux]

I personally think the IMT are an organisation we have several agreements with, however as is painfully obvious by Eat The Rich's posts there are still alot of bitterness left from the split, mostly on IMTs part. Further more, a subject curiosly avoided by ETR, there is one relevant and fundamental diffrence between our two organization's and that is the view of the ex-worker's parties. I am sure there are many good comrades but the cause of the split was not some "manouvering" by the CWI majority but a political conservatism and innability to see the new situation on the part of Woods-Grants minority. This caused them to make further mistakes along the line, for one thing not recognizing that the ex-soviet states had returned to capitalism untilm 1997. Again, I must stress that the IMT also has a sound analysis and approach on many questions, indeed identical to the CWI.

The new situation has made cause them to abandon some of their old positions, slowly but surely, however this has not been officially explained. The politics that yesterday were attacked as ultraleftism, working within Rifondazione Communista for example, are now the order of the day. In their swedish paper in a recent article they even went so far as saying that new worker's party's might "under exceptional conditions" be formed in western europe.
A welcome shift undoubtly, however it's obvious the IMT still has some ways left to come the conclusions we came to already in the early ninties, and, perhaps more importantly, admit they have done so.

Until then they will, on the whole be, absolutly unwilling to cooperate and continue to make serious mistakes, based on their dogamtism. their analysis of the Irish european parliament-election is an oustanding example how far off mechanic dogmatism can take you, especially if you also have some "prestige" issue.

To answer the OP, these are also the reason that the WIL and SA are not a common organization. But then again, it's not always that simple. We are small organizations, it seems reasonable to assume we work in diffrent cities, with different people. In the case of the US the IMT position does not seem to create any diffrences that cannot be overcome, however if I know the IMT right, the diffrences between CWI and IMT will stand in the way.
Maybe not for all members, but at this time I only think they can be won over individually. of course, I might be wrong and fruitfull cooperation might very well be possible. I have not directly asked the cormades but I don't believe the WIL and SA interact much, we are simply busy doing our own things respectively.

[Eat the Rich]

I think Mayakovsky is making some fundamental mistakes in his description of the attitude of the IMT.

We were never dogmatic on entrism. On the contrary, we have always understood the importance of flexible tactics. However that does not mean that we have abandoned our analysis, that the Social Democratic parties can move to the left and can become fertile to work within, just like they can shift to the right and can become infertile. We do not come up with theories such as the "creation of new workers parties" to justify our open work. Parties go left and right as a result of the objective material conditions. In these conditions, the SD Parties slowly move to the left, or through them (through the Labour left, the SPD left etc), new formations can emerge.

That being said, in Britain and other places where there's no fertile party to work in, we do mostly open work, withn the perspective of entrist work when the conditions of work in the Labour Party or other formations become fertile.

The CWI on the other hand, need to have a "theoretical justification" which is utterly mistaken. The CNWP is a big failure with no prospects of ever creating an alternative to Labour. They waste energy in opportunist formations such as the No2EU campaign which led nowhere, just like Solidarity and Respect were utter failures. The CWI has abandoned the perspecive of working in Labour, which will prove as their deathtrap when Labour moves to the left, having miseducated their cadre regarding to that question.


The JCP, proved the correctness of the theory of the IMT regarding mass parties. When the CWI was describing it as a "dead shell", we were doing similar work in "dead shells" in France and Italy. And look at the gains of the JCP, the gains of La Riposte and FalceMartello. In the future we will see the gains of the PCF and RC.

[KC]

"Socialist Appeal" is actually the Workers' International League. Socialist Appeal is their magazine.

Yes but everyone calls them Socialist Appeal because it's easier to say and doesn't sound as stupid as their actual name.

As for the ensuing CWI/IMT debate, I don't think that's really as relevant in this case and seems to me more abstracting from the issue at hand rather than dealing with the two organizations in question.

In short: You're all a bunch of whiners that can't get over yourselves.

[Crux]

I think Mayakovsky is making some fundamental mistakes in his description of the attitude of the IMT.

We were never dogmatic on entrism. On the contrary, we have always understood the importance of flexible tactics. However that does not mean that we have abandoned our analysis, that the Social Democratic parties can move to the left and can become fertile to work within, just like they can shift to the right and can become infertile. We do not come up with theories such as the "creation of new workers parties" to justify our open work. Parties go left and right as a result of the objective material conditions. In these conditions, the SD Parties slowly move to the left, or through them (through the Labour left, the SPD left etc), new formations can emerge.

That being said, in Britain and other places where there's no fertile party to work in, we do mostly open work, withn the perspective of entrist work when the conditions of work in the Labour Party or other formations become fertile.

The CWI on the other hand, need to have a "theoretical justification" which is utterly mistaken. The CNWP is a big failure with no prospects of ever creating an alternative to Labour. They waste energy in opportunist formations such as the No2EU campaign which led nowhere, just like Solidarity and Respect were utter failures. The CWI has abandoned the perspecive of working in Labour, which will prove as their deathtrap when Labour moves to the left, having miseducated their cadre regarding to that question.


The JCP, proved the correctness of the theory of the IMT regarding mass parties. When the CWI was describing it as a "dead shell", we were doing similar work in "dead shells" in France and Italy. And look at the gains of the JCP, the gains of La Riposte and FalceMartello. In the future we will see the gains of the PCF and RC.
Funny because brittain has always struck me as the most obvious example where the socdem party has proved itself unsalvagable beyond any doubt. It's not just a matter of left and right, it's matter of what the classbasis (not electoral basis) of the parties are today. By your reasoning it would seem you should merge with Democratic Socialists of America in the US, because the Democrats are in control of the unions and have workingclass voters.

What part of Labour would move to the left? You see here's the fundamental problem, the party as such is *empty*. Save for Socialist Appeal of course. In the european election a union stood against Labour for the first time in almost 100 years. Other Unions have pressure on them from the rank and file to dissaffiliate from the party of big bussiness, war and cut-backs, new labour. And the rightward shift shows no sign of stopping. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/07/david-miliband-labour-primaries) The RMT may have been the first union to stand against New labour in 100 years but they surely won't be the last. But it's interestign to see you acknowledge that work within New Labour is impossible if *only* at the present.

Both the PCF and Rifondazione Communista are in deep crisis. Especially the latter being on the verge of break-up. Both have discredited themselves in the eyes of the workingclass for quite a long time. Can they be salvaged? Maybe, but not just by themselfes.
The gains of the continously rightward moving JCP quite clearly shows the vacuum to the left, yes.

Well, KC that's the point, this debate would probably come up if we were to do joint work in the US. But I already adressed this in my previous post.

[KC]

Well, KC that's the point, this debate would probably come up if we were to do joint work in the US.

And the point is that the IMT and CWI are divided because they have arguments like this and pit each other on the other side of the firing line without realizing that on all essential issues they are in agreement (especially and entirely with regards to Socialist Appeal and Socialist Alternative).

[Crux]

And the point is that the IMT and CWI are divided because they have arguments like this and pit each other on the other side of the firing line without realizing that on all essential issues they are in agreement (especially and entirely with regards to Socialist Appeal and Socialist Alternative).
Well, I'm not the one pointing fingers. They can do their thing inside the ex-worker's parties if they like. And, as seems to be increasingly the case, they choose to work in other formations I see no problem with cooperation.

[KC]

Well, I'm not the one pointing fingers. They can do their thing inside the ex-worker's parties if they like. And, as seems to be increasingly the case, they choose to work in other formations I see no problem with cooperation.

So would you support or oppose a principled unity between IMT and CWI?

[Die Neue Zeit]

The JCP, proved the correctness of the theory of the IMT regarding mass parties. When the CWI was describing it as a "dead shell", we were doing similar work in "dead shells" in France and Italy. And look at the gains of the JCP, the gains of La Riposte and FalceMartello. In the future we will see the gains of the PCF and RC.

So now the IMT has become the official home of Pablo's line of entering "official communist" (Stalinist or Eurocommunist) parties? :laugh:

BTW, I was wondering why the CWI grassroots won't consider unity with, say, the "reunified Fourth International" before unity with the IMT (despite the history)? "Revolutionary liquidation" into the ex-USFI would mean an marked improvement in tactics (what is a "bourgeois labour" party, and what isn't) on top of the USFI's theoretical foundations (such as against coalitionism).

[Eat the Rich]

So now the IMT has become the official home of Pablo's line of entering "official communist" (Stalinist or Eurocommunist) parties? There's an ancient saying that goes like this: < The idiot laughs, when there's nothing to laugh about>.



http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/lol.gif

[Crux]

BTW, I was wondering why the CWI grassroots won't consider unity with, say, the "reunified Fourth International" before unity with the IMT (despite the history)? "Revolutionary liquidation" into the ex-USFI would mean an marked improvement in tactics (what is a "bourgeois labour" party, and what isn't) on top of the USFI's theoretical foundations (such as against coalitionism).
Actually, we had discussions with the USFI in the 1990's with the intent of possible (re)unification. However, unfortunatly, these discussions came to nothing because the USFI has abandoned the program to build a revolutionary international. What experience I have had with USFI in sweden is that it's hard to find a common line between the diffrent members, even. And this is just in a, small, national party, it's most likely much more severe at an international level. It's really more of a discussion forum than an international. it's hard to unite with a discussion forum.

However I think it's possible that we'll se further splits in the USFI which will possibly open up for a new revolutionary regroupment.

[Crux]

So would you support or oppose a principled unity between IMT and CWI?
Well, if we could come to a common tactic in countries where we do not have it at present, sure. Otherwise we should just agree to disagree I think and be on our way.

[KC]

Well, if we could come to a common tactic in countries where we do not have it at present, sure. Otherwise we should just agree to disagree I think and be on our way.

So you are willing to divide the socialist movement along the lines of tactics?! :ohmy:

[Crux]

So you are willing to divide the socialist movement along the lines of tactics?! :ohmy: Not being part of the CWI does not actually mean you're out of the socialist movement you know. Obviously the IMT connect their preferred tactics with ideological content. But yeah, I'd love to unite and I am sure there will be regroupments in the future, but let's face it, the fact that the CWI and IMT are diffrent organisations is not the end of the world. Regroupments in the revolutionary movement are dictated more by the movements in the workingclass than anything else.

[Crux]

Also, even if the IMT and the CWI were to move towards unity discussions, it would probably not take place on the internet. Internetdebates have an tendency to exagerate arguments.

[Tower of Bebel]

Would it be a problem if, within one movement, two wings (CWI & IMT) are part of different parties? I find the whole competition over the vanguard of the working class and the necessary pioneers to build a revolutionary party "anoying". Especially when, towards the outside world at least, different groups take the same position (like the struggle for a "labor" or "workers' party" in the USA).

[Crux]

What kind of movement? And, if we are going to get practical here, do you see any such possibilities with the CWI group and IMT group in belgium working together? "Unity" is not theoretical.

[Tower of Bebel]

What kind of movement? And, if we are going to get practical here, do you see any such possibilities with the CWI group and IMT group in belgium working together? "Unity" is not theoretical.
No, and that's because there's refusal on both sides. The IMT doesn't want to leave the old social democracy untill another stable alternative is set up (even after being pushed aside by the party bureaucracy during the latest elections). The CWI of course doesn't want to join the social democracy. On the other hand, we do have various programmatic agreements. The question of a new workers' party is the biggest difference.

A joint programme of action; is that an option?

But what about the parties in Die Linke for example?

[Crux]

The question of a new workers' party is the biggest difference. Which is a pretty serious diffrence I am afraid. The attitude from the Swedish section of the IMT as far as I gather is that they'd cooperate with anyone but the CWI, so. As for Die Linke, I don't know. you'd have to ask the german comrades, but I think the IMT group are pursuing a diffrent line then our own. of course, I wouldn't be opposed to joining left opposition together with the IMT inside Die Linke, or SYRIZA, if it is an option.

[Crux]

And the working class doesn't give a fuck about either, since a resolution in the favor or one or the other offers it absolutely nothing.
The workingclass has spoken. :laugh:

Why don't you stay in your own thread?

[Eat the Rich]

Which is a pretty serious diffrence I am afraid. The attitude from the Swedish section of the IMT as far as I gather is that they'd cooperate with anyone but the CWI, so. As for Die Linke, I don't know. you'd have to ask the german comrades, but I think the IMT group are pursuing a diffrent line then our own. of course, I wouldn't be opposed to joining left opposition together with the IMT inside Die Linke, or SYRIZA, if it is an option.

The difference in our work in Greece, is that while we do entrist work in Synaspismos , the CWI section in Greece is doing open work as a tendency in SYRIZA. The reason why I think our tactic is superior in Greece, is that SYRIZA looks like its ready to fall apart. Also, by being an independent tendency Xekinima is one of the smallest tendencies, so people who join SYRIZA usualy go for KOE (communist organization of Greece -Maoist) and DEA (Trotskyist and member of the USFI- split from SWP).
Furthermore, to belong to SYRIZA is opportunist, as you need to sign an agreement with its positions in order to participate in this electoral alliance (SYRIZA is nothing more than an electoral alliance who gets no more than 4%).

On the other hand the IMT benefits from the members of Synaspismos that are readily available for recruitment. The severe crisis within the party has produced the famous conditions Ted Grant put down on Problems of Entrism. I believe that as a result of this tactic the IMT section in Greece will make a lot of gains. Time will only tell though.

[Tower of Bebel]

The following is a simple paraphrase. It was part of the conclusion given on the CWI European Summer School by a Xekinima comrade: "the [CWI] benefits from the members of [Syriza] that are readily available for recruitment. The severe crisis within the party has produced the [...] conditions [...]. I believe that as a result of this tactic the [CWI] section in Greece will make a lot of gains. Time will only tell though."

[Eat the Rich]

The following is a simple paraphrase. It was part of the conclusion given on the CWI European Summer School by a Xekinima comrade: "the [CWI] benefits from the members of [Syriza] that are readily available for recruitment. The severe crisis within the party has produced the [...] conditions [...]. I believe that as a result of this tactic the [CWI] section in Greece will make a lot of gains. Time will only tell though."

Is cynicism, pessimism and liquidationism (anti-cadreism) the new attitude of the "Taaffites" now? Fuck if you guys go the way of LCR I will be super sad.

[Q]

Is cynicism, pessimism and liquidationism (anti-cadreism) the new attitude of the "Taaffites" now? Fuck if you guys go the way of LCR I will be super sad.
What on Earth are you talking about?

Rakunin simply pointed out that both sides claim the exact same thing and use it to back up their different tactic, be it to work inside Synaspismos or as an open party. It is in fact saying very little, if anything. In other words: Empty phraseology that is being used to justify sectarianism.

Edit:
I should probably add that I'm particularly referring to this context in which the same argument is used to prove "their right" over the "others' wrong", which is particularly sectarian and empty of meaning.

[Eat the Rich]

What on Earth are you talking about?

Rakunin simply pointed out that both sides claim the exact same thing and use it to back up their different tactic, be it to work inside Synaspismos or as an open party. It is in fact saying very little, if anything. In other words: Empty phraseology that is being used to justify sectarianism.I don't view "phraseology" as you call it as something necessarily bad. It raises enthusiasm amongst the members especialy when this "phraseology" is fullfiled. 99% our "phraseology" targets are fullfiled, because we generaly have good perspectives. We saw this in France, Italy etc. I think that you coming from another backround (CWI), view "phraseology" as something empty, because I am guessing that you have the experience of phraseology mostly being empty.

Anyways, I was not talking about pessimism, cynicism and liquidationism only for Rakunin's post (although it contained some of those elements). I was talking about it in general among the CWI users here, specificaly you, Rakunin and KC. This "trend" seems to be popular among CWI users here. The trend of unification under a general platform and the creation of a mass working class party etc. Only you are so impatient that you want revolutionaries to substitute the working class and do the "job" of the working class, by creating those parties. You want to find a shortcut to the masses. This short cut will be a short cut down the cliff.

I won't get more specific or analytical for now.

Edit: Mayakovski, who I consider a serious "representative" of the CWI on these boards of course doesn't fit in that category.

[Crux]

Cheers, if you are interested in our current work in SYRIZA we are currently the only actual group, thanks to our open work I believe, part of the Second Wave a group of radicalized younger members in SYRIZA not presently members of any tendency. I am glad that Synapsismos has moved to the left, which was our precondition for joining SYRIZA in the first place. It is true that SYRIZA is currently going through a a crucial period with the rightwing Synapsismos leadership backed up by the Maoists group being in a though spot so to speak. Here is our greek comrades analysis of the present developments: http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2009/09/1703.html

I hope your entryist work in Synapsismos can help defeat the rightwing.

In solidarity

[Tower of Bebel]

I don't view "phraseology" as you call it as something necessarily bad. It raises enthusiasm amongst the members especialy when this "phraseology" is fullfiled. 99% our "phraseology" targets are fullfiled, because we generaly have good perspectives. We saw this in France, Italy etc. I think that you coming from another backround (CWI), view "phraseology" as something empty, because I am guessing that you have the experience of phraseology mostly being empty.
The thing is that the discourse you are using can be found in the CWI as well (e.g. "we generaly have good perspectives"). In this case two organizations use the same "phrases" (or discourse) to denote two different subjective realities (I leave it open to history to decide which one represents objective reality best).


Anyways, I was not talking about pessimism, cynicism and liquidationism only for Rakunin's post (although it contained some of those elements). I was talking about it in general among the CWI users here, specificaly you, Rakunin and KC. This "trend" seems to be popular among CWI users here. The trend of unification under a general platform and the creation of a mass working class party etc. Only you are so impatient that you want revolutionaries to substitute the working class and do the "job" of the working class, by creating those parties. You want to find a shortcut to the masses. This short cut will be a short cut down the cliff.KC, Q and I don't belong to a certain (informal) "tendency". And even if it were I wouldn't say it is quite popular (even among revlefters from the CWI).

Second, by saying that we are substitutionist you arbitrarily distinguish between the revolutionary party (or revolutionaries) and the masses. Neither the abstract unity of the existing left nor the simplistic perspective of a spontanious movement of the masses will bring about the revolutionary mass party.

[Eat the Rich]

Cheers, if you are interested in our current work in SYRIZA we are currently the only actual group, thanks to our open work I believe, part of the Second Wave a group of radicalized younger members in SYRIZA not presently members of any tendency. I am glad that Synapsismos has moved to the left, which was our precondition for joining SYRIZA in the first place. It is true that SYRIZA is currently going through a a crucial period with the rightwing Synapsismos leadership backed up by the Maoists group being in a though spot so to speak. Here is our greek comrades analysis of the present developments: http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2009/09/1703.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2009/09/1703.html)

I hope your entryist work in Synapsismos can help defeat the rightwing.Thanks. Just to inform you, Kokkino (an observing group in the USFI or ICFI I'm not sure), is also part of the Second Wave, which it's true has many radicalized youth of SYRIZA that do not belong to any tendency.

The struggle within Synaspismos will be a crucial one for the fate of the whole SYRIZA project, as Synaspismos is by faaaaaaaar the biggest tendency of SYRIZA. The right wing tendency within Synaspismos is not a mass force of activists within the party, but mostly influential pseudo-intellectuals that want to dissolve Synaspismos and go to PASOK. Tsipras is trying to balance between the right and the left. The rank and file though is so pissed off, that I can soon see the right wing tendency being expelled and the leadership moving further to the left. If that doesn't happen, then a new left formation will form through Synaspismos.

@Q
Is the negative rep a scare tactic in order to discourage debate, when someone chalenges your naive, utopian project of uniting all the left sects and creating Red Unions and Proletarian Culture? Sorry to wake you up but you are not the red knight, saviour of the left. Enough with the unprincipled unificationist, substitutionist trend. Go unite with the SWP and tell me how it goes.

[KC]

@Q
Is the negative rep a scare tactic in order to discourage debate, when someone chalenges your naive, utopian project of uniting all the left sects and creating Red Unions and Proletarian Culture? Sorry to wake you up but you are not the red knight, saviour of the left. Enough with the unprincipled unificationist, substitutionist trend. Go unite with the SWP and tell me how it goes.

What does this accomplish, exactly?