the internationals - how useful are they really?

[Revy]

What do the workers of the world have to gain from having an international? Has membership in the CWI, IMT, IST, etc, actually helped your efforts?

Can't socialist parties have international relations with other parties without joining an international organization?

There has been some debate within our party about internationals - but there is really no international for us. The majority are against joining the "Socialist International" for obvious reasons. And of course we won't be accepted into the Trotskyist ones even if the majority of the party agreed to join. So the only option is to create a unique international for parties like ours - or remain independent.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I suspect that the usefulness of internationals probably varies greatly according to which country you're in. The SWP probably gets limited benefits from being in the IST (although it still gets some, like having people on the ground in Bangladesh or wherever who can write stories for their paper whenever things kick off there), but I'd imagine the Zimbabwean section of the IST are quite grateful for the fact that they have comrades in more affluent countries who're able to raise funds for them and help publicise the repression they face. Likewise, I'd imagine the Serbian anarcho-syndicalists facing heavy state repression are pretty glad about the fact that there are comrades helping to raise awareness of their plight everywhere the IWA has a section.

[Wanted Man]

It's useful for some, for others it's simply a way to get more political weight. 20-person sect? No sirree, we're part of an international that includes parties with thousands of members!

At least, I don't think a non-British IMT or CWI supporter could tell us with a straight face that they really feel connected to their international comrades because they all agree on what happened in the Liverpool city council during the 1980s...

[Mephisto]

In my opinion international organisations are very important for the revolutionary movement, because such bodies can coordinate their member sections all over the world in global class struggles (at least if things are going well).

The member parties can share experiences and support themselves in several ways (financial, journalistic, theoretical etc.).


Of course, parties can keep good relations with other parties without any international affiliation but I think that the goal of a strong revolutionary international is an imporant one and deeply connected to the struggle for revolutionary workers parties in the several countries of the world.



What belongs to the SPA: I'm suprised that you even thought about a neoliberal corpus as the "socialist" international. :D But you are right, it would be difficult for you joining any international organisation, because you are sitting a bit between the chairs of the international left.

Could you tell which tendencies/wings exist within the party and which is dominating?

[Yehuda Stern]

What a terrible attitude you have to the idea of an international. Marxists don't create internationals to feel bigger or to enhance their national work, but because engagement with revolutionaries in other countries is an absolute necessity to increase one's knowledge of events in the world and to maintain one's internationalism! The ISL is a tiny group, and we only have real connections with other tiny groups, but even though no formal organizational fusion has been undertaken, we still feel every time how our connections give us a more complete worldview and improve our way of thinking and our ability to withstand the pressures of Zionist imperialism, a dire necessity in the Zionist state. I think this quote from the founding documents of the FI will be useful here:


It is possible to maintain and develop a revolutionary political grouping of serious importance only on the basis of great principles. The Fourth International alone embodies and represents these principles. It is possible for a national group to maintain a constant revolutionary course only if it is firmly connected in one organization with co-thinkers throughout the world and maintains a constant political and theoretical collaboration with them. The Fourth International alone is such an organization. All purely national groupings, all those who reject international organization, control, and discipline, are in their essence reactionary.



At least, I don't think a non-British IMT or CWI supporter could tell us with a straight face that they really feel connected to their international comrades because they all agree on what happened in the Liverpool city council during the 1980s...

I can't speak about the IST; the size of the other groups relative to the SWP and the fact that most people who read Socialist Worker or know about the SWP don't even know the IST exists can attest to the lack of its internationalism, I believe. I can also recount the story of how, when we approached the SWP because we were interested in their ideas, we were told that we should just move to Britain.

We have personal experience of the IMT, though, so I can say that while there is a feeling of solidarity among comrades of different countries, the structure of the international is bureaucratic and a section that wants to fight against the leadership is crushed immediately. I have two examples of this:

1. In the Greek section, several years ago, there was a debate between two groups: one which wanted to pursue work in PASOK and one which wanted to work inside another, more left wing party (Synaspismos I believe, but I could be wrong. There was no non-entry group, in case anyone is wondering).

Since the debate couldn't be resolved, the IMT decided to expel the former (who admittedly acted in a bureaucratic way) - even though they were clear about having no political differences with the IMT! When the FI faced such a problem in Britain, they split the two groups until it was clear which group was correct. The IMT, being a centrist and not a revolutionary group, couldn't care less for international comrades who dare challenge the leadership's wisdom.

2. Of course there is also our case; we were expelled after taking a position contrary to the IMT leadership on the civil war in Gaza, despite being promised a chance to publish a second article on this question. (I can send a document on this to those interested; leave me a PM or visitor mesage)

As for the CWI, their section here, aside from being economist in the sense that they flat out refuse to discuss Zionism and the Palestinian struggle with their audience, tend to leave out the fact that they are part of a Trotskyist international. So their being in an international is little more than a ritual; it has no bearing on their day to day practice or on their programme.


The majority are against joining the "Socialist International" for obvious reasons. And of course we won't be accepted into the Trotskyist ones even if the majority of the party agreed to join. So the only option is to create a unique international for parties like ours - or remain independent.

Of course, you see no option of breaking away from the reformists. That's your main problem and the reason why you will never manage to build a revolutionary organization, let alone an international, other than one of other eclectic parties. The sterility of such an international could only be rivaled by that of the Socialist or Liberal internationals.

[Devrim]

For us in the ICC, the situation is a little different. We are not an association of different national organizations but one international centralised organisation. There is not a a Turkish section of the ICC. It is the ICC in Turkey.
Devrim

[Eat the Rich]

The IMT is an international party. We do not have autonomous "sections". We are a worldwide party, with "sections" and supporters in 50 + countries. We have democraticaly elected organs, such as the International Secretariat and the International Excecutive Committee, that act as a CC and EC.

The benefits of being an international is that we can deepen our theoretical level, understanding through the discussionw ith comrades all over the world. Comrades and "sections" in advanced capitalist countries help out financialy the "sections" in countries of South America, Africa, Asia etc.

The main aim and purpose of an international though is the Worldwide socialist revolution!

On a personal level, I was able to understand the true meaning of internationalism when I joined the IMT. I further understood the meaning of internationalism, when I met comrades from almost 30 countries during our world schools and congresses in Barcelona. (We have a World School every odd year and a Congress every even year).

[Die Neue Zeit]

What do the workers of the world have to gain from having an international? Has membership in the CWI, IMT, IST, etc, actually helped your efforts?

Can't socialist parties have international relations with other parties without joining an international organization?

There has been some debate within our party about internationals - but there is really no international for us. The majority are against joining the "Socialist International" for obvious reasons. And of course we won't be accepted into the Trotskyist ones even if the majority of the party agreed to join. So the only option is to create a unique international for parties like ours - or remain independent.

Create one. :)

Since you've been reading Revolutionary Strategy, that book suggests more than just creating inter-nationals (the closer to Devrim's suggestion, the better). Because of the mobility of capital, the struggles of the working class must transcend national and even inter-national limitations.

That also means your inter-national organization should not become a mere "fan club" for the SP-USA like the various "internationals" are for certain national parties.

Feel free to modify my Draft Program so as to create this international. Just make sure the other parties don't waver. ;)


Of course, you see no option of breaking away from the reformists. That's your main problem and the reason why you will never manage to build a revolutionary organization, let alone an international, other than one of other eclectic parties. The sterility of such an international could only be rivaled by that of the Socialist or Liberal internationals.

Ah, the usual sectarian comment that doesn't take into account the history of the International Working Union of Socialist Parties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Working_Union_of_Socialist_Parties) ("Two and a Half") or the International Revolutionary Marxist Centre ("Three and a Half"), let alone the Second International.

[chegitz guevara]

What belongs to the SPA: I'm suprised that you even thought about a neoliberal corpus as the "socialist" international. :D But you are right, it would be difficult for you joining any international organisation, because you are sitting a bit between the chairs of the international left.

Could you tell which tendencies/wings exist within the party and which is dominating?

The Socialist Party of America broke up in 1972. The remains reorganized themselves as the Social Democrats USA. In 1973, the Debs Caucus of the old SPA (which had split) founded itself as the Socialist Party USA. Lastly, the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (the faction around Michael Harrington) joined with the New American Movement and created the Democratic Socialists of America, in 1981, and they decided on an enteryism in the Democratic Party.

In the SPUSA, there are two unofficial tendencies, the Debs Tendency (not to be confused with the old Debs Caucus), which is not a Trotskyist tendency, it's just mostly Trotskyists, and the Grass Roots Tendency, which is sort of a Libertarian Socialist / Luxemburgist tendency. The GRT is the larger of the two, but neither group is anything close to a majority in the party. However both tendencies together have a majority of the national leadership, and when you include all revolutionaries, we have more than two thirds of the national leadership. All together, revolutionaries are a majority of the active membership.

There used to be an official social democratic tendency, whose name, I shit you not, was the Fist and Rose Tendency, and yes we called them FART. FART never managed to have more than one or two people in the national leadership, when a number of them attempted some very anti-democratic moves, such as trying to steal the party's name for themselves, in one case, tried to declare the entire Socialist Party of Florida a split from the SPUSA simply by declaration of the self-appointed chair. Needless to say, they weren't in the party much longer.

At the last meeting of the NC, we voted to approach the New Anticapitalist Party of France and ask for observer status in whatever international they decide to create. I believe that's the European Anticapitalist Left. So you can see where the internal politics of the organization is leaning.

The unorganized social democrats still in the organization are a mix of three groups. First are those that simply send in their dues so they can vote for a Socialist Party candidate every four years. This group is probably about 80% of the party, but they take no part in the internal life of the party. If they wanted, they could swamp us, but they don't.

Next you have a rather smaller group of completely unprincipled social democrats who constantly engage in character assassination and whining when they don't get their way (which is most of the time these past four years). They are a minority of the active comrades, and a number of them have stated they will quit the party if the revolutionaries win control again. They have proven through their actions repeatedly they are not principled, democratic, or trustworthy (big surprise). :thumbdown:

Lastly is a tiny group of principled social democrats :ohmy:, who act in a democratic and principled manner and are actually interested in abolishing capitalism. These are such a strange and rare breed of social democrat that they should be on the endangered species list.

I have no problem with social democrats that just give us money. :tt1: Nor do I have a problem with a minority who will act in a democratic and principled fashion. :thumbup1: It's that anti-democratic, unprincipled minority that needs to go. :hammersickle:

[Mephisto]

Thanks a lot for this useful post Chegitz! Do you belong to any of those unofficial tendencies?

You spoke about the European Anti-Capitalist Left. To be honest, I don't get the impression that the EACL is pretty active any more. :D

I don't know wether the NPA really will create a new International or not. There are surely possible candidates for joining, e.g. parties like the Left Bloc in Portugal, the Unity Lists Red-Green in Denmark or the Brazilian P-SOL. These all are parties emerged from fusions, coalition or transformations of smaller organisations on the radical left.

[Revy]

Thanks a lot for this useful post Chegitz! Do you belong to any of those unofficial tendencies?

You spoke about the European Anti-Capitalist Left. To be honest, I don't get the impression that the EACL is pretty active any more. :D

I don't know wether the NPA really will create a new International or not. There are surely possible candidates for joining, e.g. parties like the Left Bloc in Portugal, the Unity Lists Red-Green in Denmark or the Brazilian P-SOL. These all are parties emerged from fusions, coalition or transformations of smaller organisations on the radical left.

That is what I would like to see, the NPA help create an international. They are in a prominent position to do so.

[Mephisto]

The only problem with that is, that an international must be based on clear and revolutionary programme. At the moment, the NPA lacks this important thing and I would not want to see an international based only on some diffuse principles of anticapitalism without clear orientation, which could fastly lead to centrist and reformist leanings. We know this happened to many former socialist and communist parties before.

Do you belong to one of the unofficial tendencies in the Socialist Party?

[Revy]

The only problem with that is, that an international must be based on clear and revolutionary programme. At the moment, the NPA lacks this important thing and I would not want to see an international based only on some diffuse principles of anticapitalism without clear orientation, which could fastly lead to centrist and reformist leanings. We know this happened to many former socialist and communist parties before.

Do you belong to one of the unofficial tendencies in the Socialist Party?
I agree.

I belong to the Debs Tendency.

[chegitz guevara]

I'm also a member of the Debs Tendency.

[Mephisto]

Are there any other leftist organizations the Socialist Party has good relations to? Maybe this could be a basis for something like an observer status or at least continious contact to any international.

[Leo]

The IMT is an international party. We do not have autonomous "sections". We are a worldwide party, with "sections" and supporters in 50 + countries.

Interesting, now does the IMT have a platform, basic positions or agreements, or at least a conditions of admission of sorts?

[Revy]

Are there any other leftist organizations the Socialist Party has good relations to? Maybe this could be a basis for something like an observer status or at least continious contact to any international.

We have had relations with parties like the Scottish Socialist Party and the Red-Green Alliance in Denmark. that's all I can remember...

[Mephisto]

I meant other organisations in the USA, actually. Are there any?

[Revy]

well if there's one Trotskyist international I'd like to see us be an observer on, it would be the USFI.

[Mephisto]

Does the SP have any connections to Solidarity or Socialist Action?

[Eat the Rich]

well if there's one Trotskyist international I'd like to see us be an observer on, it would be the USFI.


From what I know the USFI is a loose federation of sections, that really don't get binded by collective decisions made within it. For example there can be 2 parties doing totaly different things in one country and they are part of the USFI. Correct me if I m confusing it with some other one. . .

[Enragé]

^you say that like it's a bad thing. How can people in the uk know exactly what we should do in the netherlands? Let alone people in the US.

Ofcourse, you have some core principles, but the way you act on them is different in each country due to context. Not that an international is bad, just decentralise it.

Yes marx and lenin talked about centralisation, the point is that it was the result of a voluntary fusion of communes on the ground (which ofcourse logically presupposes the principle of [con]federalism, for how else can voluntary fusion between communes occur?). Lenin just jumped to the conclusion that this meant there should be one monolithic vanguard already declaring this centralisation self-evident, and so confusing the end of the process of/towards the revolution with the beginning of it.

[redasheville]

Does the SP have any connections to Solidarity or Socialist Action?

I doubt they have any connections to Socialist Action. There is an unofficial connection between Solidarity and the SP and that is that there are folks that are members of both organizations (both organizations have dual membership policies). I was nominally a member of both organizations at the same time. My understanding is that the Solidarity leadership largely sees the SP comrades as a thorn in their side...

I quit Solidarity and the SP about 2 and a half years ago and joined the ISO.

International relationships among revolutionary organizations is essential, I think. However, the tendency to see the scope of "international work" is just to link up with groups in other countries that all share the same politics stems from an delusional conception of internationalism that is sectarian.

That is not to say that I think organizations with the same politics shouldn't form close relationships, but with the left in such a retreat in many parts of the world it is silly to try to form mini-Cominterns or mini-Fourth Internationals.

The ISO was a part of the IST until we were booted out several years ago. Since then we have formed alliances with a variety of revolutionary socialist organizations around the world, primarily with groups from the USFI and groups that were also a part of the IST (ISO in New Zealand, Socialist Alternative in Australia, International Workers Left in Greece, and the International Socialists in the LCR [now in the NPA]) and Trotskyist groups in Latin America. The relation between us and the IST groups has begun to warm, as we have published books by people from the IST and have had them speak at our events since the split. Our basis for these connections are not that we all agree on every possible political question but that we see each other has doing the kind of work that needs to be done in our respective countries and we can learn from each other's experience. This kind of activity, IMO, does more to lay the groundwork for a true revolutionary international (which will only develop concurrently with a massive revolutionary wave internationally) than any attempt at building another "Liaison Co-ordinating Committee of Committees to Re-Establish a Revolutionary Fourth and Half International" or whatever.

[Crux]

What do the workers of the world have to gain from having an international? Has membership in the CWI, IMT, IST, etc, actually helped your efforts?

Can't socialist parties have international relations with other parties without joining an international organization?

There has been some debate within our party about internationals - but there is really no international for us. The majority are against joining the "Socialist International" for obvious reasons. And of course we won't be accepted into the Trotskyist ones even if the majority of the party agreed to join. So the only option is to create a unique international for parties like ours - or remain independent.
I would say our membership in the CWI is paramount, having attended two CWI summer schools so far myself. It allows us to get reports "from the ground" so to speak, it gives us an international network that back us up and we also stand on common traditions. Actually it is fully comparable to the benefits of having a national organization, rather than just being in a local organization.

Certainly. But to succeed in the monumental task in front of us I do genuinly believe a common international organization is needed. That's why I am in the CWI. But of course we also have friendly contacts with a couple of organizations. We started a discussion with the Parti Communiste in Quebec, but it broke down quite recently as the leadership choose to expell a number of members among them people who sympathize with the CWI.
And from what I understand the comrades in Australia are doing some common work with the Workers Party of New Zealand.

Joining an international is not something that can be done through a single vote about it. It's about fusing with another organisation, and as such needs quite a lot of discussion and common work beforehand. For example we recently fused with a group in Brazil that we have had joint work and discussions with for, I think it's, 3 or 4 years now.
Similarly we are in discussion with a left current within Rifondazione Communista called Contro Corrente, and have had common work with them for several years as well. This december they will hold a conference on whetever or not to affiliate to the CWI.

Of course you could build your own international organization, if you can find co-thinkers and sympathizers abroad.

[Crux]

Also, simlarly as we see ourselfes having the task, as well as building our own specific revolutionary current, we also wish to build new, broader, worker's parties. The same goes for a new international. Indeed our name is Committee for a Worker's International.

[Crux]

^you say that like it's a bad thing. How can people in the uk know exactly what we should do in the netherlands? Let alone people in the US.

Ofcourse, you have some core principles, but the way you act on them is different in each country due to context. Not that an international is bad, just decentralise it.

Yes marx and lenin talked about centralisation, the point is that it was the result of a voluntary fusion of communes on the ground (which ofcourse logically presupposes the principle of [con]federalism, for how else can voluntary fusion between communes occur?). Lenin just jumped to the conclusion that this meant there should be one monolithic vanguard already declaring this centralisation self-evident, and so confusing the end of the process of/towards the revolution with the beginning of it.
Well that depends on what your purpose is, comrade. Just having an international discussiongroup is fine, but far, far, far from enough. The IST was formed to be "diffrent" from the other Internationals at the time, more democratic, more like a discussion forum. That this is not the case I am sure the ISO and the other expelled groups can attest to.

The point is, gathering together revolutionaries in a genuine international organization, capable of acting as such is important. It's not about some group in some other country deiciding what you should do instead it is a question of common action.

[Enragé]

Well that depends on what your purpose is, comrade. Just having an international discussiongroup is fine, but far, far, far from enough. The IST was formed to be "diffrent" from the other Internationals at the time, more democratic, more like a discussion forum. That this is not the case I am sure the ISO and the other expelled groups can attest to.

The point is, gathering together revolutionaries in a genuine international organization, capable of acting as such is important. It's not about some group in some other country deicidingw hat you should, no instead it is a question of common action.

Do not critique me on the basis of the IST, the SWP or whatever. On the IST chapter where i am, maybe, but i am just one dude. I have heard of these things, countless times, and plausible counter-claims, countless times - whatever the case, at the moment i cannot see a better way to try and make a difference than by being a member of the chapter here where i have seen no evidence of such extremes in my last two years of being a member. My reasons for being in the IS are not that i see the IS as the zenith of revolutionary organising, especially not in a formal, structural way. Nevertheless, its the best of the organised revolutionary left i at present see around me, at least when it comes to reaching out to people, spreading ideas.

And i called state and revolution (why the fuck does anyone claim its his most 'anarchist' book) a reactionary, counterrevolutionary rag in a discussion with a comrade, i certainly wasnt expelled or anythin o0

[chegitz guevara]

Are there any other leftist organizations the Socialist Party has good relations to? Maybe this could be a basis for something like an observer status or at least continious contact to any international.

We have no official relations with other organizations in the U.S. (we have one for international dialogue), however, at the last National Committee meeting, we created a committee to begin that process.

Unofficially, we have fairly a warm relationship with the Freedom Socialist Party. Certain locals seem to get along with different groups. For example, the SP in Southeast Florida works with both the Party of Socialism and Liberation on occasion (in fact the leader lives in walking distance from me) and comrades in ISO, Workers World, etc. In Boston, there's been some cooperation between the SP and groups like Socialist Alternative and Workers World.

At this time, dual membership is allowed with the SP and any organization that is not organized on democratic centralist lines except the Social Democrats USA. I have presented a motion to the convention, however, to allow the National Committee to allow certain individuals in democratic centralist groups or entire democratic centralist groups to have dual membership.

We have to be careful, because the name, Socialist Party, is a prize. If we allowed any group dual membership, they could just take over. The Sparticist League tried this in the 1970s, apparently, and there's still bad memories over the Schactmanite take over in the 60s, as well as the original Trotskyist entry in the 1930s.

I would also mention that Red Ashville is correct in Solidaity's view of the SP. When a number of us in the Debs Tendency joined Solidarity, we were viewed with suspicion and mistrust, and they decided they needed to discuss whether to continue the dual membership policy or not. Frankly, I hope they don't. Solidarity has swung so far to the right in the past decade that I wouldn't even call it social democratic. They are the left wing of the Green Party. A couple of Solidarity's better members in Detroit have made a positive contribution, but all in all, Solidarity's a sad, pathetic organization.

[Crux]

Do not critique me on the basis of the IST, the SWP or whatever. On the IST chapter where i am, maybe, but i am just one dude. I have heard of these things, countless times, and plausible counter-claims, countless times - whatever the case, at the moment i cannot see a better way to try and make a difference than by being a member of the chapter here where i have seen no evidence of such extremes in my last two years of being a member. My reasons for being in the IS are not that i see the IS as the zenith of revolutionary organising, especially not in a formal, structural way. Nevertheless, its the best of the organised revolutionary left i at present see around me, at least when it comes to reaching out to people, spreading ideas.

And i called state and revolution (why the fuck does anyone claim its his most 'anarchist' book) a reactionary, counterrevolutionary rag in a discussion with a comrade, i certainly wasnt expelled or anythin o0
Chill, man. I am not attacking you personally, I'm just saying that having a "looser" international organization can, instead of being more democratic, make the leadership more unaccountable. I think it is fair to say that the leadership of the brittish SWP essentially also are in control of the IST. Not in every teensy detail of course, but at least it would be a sham to say all organizations in the IST are equal.

This sort of points in the direction of the question of how to build an international, you know. The point is to both have as much ideological agreement as possible and still let all the sections of the international have their say in building the international.

[Die Neue Zeit]

If decentralization is an imperative, then Moshe Machover suggested correspondence networks/societies:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/782/whatsortofparty.php


Now to my constructive, modest proposal. I think we can learn from the experience of the Campaign for a Marxist Party. I am not going to go into detail, but I think we can learn from some mistakes. The whole thing blew up when the CMP wanted to draw up a fairly detailed programme. That is when differences emerged early, and too soon, and the whole thing exploded. Working on the initial 16 principles that brought me to the project, or something like that, for quite along time would have been enough.

Another thing we should learn is that revolutionary projects usually have an international starting point. The idea of first building a revolutionary party in Britain, and maybe other countries will do likewise and then at the end of the process national revolutionary parties will get together to form an international party - perhaps this is looking at it from the wrong end of the telescope. Perhaps we should start by forming an international entity.

You cannot start on an international basis to form a party with discipline and so on, but you can form a network. Those who know the history of the revolutionary movement know that this is how the First International came about. Such a network would be able to utilise the communication capacity we have today to make such correspondence far easier. Not that anyone could join, but it could unite around something like the principles that initiated the CMP.

If we look round this room, even the international contacts that people in this room are in touch with could provide the nucleus for this international network. This has to be very carefully and cautiously undertaken, but I think this is perhaps a more promising way to go about forming a revolutionary party that would be international from the very beginning.

I hate to sound a tad bit "centrist" in this next part, but considering the political disposition of the inactive base of the SP-USA, perhaps you should also consider ties to whatever international project the Party of the European Left (the most prominent party being Die Linke ;) ) has, in addition to the NPA's own. Some parties are members of both.