Potential split in the IMT?

[Woyzeck]

To the IEC, to all members of the IMT,

It is of decisive importance in the present tense situation not to take an
impressionistic or emotional stand. The issue is not one of loyalty to one or
the other side. The only serious way of finding a solution to the present
crisis facing the organisation, is by taking a principled Marxist stand on all
the issues involved.

The IS threat of suspending the Spanish section is a mistake. We have
previously insisted that the Spanish leadership fulfill its duties and pays its
subs. However, the failure to do so is not a valid excuse for suspending the
Spanish section. Firstly, the suspension of a whole section because its
leadership fails to pay its subs reflects a feudal mentality on the part
of the IS rather than a Marxist one. If anybody is to be suspended it should
be the comrades in the leadership who are opposed to paying the subs.

However, even that would also be a disaster in the current situation. We have just begun the political discussions. So far, to our knowledge, the only places where the documents have been openly debated are Spain,
Venezuela, and Sweden. Cutting off the discussion now, which would be the consequence of implementing a suspension, makes a mockery of a free discussion. Whether or not this is what the Spanish leadership themselves are aiming at through their refusal to pay subs is irrelevant. The responsibility of the IS is to lead, not to react emotionally to provocations.

What is even worse is that the main cause of the possible split - in the eyes
of the IS the bureaucratic regime of the Spanish leadership and in the eyes of the Spanish leadership the bureaucratic regime of the IS - will not have been brought out into the open at all before the Spanish section has been suspended. Presenting the members of our organisation with such a fait accompli is to undemocratically remove their right to have a real say in the future of our organisation. There should be no suspensions until there has been a full discussion at the World Congress of all the issues involved in the dispute.

Swedish EC.Thoughts?

[BOZG]

Thoughts?

Is this legit?

To Leftist Trainspotters!

[Yehuda Stern]

The IMT already lost a rather large chunk of its alleged Pakistani section, which left with Manzoor Ahmed, their former MP, who overnight turned from the Pakistani Lenin to a traitor. It also lost its Israeli members (hey there), who, though very few, received a first hand experience of the IMT's bureaucratic conduct when it comes to dissent. Now the Spanish section fails to pay subs so that Alan Woods can fly all over the world to share his boring lectures with people who have nothing to do with the IMT, and they must go too.

Frankly, the stupidity is astounding. The Spanish IMT section is the only significant section of the IMT in Europe*; IMTers in France and Italy have also managed to make some advances in their local reformist parties by raising popular reformist slogans, but in Spain, if one believes the IMT - and it's debatable whether or not one should - they actually control, at least partially, the student union. I also know they are quite a large section - even judging by the numbers I've seen with my eyes alone.

But what does it matter to Alan Woods and to the other IMT leaders playing with revolution? A couple of hundred supporters here, a couple more there. The only thing that really matters is discipline and that they pay subs.

And these people claim they're building a revolutionary international!

EDIT: *originally said "only significant section of the IMT." I don't know if it's really true that the Mexican or Pakistani sections are significant, but I'd rather not guess. Certainly, in Europe, the IMT has no other section with any remotely close level of significance.

[Holden Caulfield]

Now the Spanish section fails to pay subs so that Alan Woods can fly all over the world to share his boring lectures with people

Is the IMT actually anything other than a vehicle for Alan Woods own ego?
I mean seriously we bash Avakian for having a cult but Alan hardly goes about his business in the correct manner.

(Disclaimer: as a former CWI member I am well versed in better IMT criticisms, but as weak as these criticisms are I think they are valid)

[Wanted Man]

This may sound dumb, but I fail to understand what the "subs" thing means. Does it mean that all the national sections have to pay tribute to the "international" for the favour of being included in it? :confused:

[BOZG]

This may sound dumb, but I fail to understand what the "subs" thing means. Does it mean that all the national sections have to pay tribute to the "international" for the favour of being included in it? :confused:

No. National sections pay subs towards the costs involved in running the International Secretariat but more importantly, in subsidising sections in other countries who need financial assistance.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The first thing we should say is that it will be a shame if the IMT splits, but it is far too early to say. We shouldn't be listening to rumours. Such splits damage us all, and the workers' movement in general -- so does any sectarian gloating.

I have tried to explain why this sort of thing (and the kind of things Yehuda accuses the IMT leadership of) is endemic among Trotskyist parties and tendencies --, indeed, on the far left in general --, why this has been so for at least 150 years, and why it will continue indefinitely, unless we address its fundamental causes, here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_02.htm

[Q]

The IMT already lost a rather large chunk of its alleged Pakistani section, which left with Manzoor Ahmed, their former MP, who overnight turned from the Pakistani Lenin to a traitor.
Could you post more info on that? I remember a thread on it about a year or so back. But then there wasn't any conclusive information either on the scale of the split (simply just Manzoor or an actual group?).


Frankly, the stupidity is astounding. The Spanish IMT section is the only significant section of the IMT
Wasn't that Pakistan (~3000 members out of ~4500 internationally)? Or was the Pakistani split that severe?

[Invigilator]

Could you post more info on that? I remember a thread on it about a year or so back. But then there wasn't any conclusive information either on the scale of the split (simply just Manzoor or an actual group?).

The split in Pakistan involved a substantial chunk of the membership. At one stage it looked as if Mazoor would take more than half, in the end it seems to have been circa one third.

I would guess at the moment that the Pakistan section accounts for perhaps 1,500 members of 3,000 internationally. This is using rather generous criteria for membership. The Pakistan group in particular brings a high percentage of non-members to its conferences and rallies, which reflects a certain wider influence but can be misleading when it comes to estimating membership. They also lie shamelessly about overall attendances.

Spain is the only other substantial group in the IMT. If the IS are trying to get rid of them they must fear the possibility of the contagion spreading, particularly to the Latin American sections (which are small, with the partial exception of the Brazilians but which are also the "success story" of the international, particularly since the shine came off the Pakistan group.

Woyzeck, where did this document come from?

[Yehuda Stern]

The first thing we should say is that it will be a shame if the IMT splits

No, it's not. The IMT is a centrist group, and therefore it exists only to disorient advanced workers and prevent them from reaching a revolutionary level of consciousness. But we all know already that the SWP is attempting to establish a modus vivendi with other groups: "don't criticize us and we won't criticize you." Too bad that the IMT is too sectarian for even that, and will undoubtedly gloat when the SWP's inevitable demise comes.

And yeah, yeah, anti-dialectics. To be honest, claiming that a philosophy is the explanation for the failures of revolutionaries all throughout history leaves the realms of anti-dialectics and enters those of anti-materialism. But that's the logical conclusion of anti-dialectics; non-dialectic, consistent materialism has been a fairy tale creature for some time now.


Or was the Pakistani split that severe?

Made a bit of a mistake in that post, fixed it now.

[sks]

Thoughts?

Pics or it didnt happen.

sks

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

After my post, cue the Uber-Sectarian Himself, puffed-up with Righteous Indignation:

YS:


No, it's not. The IMT is a centrist group, and therefore it exists only to disorient advanced workers and prevent them from reaching a revolutionary level of consciousness. But we all know already that the SWP is attempting to establish a modus vivendi with other groups: "don't criticize us and we won't criticize you." Too bad that the IMT is too sectarian for even that, and will undoubtedly gloat when the SWP's inevitable demise comes.

Thanks for providing us with a textbook example of the language of sectarian in-fighting. Over the last 25 years I have seen this sort of thing said by practically every Trotskyist group about every other -- and you wonder why we are such a long-term failure.

But, never mind, you can rest content in your microscopic group, confident that you are as pure as the driven snow, and thus condemned to remain small and impotent forever.


And yeah, yeah, anti-dialectics. To be honest, claiming that a philosophy is the explanation for the failures of revolutionaries all throughout history leaves the realms of anti-dialectics and enters those of anti-materialism. But that's the logical conclusion of anti-dialectics; non-dialectic, consistent materialism has been a fairy tale creature for some time now.

I posted that to catch you out, for in the essay to which I linked, I do not blame this on dialectics.

So, thanks for making yet another fool of yourself.:thumbup:

Anyway, you still can't defend this 'theory' of yours, hence you chicken out of debate every time. If it were such a wonderful theory, you'd be able to defend it easily...

Cue excuse (1) "I haven't got time."

Or maybe, excuse (2) "I can't be bothered."

Or maybe even (3) "Your theory has already been refuted, but I refuse to say where."

[Woyzeck]

Woyzeck, where did this document come from?

It's a statement produced by the Swedish section of the IMT and presumably circulated within the organisation.

I'm not willing to say how I obtained it, sorry.

[Woyzeck]

Is this legit?

To my knowledge it is, yes.

[Invigilator]

It's a statement produced by the Swedish section of the IMT and presumably circulated within the organisation.

I'm not willing to say how I obtained it, sorry.

It's fair enough that you aren't willing to name names, and I don't think anyone would want you to do that. But I think people are legitimately curious about how you know it's a real letter.

Without saying anything that could get anyone in trouble or that could identify anyone, did you get it directly from an IMT member?

Are there still IMT supporters on this forum? If so, it is interesting that the response has been silence rather than denial.

[Woyzeck]

It's fair enough that you aren't willing to name names, and I don't think anyone would want you to do that. But I think people are legitimately curious about how you know it's a real letter.

Without saying anything that could get anyone in trouble or that could identify anyone, did you get it directly from an IMT member?

Are there still IMT supporters on this forum? If so, it is interesting that the response has been silence rather than denial.

There aren't exactly a HUGE amount of former, or indeed current, supporters of the IMT in Ireland, so it wouldn't be difficult to identify me comrade. Yes I received this from an IMT member, although I have no idea why to be perfectly honest. And for the record -- I'm not trying to stir shit here. I posted this because I feel it is necessary to expose the disgraceful practices of Woods' and his supporters that have even got erstwhile loyalists questioning the motivations of the leadership.

[Invigilator]

There aren't exactly a HUGE amount of former, or indeed current, supporters of the IMT in Ireland, so it wouldn't be difficult to identify me comrade. Yes I received this from an IMT member, although I have no idea why to be perfectly honest. And for the record -- I'm not trying to stir shit here. I posted this because I feel it is necessary to expose the disgraceful practices of Woods' and his supporters that have even got erstwhile loyalists questioning the motivations of the leadership.

That's fair enough, and interesting.

If you don't mind me asking, and assuming that it's already obvious to your former comrades who you are, what did you leave the IMT over yourself? I gather from the above that you weren't too fond of the approach of the international leadership.

[Woyzeck]

That's fair enough, and interesting.

If you don't mind me asking, and assuming that it's already obvious to your former comrades who you are, what did you leave the IMT over yourself? I gather from the above that you weren't too fond of the approach of the international leadership.

I was never a member of the IMT, but I did support them in their efforts to establish a section here. Well it was actually more of an ideological difference than a question of organisation I certainly spotted major flaws with the set-up there and what can only be described as a cult surrounding Woods and the late Grant in particular.

[KC]

Edit

[Yehuda Stern]

Cue excuse (1) "I haven't got time."

Or maybe, excuse (2) "I can't be bothered."

Or maybe even (3) "Your theory has already been refuted, but I refuse to say where."

It's actually secret option (4): "you're a crackpot and quasi-troll, and I have absolutely no need to grant your pseudo-philosophy any legitimacy or feed your overblown ego".

You can call me a sectarian all you want, I really don't care. See, the IMT and SWP have invented this method where they call every group that is to the left of them "sectarian" so that they don't have to answer its political criticisms. So to be called that by you is actually a good sign.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YS:


It's actually secret option (4): "you're a crackpot and quasi-troll, and I have absolutely no need to grant your pseudo-philosophy any legitimacy or feed your overblown ego".

Chickened out yet again, I see. http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/scared/scared0016.gif


You can call me a sectarian all you want, I really don't care. See, the IMT and SWP have invented this method where they call every group that is to the left of them "sectarian" so that they don't have to answer its political criticisms. So to be called that by you is actually a good sign.

So, just because I use the word "sectarian" in my own way, suddenly "the IMT and SWP have invented this method where they call every group that is to the left of them 'sectarian'"; that's sounds reasonable.:rolleyes:

[Revy]

False "anti-sectarianism" is a way of deflecting criticism. If a party is undemocratic, bureaucratic, criticism is necessary. Often it is groups like the IMT which are the most sectarian not their detractors.

Sectarianism arises due to the lack of unity, however, unity cannot be achieved through unity under bureaucracy. Yeah, that's orderly an' all, but it allows little criticism and little revolutionary input and defers to a leadership that is too big for its britches.

Ever wonder why bureaucratic, un-democratic sects are the most insular and sectarian? Because it's a natural consequence of their structure.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

KC:


What? The splitting of sections due to bureaucracy is a bad thing? Should they have stayed tied to the bureaucracy instead?

Eh? :confused:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

HC:


False "anti-sectarianism" is a way of deflecting criticism. If a party is undemocratic, bureaucratic, criticism is necessary. Often it is groups like the IMT which are the most sectarian not their detractors.

Sectarianism arises due to the lack of unity, however, unity cannot be achieved through unity under bureaucracy. Yeah, that's orderly an' all, but it allows little criticism and little revolutionary input and defers to a leadership that is too big for its britches.

Ever wonder why bureaucratic, un-democratic sects are the most insular and sectarian? Because it's a natural consequence of their structure.

Who is this directed against?

[KC]

Edit

[Yehuda Stern]

Chickened out yet again, I see.

When physics crackpots, who write books supposedly disproving Quantum Physics and Relativity, are ignored by serious physicists, they always claim that they "can't answer them" or some crap like that. The truth is that what applies to them is true in this case too: crackpots don't deserve to be debated with. It only legitimizes their ignorant crap.

[Revy]

HC:
Who is this directed against?

Does that matter? If I meant it exclusively for you, I would have said so...

What I hate to see is when groups suspend their members over petty shit (as the SWP often does).

The IMT is helping itself implode by threatening the suspension of one of its largest sections. We are allegedly sectarian if we even talk about it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yehuda, you use the word "centrist" too much as a defense of your ultra-sectarian politics. The IMT is already a bourgeois workers' formation, not even bothering with the three criteria defining a proletarian-not-necessarily-communist formation in the Communist Manifesto.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Human Condition:


Does that matter? If I meant it exclusively for you, I would have said so...

What I hate to see is when groups suspend their members over petty shit (as the SWP often does).

The IMT is helping itself implode by threatening the suspension of one of its largest sections. We are allegedly sectarian if we even talk about it.

Sure it matters, since you began with "False". And it gives me no pleasure to note that you prefer to believe rumours about the SWP and the IMT, too.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YS:


When physics crackpots, who write books supposedly disproving Quantum Physics and Relativity, are ignored by serious physicists, they always claim that they "can't answer them" or some crap like that. The truth is that what applies to them is true in this case too: crackpots don't deserve to be debated with. It only legitimizes their ignorant crap.

Unfortunately for you, physics is a highly coherent and well tested body of theory. Dialectics isn't, and when it has been tested in practice, that practice has almost invariably failed -- which is part of the reason Dialectical Marxism is such a long-term failure, with Dialectical Trotskyism taking Gold Medal in this event.

Anyway, I see that all you have in your defensive arsenal is abuse -- which is no surprise really since you are clearly scared stiff of taking me on in open debate.

[MilitantWorker]

whos the IMT? :confused:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

KC:


So I was asking you why you disagree with such a split. Or do you support such a split while stating that such conflict harms the movement?

I do not know the facts, and thus prefer not to pass comment -- except to note that such splits are part of the reason why the far left is largely impotent; we are far more adept at fighting one another (and Yehuda here is a good example if this trend in Trotskyism) than we are at taking on the ruling class.

They must be laughing all the way to their next attack on our side...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Intifada, the IMT is the International Marxist Tendency:

http://www.marxist.com/

[Revy]

This is what the IMT says on their pro-Labour Party position:



For all these reasons it would be wrong for the links between the trades union movement and the Labour Party to be broken and it would equally be wrong for socialists now to leave the Labour Party. As many times in the past, the left wing of the party will be revived and strengthened as workers draw lessons from their own experiences and turn to the Labour Party.

Of course the Labour Party has not carried out the socialist transformation of society. Its leadership has always tried to work within the confines of capitalism. But socialists should soberly reflect on the fact that no other "party" in this country has done so either and that attempts to build socialist "sects" on the fringes of the movement outside of the party have failed again and again, whereas socialists within the Party have been successful on more than one occasion in changing party policy and gaining support. That is the lesson of the past 100 years.
How the British Labour Party was formed (http://www.marxist.com/britain-formation-lp201202.htm)
The IMT has walled itself off from the rest of the British left by believing in the idea that the Labour Party can, and should, be reclaimed. They mock the idea that much of the British left can agree on: building an alternative to Labour (although some groups aren't really committed to a socialist alternative), because any such alternative would be a "sect" and therefore not worthy of support.

[KC]

Edit

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

KC:


What do you think they should have done? Remained within the IMT and gave up the fight against the bureaucracy?

Once more, I do not know the facts, or even if there is a 'bureaucracy'.

[Q]

How big is the Spanish section anyway?

[Tower of Bebel]

The IMT has walled itself off from the rest of the British left by believing in the idea that the Labour Party can, and should, be reclaimed.That by itself is really not the problem because the same could be said about those who argue for splits between trade unions and their respective parties. Many recent splits have resulted in the depolitisation of trade unions and most of all ex-members and former branches. In the end revolutionaries still end up fighting in the margins of (high) politics. And so the whole perspective of a bright (or more favorable) future vanishes. It's true that so many end up sharing a side on a medallion with someone who's views they opposed!

That's why I think it is more important to focus on what the (opposite) party does instead of what it is (or stands for). What makes you special is what you do, not who you (think you) are. Labour for example should be reclaimed, and trade unions should split from the capitalists. Those views are defined as opposing views supported by opposing parties, but in the end the result is the same.

What's important is the practical question that arises: how are you going to achieve all this? If you think that all your honest Marxist principles are to be fulfilled by teaming up with the labour aristocracy then that's the problem. If you think that you can create a new workers party by being friends with the pro-capitalist wing of the labour movement you have the same problem. Then it doesn't matter how fast your party grows and what it thinks of the rest of the left.

[Yehuda Stern]

Once more, I do not know the facts, or even if there is a 'bureaucracy'.

Ignorance is such a wonderful way of reaching positions.

Oh, and I'm not really going to bother with JR. Does anyone care about what he has to say? If so I'll write something, but I'm willing to bet no one does.

[Woyzeck]

More on the OP...


Date: 12 December 2009.

Comrades, yet again I am writing to you in order to avert an impending
catastrophe. I find the further escalation of differences and
un-comradely accusations regarding the problems that have arisen
between the comrades of the Spanish section and the IS as very grave
and worrying.

I am truly saddened that since my letter of July 21st (see below)
there has not only been an absence of any serious intent on resolving
these problems but that there has been a further deterioration in the
relationship of not just IS and the leadership of the Spanish section,
but the leaderships of the Venezuelan and Mexican sections as well.

Nearly every day members of the IEC are sent letters, statements or
resolutions from a section of the International declaring their
position on this dispute. Nearly every single one of these takes a
stand in favour of one side or the other - effectively creating a
bigger divide in the IMT, making a split more likely and, in effect,
marking out the numbers either side of the dividing line.

I find it hard to believe that various national sections have declared
their positions without there ever being a thorough investigation of
the facts and the roots of the grievances of both sides in this
dispute. Most sections view one side as 100% faultless and the other
side as 100% at fault.

Ironically, even though each section declares that to split the
International would be a crime against the working class, they all
still go on to back one side fully! Yet each time a position is taken
- without first establishing the facts - it further damages the
crumbling bridge between the two sides.

Furthermore, when we have one side of this dispute defend itself it
merely describes the errors of the other side at length. There are not
many attempts to prove an allegation based on any evidence.
Conversely, when refuting accusations we get a simple statement
countering what the other side has said (again without any supporting
evidence). Those sections standing outside this polarisation process,
however, do not know many of the basic facts. The facts have been lost
in the midst of claims and counter-claims. It is also alarming that no
one refers to any rules (as set out in any written constitution of the
IMT or any national section) that have been broken.

As a consequence sections like the Iranian group cannot make any
informed decisions about the rights and wrongs of the case put forward
by either side.

I therefore ask all comrades to think about the long-term interests of
the IMT as a whole and to step back from the brink. We are now
standing on the precipice and one small and wrong move could make us
all fall down into an abyss that would take us 10-15 years (or more)
to recover from. The class struggle of the proletariat never has 10-15
years to waste – and, particularly not when capitalism is facing its
biggest crisis since the 1930s! The next decade will surely include
many important revolutionary developments worldwide (not just in Latin
America and the Middle East). Because of the general world situation,
i.e., that this is the most turbulent period in history and,
particularly, the reawakening of the revolutionary mass movements in
Iran, we must have our focus on these developments and see the
responsibility we have in radicalising these movements as our top
priority. It is only through our unity that we will be able to grow
and to carry out the tasks before us.

Comrades, I believe that this is the time for ever greater unity among
us than before. I believe that at present there is no justification
for a split, or even any preparations for a split. Such an outcome
should only come about after we have exhausted all other possibilities
through discussions. I therefore would like to make the following
specific proposals for clarifying and hopefully resolving all issues:

1- An immediate freeze on issuing any further resolutions and
statements that take sides in the dispute. All existing resolutions
and statements should be disregarded.

2- Since, unfortunately, finding a solution through the IS and
extended IS has not proved possible, we have to seek an alternative
method that is acceptable to both sides. A control commission should
be set up immediately to review all documents and facts and to produce
a report for the next IEC meeting (in February 2010 or later if a
satisfactory report cannot be produced in time).

3- The control commission should be made up of say 5 or 7 people who
are acceptable to both the IS and the Spanish CC. It should not
contain any Spanish CC or IS members. I would like to volunteer myself
for a place on this commission if I can be in any way helpful in
resolving this issue and to stop it escalating.

4- Until this control commission produces its report for the IEC all
organisational decisions, accusations and measures should be stopped.
All organisational discussions should be deferred until all IEC
members have read the commission’s report and are in full possession
of all the documents and facts about our organisational problems.

5- In order to voice all the existing political differences fully,
internal discussion bulletins should be used to circulate the various
points of view. The bulletins should be open to all IEC members and
the discussions should progress until just before the 2010 Congress.
Then Congress can vote on the political issues involved with full
knowledge of the various positions.

6- If there are found to be significant political and tactical
differences, then those with this minority position should be allowed
to organise as an open faction across the whole international, with
appropriate rights to defend and propagate their views within the
democratic structures of the IMT and to have proportionate
representation on the leadership bodies of the International.

I believe that this is the only way to stop the further exacerbation
of our problems.

Comradely greetings,

Maziar Razi**Razi is a member of the Secretariat of the Iranian Revolutionary Marxists' Tendency (IRMT).

[Q]

5- In order to voice all the existing political differences fully,
internal discussion bulletins should be used to circulate the various
points of view. The bulletins should be open to all IEC members and
the discussions should progress until just before the 2010 Congress.
Then Congress can vote on the political issues involved with full
knowledge of the various positions.
1. Why not discuss the issues publically? This way the democracy in the organisation is secured, members can develop a position on the matters at hand and there is an educational value in strategy and tactics for the working class movement.

2. Why can only IEC members (IEC stands for International Executive Committee and forms the international leadership and consists of one or a few delegates of each national section + the International Secretariat) discuss? Why aren't the bulletins open for every member?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YS (temprorarily emerging from behind the couch):


Ignorance is such a wonderful way of reaching positions.

Well, it certainly allows you to judge my essays.

[Woyzeck]

I love this bit:


"even though each section declares that to split the International would be a crime against the working class"

How many working class people are aware of the IMT, even in countries where they have supposedly 'significant' sections? Exaggerations about size and influence are a hallmark of reformism and opportunism.

[Woyzeck]

Well, it certainly allows you to judge my essays.

This thread is about a potential split in the IMT, not what you think of Yehuda.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Woy:


This thread is about a potential split in the IMT, not what you think of Yehuda.

Tell him that; I made no attack on him when he waded in.

[Invigilator]

Woy:



Tell him that; I made no attack on him when he waded in.

It should go for both of you. If you want to have an argument about dialectics, centrism, sectarianism or how much you hate each other that's all well and good and may even be interesting. But not on this thread.

[KC]

Edit

[Invigilator]

How many working class people are aware of the IMT, even in countries where they have supposedly 'significant' sections? Exaggerations about size and influence are a hallmark of reformism and opportunism.

Or sectarianism. Or some mix of the three.

These are interesting contributions, by the way. Keep us updated.

[Q]

On the spotters mailinglist there was an interesting rundown on the IMT overall membership (headers removed for privacy reasons):


Upholding and practicing entryism, i guess it is difficult to differentiate between the IMT membership and the larger layer of militants under their influence. From my experience in South America and in Western Europe:

- France: La Riposte, small but "influential" group, i don't think they are bigger than 70/80 in France, with strongholds in Toulouse and Paris, and some members in Lyon and in then north of France. Still, they are becoming the "loyal" opposition of the national leadership and got 15% and like 5500 votes at the last congress (it is said by local kremlinologist that the national leadership helped this motion to weaken the more "hard-line" stalinist wing). They are preparing an important meeting to organize a larger oppositional group inside the PCF with the slogan "strengthen the PCF, return to marxism" in january. They are as sectarian towards other trotskyist groups as the stalinist opposition, but at least, they are not racist as Gérin (communist MP, stalinist hard-liner).

- Italy, Falce Martello: I heard they are bigger than a hundread now. Members of the national leadership of the PRC. As last trotskyists inside the PRC, i'm guessing they are going to grow a little. They got 3,2% in the last PRC congress (against 1,7 in 2005) and 7% within the youth.

- Argentina: 10-15

- Brasil, esquerda marxista: a sizeable group in the PT but small in comparison with almost any brazilean group, 150?

And


>
> Upholding and practicing entryism, i guess it is difficult to differentiate between the IMT membership and the larger layer of militants under their influence.

From the outside certainly.


From my experience in South America and in Western Europe:
>
> - France: La Riposte, small but "influential" group, i don't think they are bigger than 70/80 in France, with strongholds in Toulouse and Paris, and some members in Lyon and in then north of France.

My understanding is that there actual membership is considerably lower than that, no more than 40. They do however have a certain wider influence, as you note.


> - Italy, Falce Martello: I heard they are bigger than a hundread
> now. Members of the national leadership of the PRC. As last
> trotskyists inside the PRC, i'm guessing they are going to grow a
> little. They got 3,2% in the last PRC congress (against 1,7 in
> 2005) and 7% within the youth.

They may well be bigger than a hundred, but if so it's by a dozen or a few dozen. There has been no qualitative change in their numbers, simply that the party has shrunk around them. I think, by the way, that the Contro Corrente group is still in the PRC, if only nominally.


> - Argentina: 10-15
>
> - Brasil, esquerda marxista: a sizeable group in the PT but small
> in comparison with almost any brazilean group, 150?

That sounds about right, maybe slightly too low.

The IMT sections in rough order:

1) Pakistan - very hard to get a precise read because even internal events are sort of like open rallies. Also they wildly exaggerate attendance. By far their biggest group, even after their split. My estimation is about 1,500 actual members, with a substantial influence outside of that.

2) Spain. Significantly smaller than their peak, but still a few hundred. By some distance their second biggest group.

3) Brazil. The group that came in from O Trabalho (Lambertist). Maybe 180.

4) Italy, Mexico, Venezuela, Britain. Probably in that order. All in or around 100, with some being a few more and others a few less. None get near 200, but none are below 50.

5) All the rest are 50 or less, mostly a lot less.

Also, some conclusions on the second letter posted by Woyzeck:


The same person has put the following letter up on the Revleft discussion. It's a much more detailed document than the one put up purporting to be from the EC of the Swedish section of the IMT. As more details are revealed the likelihood of this being a hoax greatly diminishes.

This letter reveals a number of things:

1) All of the different sections have been wading in on one side or the other. This is interesting because the two documents we've seen are from the Swedes and Iranians and both are conciliatory. That doesn't seem to be representative of the general mood.

2) The Mexicans and Venezuelans (ie two of the small number of IMT sections with circa 100 members, and the other two of the three major Spanish speaking sections) seem to be siding with the Spaniards.

3) The Swedes and Iranians, both small groups, are refusing to take sides as of yet.

4) The strong implication is that all or almost all of the other groups are siding with the International Secretariat.

It seems that while spotters have been primarily drawn towards the ongoing ructions in the British SWP, we've been missing a much bigger story!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Invigilator:


If you want to have an argument about dialectics, centrism, sectarianism or how much you hate each other that's all well and good and may even be interesting. But not on this thread.

Look, back; you will see that YS is the one who brought dialectics up. Even when I was responding to a question from KC about the IMT, and did not mention dialectics, he waded in again with a personal attack on me.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1627109&postcount=36

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1627329&postcount=39

So, why are you both of you picking on me?

[Yehuda Stern]

If you want to have an argument about dialectics, centrism, sectarianism or how much you hate each other that's all well and good and may even be interesting. But not on this thread.You would do well to only give instructions to people who think you have any authority over them.


Look, back; you will see that YS is the one who brought dialectics up. So, why are you both of you picking on me?

Yes; an article called "Dialectics -- The Opiate Of Petty-Bourgeois Revolutionaries" obviously has nothing to do with dialectics. That's OK, though; crackpots have to use some mix of lies and logical fallacies in order to build their "theories", otherwise they would be so much easier to catch.


Even when I was responding to a question from KC about the IMT, and did not mention dialectics, he waded in again with a personal attack on me.I "waded in" because I think it's ridiculous that you take a stand on something that happens in the IMT while at the same time admitting that you are ignorant about it. But that's how crackpots do - they don't need facts, just their dogma.


The Mexicans and Venezuelans (ie two of the small number of IMT sections with circa 100 members, and the other two of the three major Spanish speaking sections) seem to be siding with the Spaniards.

That makes a lot of sense; when I was in the IMT it always seemed like the Spanish speaking sections were a separate organization. They would barely mix socially with the rest of us and I can't recall ever being able to have a meaningful conversation, even with the help of a translator, with any of them (this unlike, for example, the Italian or German sections).

(As an aside, the Portugese speakers, which as far as I can recall, means just the Brazillian section, were different in this respect, but then they were also much newer to the organization - they only joined the year we left.)

People here would do well to recall that the Healyite international also lost all of its Spanish / Portugese speaking sections (which were all Latin American sections, I believe) in one split (that was the beginning of Morenoism in a way, to those who know who Moreno was). That leads me to believe that the national-reformist character of these paper internationals makes the language barrier one that can actually be more decisive than any political agreement. But then I really haven't developed that line of thought yet.

[Invigilator]

So, why are you both of you picking on me?

I'm not picking on you. There were/are two of you derailing the discussion. Your post was the most recent one so I responded to that. I neither know nor care who started the derail, I just want you to take it to another thread.


You would do well to only give instructions to people who think you have any authority over them.

And you'd do well to learn some basic manners if you hope to interact with other people.

This is a thread specifically created to discuss a possible split in the IMT. If you want to discuss something else, it's basic web etiquette to do it on a more appropriate thread.

[Luís Henrique]

which are small, with the partial exception of the Brazilians but which are also the "success story" of the international, particularly since the shine came off the Pakistan group.

They are very small in Brazil. Here they originated as a splinter of the Lambertites (O Trabalho), over the issue of what to do with occupied factories, and about Venezuela. I don't know anything about Pakistani influence on them; I guess I will have to ask Bicalho about that - which will have to wait for some national meeting or congress.

They were a circumstancial majority of the Lambertites direction in Brazil when they split, and have used the name "O Trabalho - Maioria", but they were actually a minority in the organisation. But they managed to carry away most if not all blue collar activists, because of their more sensible position on the occupied factories issue.

Luís Henrique

[Yehuda Stern]

And you'd do well to learn some basic manners if you hope to interact with other people.

Thanks for the manners listen, sir. You are obviously correct, sir. People should only discuss the one subject set in the beginning of the thread no matter what else comes up, sir.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YS:


Yes; an article called "Dialectics -- The Opiate Of Petty-Bourgeois Revolutionaries" obviously has nothing to do with dialectics. That's OK, though; crackpots have to use some mix of lies and logical fallacies in order to build their "theories", otherwise they would be so much easier to catch.

And if you read that essay, instead of passing comments on it without having done so, you would have seen that the title is correct, since I blame such splits on the petty-bourgeois nature of Dialectical Marxist parties, not on dialectics.

As you pointed out earlier:


Ignorance is such a wonderful way of reaching positions

You are clearly determined to turn it into an art form.

So this, my irrational friend, more closely describes you:


crackpots have to use some mix of lies and logical fallacies in order to build their "theories", otherwise they would be so much easier to catch.

Since you have to lie to make your point.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Invigilator:


There were/are two of you derailing the discussion. Your post was the most recent one so I responded to that. I neither know nor care who started the derail, I just want you to take it to another thread.

My comments are not an attempt to de-rail this thread, since they are central to why such groups split, and will continue to do so. YS has mounted a series of unprovoked personal and baseless attacks on me, and it is to the point to defend myself.

[Q]

A verbal warning to both Rosa and Yehuda: Stop derailing this thread.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Also, some conclusions on the second letter posted by Woyzeck:


It seems that while spotters have been primarily drawn towards the ongoing ructions in the British SWP, we've been missing a much bigger story!

* Waits for someone to shout "Gossip! Rumour!"

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JR:


Waits for someone to shout "Gossip! Rumour!"

Thanks; saved me the job...

[RHIZOMES]

The first thing we should say is that it will be a shame if the IMT splits, but it is far too early to say. We shouldn't be listening to rumours. Such splits damage us all, and the workers' movement in general -- so does any sectarian gloating.

Oh yes it was doing such great work in those liberal bourgeois parties... :rolleyes:

[el_chavista]

...Venezuelans (ie two of the small number of IMT sections with circa 100 members...) seem to be siding with the Spaniards.Not so, the majority of young cadres (proselytized from the PSUV) didn't stick with the Spaniards yet. I think this is a vulgar division - no arguments, no documents, 'liberated' cadres not supporting the Spaniards have not been paid.

[Invigilator]

Not so, the majority of young cadres (proselytized from the PSUV) didn't stick with the Spaniards yet. I think this is a vulgar division - no arguments, no documents, 'liberated' cadres not supporting the Spaniards have not been paid.

Do you mean by this that fulltimers who support the IS haven't been paid? But surely in order to do that, that must mean that the leadership at least is with the Spaniards? I mean you don't say a majority of cadres are not with the Spaniards yet, just that "the majority of young cadres proselytized from the PSUV" aren't with them yet.

The other odd thing is that it isn't clear what the actual political disagreement is about. The fact that there is disagreement and all of the organisational wrangling and accusations are taken up in those letters from Sweden and Iran, but nobody mentions the actual politics at stake. We know that the Spanish CC thinks that the IS are a shower of bastards and vice versa, but not what politics are at stake. What is the disagreement about?

[BOZG]

Do you mean by this that fulltimers who support the IS haven't been paid? But surely in order to do that, that must mean that the leadership at least is with the Spaniards? I mean you don't say a majority of cadres are not with the Spaniards yet, just that "the majority of young cadres proselytized from the PSUV" aren't with them yet.

The other odd thing is that it isn't clear what the actual political disagreement is about. The fact that there is disagreement and all of the organisational wrangling and accusations are taken up in those letters from Sweden and Iran, but nobody mentions the actual politics at stake. We know that the Spanish CC thinks that the IS are a shower of bastards and vice versa, but not what politics are at stake. What is the disagreement about?

As has already been pointed out, the Grantites are quite good at keeping these things under wraps so I think it'll be a while before we find out. The Iranian letter certainly gives the impression that this issue has been ongoing for some time and that the disagreements are fairly well known, so they don't actually need to be alluded to in the letter.

Maybe Woyzeck can tap his source for earlier letters, particularly the July 21st letter that Razi mentions?

[Invigilator]

As has already been pointed out, the Grantites are quite good at keeping these things under wraps so I think it'll be a while before we find out.

Well yes, but now that the details of the organisational bickering are publically known they have the worst of both worlds. Everyone can see that they are bickering and making allegations of misconduct and bureaucratism against each other, but nobody knows if there is some principled reason for the arguments and nobody benefits from the political clarity that serious debate can bring.

[BOZG]

Well yes, but now that the details of the organisational bickering are publically known they have the worst of both worlds. Everyone can see that they are bickering and making allegations of misconduct and bureaucratism against each other, but nobody knows if there is some principled reason for the arguments and nobody benefits from the political clarity that serious debate can bring.

Exactly.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

And we can see from all this part of the reason why the far left, and particularly Trotskyism, is an impotent, divided farce -- you lot just can't resist gossiping and speculating over the alleged content of a series of rumours and half-truths, can you?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Arizona:


Oh yes it was doing such great work in those liberal bourgeois parties...

Yes, and the rest of the left are going from strength to strength, too, aren't they?

[Revy]

Ad we can see from all this part of the reason why the far left, and particularly Trotskyism, is an impotent, divided farce -- you lot just can't resist gossiping and speculating over the alleged content of a series of rumours and half-truths, can you?

It's not about uniting the "impotent" Trotskyist sects, it's about moving past them. Only those Trotskyists which realize the path forward will be able to create a viable revolutionary vanguard (LCR creating the NPA, for example) which isn't knee-deep in mind-numbing Trotskyist dogma. Nobody cares about the Cliffite-Grantite-Taaffeite revolution.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

HC:


It's not about uniting the "impotent" Trotskyist sects, it's about moving past them. Only those Trotskyists which realize the path forward will be able to create a viable revolutionary vanguard (LCR creating the NPA, for example) which isn't knee-deep in mind-numbing Trotskyist dogma. Nobody cares about the Cliffite-Grantite-Taaffeite revolution.

Who said it was about "uniting the "impotent" Trotskyist sects"? Not me.

And coming from a tradition that has delivered nothing but failure, you have no room to talk.

[Revy]

HC:



Who said it was about "uniting the "impotent" Trotskyist sects"? Not me.

And coming from a tradition that has delivered nothing but failure, you have no room to talk.

Rosa, all this time you've been acting all "anti-sectarian" and now you're saying this.

It was enough to amuse me and make laugh out loud, but I'm afraid I won't be taking the bait, except to clarify what my tradition is, and that's the tradition of revolutionary socialism.

[Woyzeck]

As has already been pointed out, the Grantites are quite good at keeping these things under wraps so I think it'll be a while before we find out. The Iranian letter certainly gives the impression that this issue has been ongoing for some time and that the disagreements are fairly well known, so they don't actually need to be alluded to in the letter.

Maybe Woyzeck can tap his source for earlier letters, particularly the July 21st letter that Razi mentions?

I have the earlier letter from Razi but it's essentially a shorter version of the one I posted.

[Revy]

I believe in healthy inner party democracy. I don't believe in dogmatic attention to leadership. That is all.

The SP-USA is a democratic party. And so when it fucks up, people from inside the party can at least yell about it. That's the party I want and that's the party I'd like to see elsewhere.

[Woyzeck]

you lot just can't resist gossiping and speculating over the alleged content of a series of rumours and half-truths, can you?

You're still here?

These aren't rumours and half-truths though. There is a potential split developing in the IMT and I believe people have a right to know about such disputes. Who gains from keeping this under wraps? If what I've heard is true the leadership has already reacted angrily to this and is throwing allegations around at individual members who they believe may have "leaked" this information to me. For now I'm not prepared to say which IMT section this came from and I will only do so if the leadership's harassment of innocent parties intensifies.

[Q]

It's not about uniting the "impotent" Trotskyist sects, it's about moving past them. Only those Trotskyists which realize the path forward will be able to create a viable revolutionary vanguard (LCR creating the NPA, for example) which isn't knee-deep in mind-numbing Trotskyist dogma. Nobody cares about the Cliffite-Grantite-Taaffeite revolution.

I don't think the French NPA is really that party though. It has been moving to the right in recent months and in my opinion the whole liquidation of the LCR was a grave error. They should have maintained a tendency or fraction. If the NPA fails, the Mandelites risk to lose everything.

[comunista]

[QUOTE=Woyzeck;1628425]You're still here?

I`m a member of the Imt in Spain, i want to say that the spanith leaders are a groups of brainless asholes with a sectarian mind, that thay want to justtify their incapacitycty to grow within the working class blaming the international leadeship about their fiasco, while our comrades only points out the mistakes they were doing , it is a pity but the truth is etthey didnt' allow the minumun critics about their taffist method, when some comrades put forwards the ideas and method of the italians and French comrades. they answer with a witchhunt ,thinking among sart using stalinist methods like controling our emails and asking about our meeting with our friends, our leader from the international try to introduce rational thinkinga mong these comrades.but they chose the sectarian way, it's a pity, because they were very good comrades,99% of the fulltimes are part of this sectarian and student trends,most of them ex student , a real pity from an aparatus with their own interest, but no the working class

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

HC


Rosa, all this time you've been acting all "anti-sectarian" and now you're saying this.

I am quite happy to treat sectarians in an intemperant manner, especially when they come out with the provocative sort of stuff you've posted.


It was enough to amuse me and make laugh out loud, but I'm afraid I won't be taking the bait, except to clarify what my tradition is, and that's the tradition of revolutionary socialism.

And from the by-now-infamous failed wing...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Woyzek:


You're still here?

Don't miss a thing, do you...


These aren't rumours and half-truths though. There is a potential split developing in the IMT and I believe people have a right to know about such disputes. Who gains from keeping this under wraps? If what I've heard is true the leadership has already reacted angrily to this and is throwing allegations around at individual members who they believe may have "leaked" this information to me. For now I'm not prepared to say which IMT section this came from and I will only do so if the leadership's harassment of innocent parties intensifies.

There might be, there might not, but the material you have produced here could have come from anywhere.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't think the French NPA is really that party though. It has been moving to the right in recent months and in my opinion the whole liquidation of the LCR was a grave error. They should have maintained a tendency or fraction. If the NPA fails, the Mandelites risk to lose everything.

Do have a source for this rightward shift? Have they considered coalitions with the big SP?

[Q]

You're still here?

I`m a member of the Imt in Spain, i want to say that the spanith leaders are a groups of brainless asholes with a sectarian mind, that thay want to justtify their incapacitycty to grow within the working class blaming the international leadeship about their fiasco, while our comrades only points out the mistakes they were doing , it is a pity but the truth is etthey didnt' allow the minumun critics about their taffist method, when some comrades put forwards the ideas and method of the italians and French comrades. they answer with a witchhunt ,thinking among sart using stalinist methods like controling our emails and asking about our meeting with our friends, our leader from the international try to introduce rational thinkinga mong these comrades.but they chose the sectarian way, it's a pity, because they were very good comrades,99% of the fulltimes are part of this sectarian and student trends,most of them ex student , a real pity from an aparatus with their own interest, but no the working class

A lot of frustration contained in one post. Good to know the IMT still follows Revleft, welcome to yourself. I have a few questions:
1. What are the political differences actually about? Where did this mess start?
2. How do you feel about the measure of the IMT IS to suspend the whole Spanish section?
3. What "Taaffeist methods" are involved here? I'm a CWI member myself and wonder if this is actual critique or simply some namecalling.
4. I notice that you took a firm side with the IS' position. Where do you think the Spanish leadership went wrong? How could it develop this way? If, as you say, "99%" of the fulltimers (you have at least 100 fulltimers? I find that improbable) are sectarians, how could they have reached this position over a long period of time? Alan Woods and Ted Grant already had close ties with the Spanish since their time in the CWI and was one of the major reasons why the Spanish splitted aswell, are you now saying that exactly these leading figures have been sectarians all along?

Given the tone in your first post I'm not expecting a balanced view, but it would be nice to hear your side of the story.

[Revy]

Do have a source for this rightward shift? Have they considered coalitions with the big SP?
Hopefully not.:unsure:

It would be better if they considered a coalition with the Parti de gauche.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The problem with that left coalition is that it is inevitably geared towards coalition with the main SP. That is why the NPA refused to participate in the Left Front between the PCF, PG, and the former right wing of the old LCR (Piquet's group).

Besides, per Macnair's book, nobody in the Left Front is committed to the "politico-political" demands of the DOTP (recallability of all officials, jury sovereignty, average workers' wage, combined legislative-administrative power, militias, etc.).

[comunista]

they think they could build the organization outside the mass movement , through the student movement, no working patiently in the comunist and socialist movement looking for success ,independently o the conditions , saying things like SE student uniions was a main factor in Spain while other comrades point humbly try to say to this comrades that we have certaiin influence but the comunsit movement is still to take into account and we must oriente our forcer to the cp , like the italian an french comrades,we are a minority but they replay with a witchhunt , espioanage and persecuting the minority, asking about your realionts with people from other organizations, a real crap with nonsense, because you have friends in all kinds of left organizations , our comrades from the international try to call these comrades to act like normal people, not like a group of mad sectarian , like a religion sect which tries to control the private lives of our comrades, the imt is a ratioanal organization, not a groups of made sectarian religious organization, this is our diffulcult fight , but nothing will separate us from the working class

[comunista]

[if you believe in Taffism,if you feel insulted , i apologize but what i mean about taffism is the idea that is possible to build outside the mass organizations, , the SE , is a very successful organization , but the main forces in Spain are The Cp and Psoe, we shoud have orientated our forces to do a patient work within these organizaztions, instead we have done a lot of work among the student movement , sometimes sacrificing our forces,instead of teaching them to work within the comunist movement like the Italian and French comrades, our leader JIR was envious of the success of these comrades while the Spanish organization was declining, he couldn't explain our incapacity to build our organization among the comunist, he said tha Spain was different, while on the other hand the minority we said that we had to learn from the Italian and French experience,, in my personal opinion this crisis come from the incapacity of JIR and his followers to humbly learn from the experience of other comrades, a question of personal prestige when they went to the international meeting and couldn't explain why Spain is different ?

[bolchevique]

although I agree what you have said I think you shouldn't do it in forum , but inside the organization , be very careful about how to express your ideas in a conradely way, I expect, we work hard to recover the democracy in our organization saludos revolucionarios

[Q]

although I agree what you have said I think you shouldn't do it in forum , but inside the organization , be very careful about how to express your ideas in a conradely way, I expect, we work hard to recover the democracy in our organization saludos revolucionarios

What is wrong with discussing disagreements in public? I know the IMT doesn't have such a culture, and thus bringing out the "dirty linen" might be seen as a provocation, but in the long term a public and transparent culture is much more democratic, prevents splits from happening and the working class movement might learn a thing or two in strategy and tactics.

[Wanted Man]

What is wrong with discussing disagreements in public? I know the IMT doesn't have such a culture, and thus bringing out the "dirty linen" might be seen as a provocation, but in the long term a public and transparent culture is much more democratic, prevents splits from happening and the working class movement might learn a thing or two in strategy and tactics.

But what organisations do have such a culture? Not his, but not yours nor mine either. What kind of suggestions would you make to all these organisations if they wanted to be more transparent?

[Crux]

There might be, there might not, but the material you have produced here could have come from anywhere.
No, they couldn't and I know for a fact that they are genuine. I have questioned some memebers from the Swedish section of the IMT. Maybe you shouldn't speculate so much.

[Q]

But what organisations do have such a culture? Not his, but not yours nor mine either.
That is true. But I'm still making the point, which I think is a necessary step if we ever want to build a mass movement under a revolutionary banner.


What kind of suggestions would you make to all these organisations if they wanted to be more transparent?
There are many steps to take. My most recent concrete proposal (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newspaper-polemical-alternative-t124286/index.html) is to use our media as a platform of discussion and debate, which would also include the other organisations on the far left. While not necessarily becoming a fully transparent organisation overnight, it would be a step in the right direction. Also, and in relation to this, I made a blogpost (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=553) in which I outline the need for having a democratic platform that is fully transparent.

[comunista]

although I agree what you have said I think you shouldn't do it in forum , but inside the organization , be very careful about how to express your ideas in a conradely way, I expect, we work hard to recover the democracy in our organization saludos revolucionarios

Camarada, you are right , i made a mistake and recognize my mistakes, i apologize even with the leaders of el militante, it was just a moment of anger, we should learn to control our tangue,lo siento compa

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Mayakovsky:


No, they couldn't and I know for a fact that they are genuine. I have questioned some members from the Swedish section of the IMT. Maybe you shouldn't speculate so much.

Much as I'd like to take your word for it, since you are in the CWI, and probably have an axe to grind, I think yours should be regarded as a biased opinion.

So, has anyone got hard evidence, as oposed to yet more gossip, inuendo and speculation?

Or do you lot think it right to malign fellow comrades on this basis -- on 'evidence' which you'd reject out of hand if it were posted against your own microscopic sect?

[Invigilator]

Or do you lot think it right to malign fellow comrades on this basis -- on 'evidence' which you'd reject out of hand if it were posted against your own microscopic sect?

The existence of this factional struggle has now been confirmed more or less directly by three IMT members on this forum and by at least one more on the YFIS forum. We are past the stage where it makes any sense to consider this a possible hoax.

So an ex-IMT supporter posted the documents, four current IMTers have confirmed the existence of the dispute, no IMTers have posted on any of the sites or forums where this is being discussed to deny it. Are you waiting for Alan Woods to sign an affidavit in his own blood?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Invigilator:


The existence of this factional struggle has now been confirmed more or less directly by three IMT members on this forum and by at least one more on the YFIS forum. We are past the stage where it makes any sense to consider this a possible hoax.

Where?

I posted a question on the YFIS board, and last I checked it hadn't been answered.

Edit, I have just checked, and it looks like they are denying it at YFIS.


So an ex-IMT supporter posted the documents, four current IMTers have confirmed the existence of the dispute, no IMTers have posted on any of the sites or forums where this is being discussed to deny it. Are you waiting for Alan Woods to sign an affidavit in his own blood?

Until it is officially confirmed, this us still rumour and unsubstantiated speculation.

[Crux]

Mayakovsky:



Much as I'd like to take your word for it, since you are in the CWI, and probably have an axe to grind, I think yours should be regarded as a biased opinion.

So, has anyone got hard evidence, as oposed to yet more gossip, inuendo and speculation?

Or do you lot think it right to malign fellow comrades on this basis -- on 'evidence' which you'd reject out of hand if it were posted against your own microscopic sect?
Well since the ltter was from the EC of Socialisten, the swedish section of the International Marxist Tendency, who I have met and spoken to. On this particular occasion I asked them on an internet forum http://www.socialism.nu it is in the forum Socialism, in the thread Socialisten, most likely on the last page. I don't know how good google translate is with swedish, but if you can translate it some other way that is up to you.

I have no ax to grind with the IMT. In fact, while I find them to do and say things I disagree with, naturally, I do consider them to be comrades. And perhaps you shouldn't be the one to speak about "axes to grind" with your own history here.

These letters are hard evidence, and while the IMT did not voluntarily release them I am not discussing them out of any secterianism towards the IMT but out of an interest of in this apparent conflict between one of the main sections, the spanish and a majority in both the mexican and venzuelan sections, and the IS. If any similar conflict were to arise in the CWI and letters such as this would be leaked I would of course be cautious as to how I would discuss it, given the existence of petty secterians like yourself. But please let's stop exchanging insults. You clearly have nothing to offer to this discussion. I do not intend to take your bait.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Nah, still looks like unsubstantiated rumour and speculation to me, and the more of this you post, the bigger your axe seems to be.

[Crux]

The first responses I got was this, when questioning whetever the letters were genuine or not: Jonte (IMT):"Well, it's not like anyone would have made up those letters. ;)"

Skoglund (IMT) : "If that had been the case that would have probably been someone with far too much time on their hands."

Followed by a basic run down of the conflict from Skoglund, saying basicly that there has evolved an unhealthy enviorenment in the spanish EC vis a vis it's membership, and that there has been some criticism towards the spanish section for not taking active enough part inside the worker's parties. He says that the spanish EC only has support from a minority in the Mexican section and that right now it's hard to tell which has a majority in the venezuelan section. So pretty much what we already know, but now confirmed from a member of Socialisten. He also goes on to say that the fact that the discussion is in fact occuring inside the IMT is a sign of health.

This is not a word for word translation, but it's pretty close.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks, but this is just more of the same: unsubstantiated allegation.

[nideaquinidealli]

Are you really a member of the IMT's spanish section? I cannot believe it. In this forum we don't use terms like "brainless assholes" for referring comrades, even in the middle of deep political discussions. Please, don't use this kind of expressions again.
About the split question, what I know is that the main forces of IMT in Europe (Spain) and Latin America (Venezuela and Mexico) are leaving or are in the brink of getting expelled by the IMT leadership, based on London.
Alan Woods has a well recognized experience in destroying other people's work, and, as far as I know, reading public posts in YFIS forums, IMT sections in Sweden and Iran are against Woods' plans. Also, many member of the british section put the blame on Woods.
Anycase, don't worry. Looking at their web sites, it seems that in the Mexican, Venezuelan and Spanish IMT's sections business go on as usual. And, remember, this sections are the only IMT's sections with a real presence in the class struggle field. What you've said about France and Italy sounds as a joke...
In France, IMT's have just expelled a great part of their Toulouse branch, veterans from CP. And their role in Italian RC leadership is anecdoctic...
In the current situation, work inside the european communist parties is not an easy task, as you seems to think. Defying the rule of CPs bureaucracy when the working class is not in a prone-to-fight mood, is a lost battle, as IMT in France and Italy is know realizing. Obviously, they have a chance: join the bureaucracy as their 'leftist wing"... a tragical end for Ted Grant's legacy.
Instead of that kind of entrist adventurerism, IMT guys in Spain have built a strong college students union. I'm a teacher in madrid and I can tell you that the 'Sindicato de Estudiantes' (SE; this is how the IMT has named his youth branch) has a deep influence between young people. In many cases, fathers have been involved in the SE-led fights twenty three years ago.
As a former trotskyte, I've no doubt that the Woods group, without the sections they are willing to expell, will become another "trostkyte" sect. Do you remember Posadas? This is the most likely Woods future.

[BOZG]

Nah, still looks like unsubstantiated rumour and speculation to me, and the more of this you post, the bigger your axe seems to be.

What exactly would be necessary to confirm this?

[Q]

What exactly would be necessary to confirm this?


Until it is officially confirmed, this us still rumour and unsubstantiated speculation.

So, short answer: Rosa will never accept any proof as the only proof she will accept is Alan Woods himself saying so on the IMT website. Which is never going to happen.

[BOZG]

So, short answer: Rosa will never accept any proof as the only proof she will accept is Alan Woods himself saying so on the IMT website. Which is never going to happen.

Particularly considering no one really knows what happened in Pakistan officially, despite the split being a year old now.

[Q]

Particularly considering no one really knows what happened in Pakistan officially, despite the split being a year old now.

Yeah, I really wonder about that. Did the splitters make an announcement about it?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Q:


So, short answer: Rosa will never accept any proof as the only proof she will accept is Alan Woods himself saying so on the IMT website. Which is never going to happen.

Well, we'll see what you are prepared to accept as 'proof' when a sectarian posts speculation, rumour and inuendo about the CWI.

Why are you and others here so ready to believe the worst about other Trotskyist groups based on 'evidence' you'd reject out of hand if it were targetted at your party/group?

And why is it so evil of me to try to slap some comradedly good sense back into you all?

[Tower of Bebel]

I think this should be closed. Chances are that we will never get to hear the real story. In the mean time lets not behave as we usually do.

[nideaquinidealli]

Hearing (and reading) the real story is quite easy.

Just listen carefully to the interviews with Alan Woods in Venezuelan media in the last 12 months. Read carefully info about Alan Woods meetings in Venezuela at the same period.

And then, read carefully all the past 12 months articles in: three "w" elmilitantevenezuela.org.

There is an abyss between them. Alan Woods has became a kind of left reformist, eager to flatter the PSUV bureaucracy.

Venezuelan IMT members has been in first line in occupied factories (Inveval, MMC Mitsubishi, Vivex, INAF, etc). You can disagree with their political line, but nobody can deny they are true revolutionaries.

By the way, does nobody realize that IMT web site URL's in Venezuela and Spain has changed? Do you thing this has only technical reasons?

[Jonas Elossov]

Well, we'll see what you are prepared to accept as 'proof' when a sectarian posts speculation, rumour and inuendo about the CWI.

If it would have been the cas in the CWI, we wouldn't deny it... We wouldn't discuss those issues externally, but i cannot see what's the point of assuming there are divergences.

You could say those articles could be biased, but the CWI at least publishes articles about internal discussions.

[Tower of Bebel]

There is an abyss between them. Alan Woods has became a kind of left reformist, eager to flatter the PSUV bureaucracy.

Venezuelan IMT members has been in first line in occupied factories (Inveval, MMC Mitsubishi, Vivex, INAF, etc). You can disagree with their political line, but nobody can deny they are true revolutionaries.

By the way, does nobody realize that IMT web site URL's in Venezuela and Spain has changed? Do you thing this has only technical reasons?
So basicly you claim that conflicts between the (repressive) state aparatus and struggles from below in Venezuela gave birth to a growing discrepancy between the more revolutionary tendencies in the IMT and the opportunist behavior of Woods?

[Crux]

Q:



Well, we'll see what you are prepared to accept as 'proof' when a sectarian posts speculation, rumour and inuendo about the CWI.

Why are you and others here so ready to believe the worst about other Trotskyist groups based on 'evidence' you'd reject out of hand if it were targetted at your party/group?

And why is it so evil of me to try to slap some comradedly good sense back into you all?
Change your record, it's getting tiresome.

So what is not proof about the quite crystal clear statements from the Swedish IMT members? Are you suggesting that these posters are not actual IMT members or for some other reason would be lying?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

M:


Change your record, it's getting tiresome.

So are your comments.


So what is not proof about the quite crystal clear statements from the Swedish IMT members? Are you suggesting that these posters are not actual IMT members or for some other reason would be lying?

Gossip and speculation -- is that the best you've got?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jonas:


If it would have been the cas in the CWI, we wouldn't deny it... We wouldn't discuss those issues externally, but i cannot see what's the point of assuming there are divergences.

More fool you then.


You could say those articles could be biased, but the CWI at least publishes articles about internal discussions.

So...?

[BOZG]

Leftist Trainspotters is reporting that the IS has backed down under pressure from the Iranians and the Swedes.

[bunnytheoctopus]

When Karl Marx said that "The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working class parties.... They do not set up sectarian principles of their own..." He had in mind the need for communists/troskyists to work in the mass organisations of the working class. The revolutionaies all have tiny forces. They have to find a way to the advanced workers and the masses. This cannot be done by standing on the sidelines, making shrill denunciations of Union leaders, Labour Party/Socialist parties and Communist parties. The working class learn form great events not lectures by small groups. Chavez should be supported when he moves in the direction of socialism and revolutionaries can put forward their program in the PSUV.

When you shout louder than your own voice you get a sore throat. The working class has built their organisations, parties and unions over decades they are not going to leave and join a small group that stands outside the mass organisations until they can see that their 'leaders' are not doing what they said they would do. It is the task of revolutionaries to convince the working class of the program for Socialist Revolution. This will be done on the basis of events, events, events and fighting in the mass parties for the abolition of capitalism. This is the way of the IMT, Alan Woods, Ted Grant, Trotsky and Lenin

[Q]

When Karl Marx said that "The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working class parties.... They do not set up sectarian principles of their own..." He had in mind the need for communists/troskyists to work in the mass organisations of the working class. The revolutionaies all have tiny forces. They have to find a way to the advanced workers and the masses. This cannot be done by standing on the sidelines, making shrill denunciations of Union leaders, Labour Party/Socialist parties and Communist parties. The working class learn form great events not lectures by small groups. Chavez should be supported when he moves in the direction of socialism and revolutionaries can put forward their program in the PSUV.

When you shout louder than your own voice you get a sore throat. The working class has built their organisations, parties and unions over decades they are not going to leave and join a small group that stands outside the mass organisations until they can see that their 'leaders' are not doing what they said they would do. It is the task of revolutionaries to convince the working class of the program for Socialist Revolution. This will be done on the basis of events, events, events and fighting in the mass parties for the abolition of capitalism. This is the way of the IMT, Alan Woods, Ted Grant, Trotsky and Lenin

Great - and utterly off topic - sum up of the IMT position. Bonus points for adding the personality cult.

Could you tell us anything on the matter at hand? How's the Spanish section going at the moment? That would be more informative.

[Tower of Bebel]

When Karl Marx said that "The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working class parties.... They do not set up sectarian principles of their own..." He had in mind the need for communists/troskyists to work in the mass organisations of the working class. The revolutionaies all have tiny forces. They have to find a way to the advanced workers and the masses. This cannot be done by standing on the sidelines, making shrill denunciations of Union leaders, Labour Party/Socialist parties and Communist parties. The working class learn form great events not lectures by small groups. Chavez should be supported when he moves in the direction of socialism and revolutionaries can put forward their program in the PSUV.

When you shout louder than your own voice you get a sore throat. The working class has built their organisations, parties and unions over decades they are not going to leave and join a small group that stands outside the mass organisations until they can see that their 'leaders' are not doing what they said they would do. It is the task of revolutionaries to convince the working class of the program for Socialist Revolution. This will be done on the basis of events, events, events and fighting in the mass parties for the abolition of capitalism. This is the way of the IMT, Alan Woods, Ted Grant, Trotsky and Lenin
(1) Marx 'defined' a working class party or proletarian party as a party with as its immediat aim: "the formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat"; and communists only distinguish themselves by:

"1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality."
"2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole."

Ergo, you need to substantiate if you want us to trust your reading of the Communist Manifesto. Most parties the IMT works in (or has worked in) differ a lot from the parties Marx described. Marx looked at the parties and movements of Lassalle and Schweitzer for example, not the Canadian NDP or Labour.

(2) Not every revolutionary working outside bigger parties does so out of sectarian principle. Some do because in the end they are forced to by the bureaucrats and capitalists who control all traditional, bourgeois parties.

[bunnytheoctopus]

Thank you, Admin, for the Bonus Points for Personality Cult. I'll give you some bonus points if you tell me which person this Personality Cult refers to.

As to what's happening in the Spanish Section it is an internal discussion for members of the IMT.

Hi Rakunin

The only way we can carry through the Socialist Revolution is to win the overwhelming majority of the Working Class. This can be done by patiently explaining our program, working in the reformist Trade Unions and the workers parties. One man and his dog can proclaim a 'Party' , a party can have 10,000 members yet unless the revolutionaries face towards the masses and their organisation, they will remain sectarians. We have to work with our class pointing out our program, explaining when the reformist leaders don't carry out what they say. Name slinging, denunciations and likewise will not cut any ice with the average workers in fact it will drive them to support the reformists.

Marxism is a guide, you might understand what 1 and 2 means just try explaining what it means. Only great events will change the viewpoint of the working class, I doubt that you'd win one worker to your banner with 1. and 2.

I agree revolutionaries are expelled from mass parties but they shouldn't turn their back on them.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Of course, Marx wrote all this before the trade union movement was formed and before parties organically linked with the trade uinins were formed, so very little of what he said on this is directly applicable.

[Q]

Thank you, Admin, for the Bonus Points for Personality Cult. I'll give you some bonus points if you tell me which person this Personality Cult refers to.
Grant and Woods.


As to what's happening in the Spanish Section it is an internal discussion for members of the IMT.

One man and his dog can proclaim a 'Party' , a party can have 10,000 members yet unless the revolutionaries face towards the masses and their organisation, they will remain sectarians.
So, you're actually saying the IMT is a cult and has no relevance to the working class? Good to know.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^Who's the troll, now...?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Of course, Marx wrote all this before the trade union movement was formed and before parties organically linked with the trade uinins were formed, so very little of what he said on this is directly applicable.

But trade union movement /= worker movement. The history of tred-iunionizm is one of many indicators pointing towards having a workers-only "citizenship" policy for left parties.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^I'm sorry, but what has this got to do with what I said?

[Die Neue Zeit]

While I thought you were responding to comrade Rakunin, I got from your post the impression that you equated "trade union movement" with "worker movement." Then again, you still don't understand what a workers-only "citizenship" policy for left parties entails. :(

Also, just as trade union movement /= worker movement:

Communist "party" (historical sects like the KPD, SDKPiL in Poland-Lithuania, SDF in Britain, even Marx's Communist League + modern sects like the ultra-left ICC)

/=

Proletarian-not-necessarily-communist party (pre-war SPD, inter-war USPD, IWCA in today's UK, my proposed Class-Strugglist Social Labour)

/=

"Petit-bourgeois workers party" (NPA in France, Socialist Party USA, and similar parties with open membership policies)

/=

"Bourgeois workers party" (Die Linke, PSUV). That's the message behind Rak's last two sentences:


Not every revolutionary working outside bigger parties does this out of sectarian principle. Some do because in the end they are forced to by the bureaucrats and capitalists who control all traditional, bourgeois parties.

[bunnytheoctopus]

Hi Admin


So, you're actually saying the IMT is a cult and has no relevance to the working class? Good to know.

I didn't say that . You said it.

Have you ever read any of the writings of Ted Grant or Alan Woods? Perhaps you could say what trotskyist organisation you belong to or did belong to.

Have you ever read the documents of the Fourth International from the Death of Trotsky to 1956. If you have, could enlighten us as to the position of the so-called theoreticians of the FI in regard to The Strong State (Bonapartism), Economic level in Europe after WWII, WWII not ending, the Imminent Collapse of Stalinism, Chinese Revolution and Tito.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^Q is a CWI comrade, so that should tell you all you need to know.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JR:


While I thought you were responding to comrade Rakunin, I got from your post the impression that you equated "trade union movement" with "worker movement." Then again, you still don't understand what a workers-only "citizenship" policy for left parties entails.

No, I was making a point about the organic connection between labourist parties and the trade unions, and thus with the organised working class.

[el_chavista]

The Spanish section felt itself strong enough to get rid of the IMT and build their own Marxist organization with Latin American (Spanish speaking countries) Sections and all.

Note: CMR (Marxist Revolutionary Tendency = the Venezuelan Section)

But the task is not that easy:


"We find that the IS and the Venezuelan CC members who are supportive to it and continue to operate under its discipline, led by AB, LB and EC are building, in practice, a separate organization and are hostile to the CMR, opt out from it because they have not accepted, respected or implemented the resolutions of the last CC, are developing separate finances, its own agenda with plans to work outside the bodies of the organization, not reporting to them and continuing with a task of undermining funded and guided by the SI. We therefore believe that the 3 aforementioned companions and other comrades who are part of this hostile group that operates under the discipline of IS and sabotages the decisions of the management bodies of the CMR have placed themselves outside the organization and are no longer CMR militants.

What can do the IS but just complaining and waiting until things become clearer from its supporters in the Spanish section? This is the case in Venezuela too:


This is another example of the "scrupulously democratic" methods that have been imported from Spain. First, they held a secret fractional CC meeting to announce that Venezuela "does not accept the authority" of the IS and all supporters of the IMT were excluded from the EC. Now another fractional meeting was held in secret (if held at all) to announce the expulsion of all the supporters of the International.

What kind of "scrupulous democracy" is this when the comrades who were democratically elected to the CC in the Congress only a few months ago are now expelled in his absence, at a meeting of whose existence they were not informed, and without the right to defend themselves? Even Taaffe or Lambert didn't behave that way!

These cowardly and dishonest expulsions show that these people have no interest in maintaining the unity of the Venezuelan Section or the Internacional. By declaring that all comrades who support the IMT "are no longer members" of the section, supporters of the Spanish EC in Venezuela have confirmed their decision to split the Venezuelan section.

What is the reason for this unseemly haste? The CC is well aware that the IMT has many followers in the section. Many comrades in Venezuela are surprised and outraged by the actions of the majority of the CC. Supporters of the International in Venezuela were demanding an extraordinary congress, in which the CC was not sure of getting a majority. The reports we are getting suggest that the CC is losing ground and the supporters of the International are winning. Therefore, they decided to take preventive measures to prevent the majority expressing their views.

This follows the news from Mexico, where the former direction has been heavily defeated at the polls in all grassroots groups, except one who voted to postpone the vote until January and another in which the direction swerved to avoid a discussion taking place. The old EC has responded by declaring a division of the minority that supports the EC Spanish. Thus, in Mexico, the minority expelled the majority!

We are not asking any comrade in Spain (or anywhere else) to change their views. Just ask them to fight against a split and require the EC to accept the invitation of the IMT to come and present their positions in the IEC and the World Congress. If the Spanish leaders have confidence in their ideas, as they say, and if they are sincere in their statements for the International unit, what they have to lose?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

el_chavista, what is the source of these quotations?

[el_chavista]

el_chavista, what is the source of these quotations?
Internal documents that a friend of mine passed to me.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ah, so they are no different from the other unsubstantiated sources quoted earlier.

[Crux]

Ah, so they are no different from the other unsubstantiated sources quoted earlier.
If you have nothing to say, don't say it. Drop the holier than thou attitude, I don't believe that people care what you call "rumours", but even if they did you have made your point clear in numerous identical posts already. So in other words as you have nothing to add or bring to the thread, your posting becomes more meaningless by the minute.

Sorry for the derail.

As for these documents, well I guess we'll wait and see, but a split seems rather likely, if these documents are to be believed.

[Jeoh]

Ah, so they are no different from the other unsubstantiated sources quoted earlier.

http://i49.tinypic.com/t68oso.jpg
"I can't hear yoooouuuu!"

There are religious zealots who would accept that there is no god before you'd consider that these internal documents may be legitimate.

This will be an interesting (and somewhat unfortunate) split, considering the IMT's focus on Latin America (and Venezuela in particular). Guess we'll have to wait and see...

[el_chavista]

Ah, so they are no different from the other unsubstantiated sources quoted earlier.
No, madame Rosa, this is a direct source. I'm afraid that this year the Venezuelan supporters of the IMT will have to organize a new local section under a different name than "CMR".

[BOZG]

If you have nothing to say, don't say it. Drop the holier than thou attitude, I don't believe that people care what you call "rumours", but even if they did you have made your point clear in numerous identical posts already. So in other words as you have nothing to add or bring to the thread, your posting becomes more meaningless by the minute.

+1

[BOZG]

The Spanish section felt itself strong enough to get rid of the IMT and build their own Marxist organization with Latin American (Spanish speaking countries) Sections and all.

Note: CMR (Marxist Revolutionary Tendency = the Venezuelan Section)

But the task is not that easy:



What can do the IS but just complaining and waiting until things become clearer from its supporters in the Spanish section? This is the case in Venezuela too:

Can you post the entire documents?

[el_chavista]

Can you post the entire documents?
One is a CC resolution and the other a response from the IS. They're long documents with many other details. I think I translated the more relevant parts, believe me.

[BOZG]

One is a CC resolution and the other a response from the IS. They're long documents with many other details. I think I translated the more relevant parts, believe me.

Ah yes, of course!

Stupid anglocentricity!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

el_chavista:


No, madame Rosa, this is a direct source. I'm afraid that this year the Venezuelan supporters of the IMT will have to organize a new local section under a different name than "CMR".

Well, I have been around long enough to witness scores of splits and factional in-fights on the far left, and have thus grown very suspicious of such unsourced 'documents', so, to me, they seem, no more reliable than the other unsourced 'documents' reproduced on page one of this thread.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jeoh:


There are religious zealots who would accept that there is no god before you'd consider that these internal documents may be legitimate.

And there are naive idiots on the internet who believe everything they read on the web, from shape-shifting lizards to alien abduction -- and, even odder, that one Trotskyist sect can behave in a non-sectarian way toward another.


This will be an interesting (and somewhat unfortunate) split, considering the IMT's focus on Latin America (and Venezuela in particular). Guess we'll have to wait and see...

What 'split'? Until we have hard evidence, as I noted earlier, this sectarian speculation and gossip-mongering is demeaning.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Mayakovsky (yet another 'non-biased' CWI-clone):


If you have nothing to say, don't say it. Drop the holier than thou attitude, I don't believe that people care what you call "rumours", but even if they did you have made your point clear in numerous identical posts already. So in other words as you have nothing to add or bring to the thread, your posting becomes more meaningless by the minute.

Pointing out that this is all gossip and speculation is not having 'nothing to say' -- but telling me not to say it, is.

And, no 'holier than thou attitude' from me; more like a 'less gossipier than thee' to you 'totally neutral' CWI clones.

[BOZG]

Mayakovsky (yet another 'non-biased' CWI-clone):



Pointing out that this is all gossip and speculation is not having 'nothing to say' -- but telling me not to say it, is.

And, no 'holier than thou attitude' from me; more like a 'less gossipier than thee' to you 'totally neutral' CWI clones.

Fair enough Rosa but you've made your point. Stop annoying the rest of us by pointing it out after every second post. We'll continue to gossip about rumours and splits based on undocumented sources.

[Crux]

Mayakovsky (yet another 'non-biased' CWI-clone):



Pointing out that this is all gossip and speculation is not having 'nothing to say' -- but telling me not to say it, is.

And, no 'holier than thou attitude' from me; more like a 'less gossipier than thee' to you 'totally neutral' CWI clones.
Excuse me if I find swedish members of the IMT to be more knowledgeable on the subject than you are, Rosa. So, speaking of clones, would you stop posting? We know what you think. You are clearly unable to come up with anything new but keep repeating yourself over and over and over again. You might be completly oblivious to this yourself, in fact that seems rather likely, hopefully the moderators are not.
And now I will stop responding to your monotone, boring babble and get back to the actual subject of the thread.

I will try and get in touch with one of the swedish IMT members and see if they know anything about the apparent split in venezuela. As Jeoh said, a split in venezual would be very damaging for the IMT given tehir current focus. I think someone mentioned earlier that the venezeualen (now ex, I suppose) section of the IMT also had criticism against the IS regarding their view on Chavez and the venezuelan government. it would be interesting if anyone have any more information on this. This would be a slightly more interesting discussion as well I believe, since it's pretty hard to evaluate charges of beauractraticism from the outside.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Mayakovsky:


Excuse me if i find swedish memebers of the IMT to be more knowledgeable on the subject than you are, Rosa. So, speaking of clones, would you stop posting? We know what you think. you are clearly unable to come up with anything new but keep repeating yourself over and over and over again. you might be completly oblivious to this yourself, in fact that seems rather likely, hopefully the moderators are not.
.

All unattributable sources; these alleged IMT-ers could be anyone.


And now I will stop responding to your monotone, boring babble and get back to the actual subject of the thread

Oh dear, I will miss your 'insightful', sectarian, gossip-obsessed comments...:(

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bozg:


Fair enough Rosa but you've made your point. Stop annoying the rest of us by pointing it out after every second post. We'll continue to gossip about rumours and splits based on undocumented sources.

And I will continue to point this out.

[BOZG]

Bozg:



And I will continue to point this out.

Fuck off and grow up Rosa.

[Luís Henrique]

When an organisation is based on a culture of secrecy and pretence monolithism, it is quite difficult to discuss its internal quarrels on any other base than gossip and rumours.

Unhappily, most left organisations are based on such culture - which is one of the central causes of their sectarianism.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bozg:


Fuck off and grow up Rosa.

Ah, now we meet CWI-style comradely abuse.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


When an organisation is based on a culture of secrecy and pretence monolithism, it is quite difficult to discuss its internal quarrels on any other base than gossip and rumours.

Unhappily, most left organisations are based on such culture - which is one of the central causes of their sectarianism.

How do you know it's one of the causes if they are as secretive as you say? Either you know what is going on inside them (and thus they aren't all that secretive), or you don't know what is going on inside them (since they are secretive), in which case you can't know this is a cause.

[Kassad]

Fuck off and grow up Rosa.

Don't flame, please. Consider this a verbal warning.

[Q]

The Leftist Trainspotters groups seems to agree with el chavista:

From my contacts in the IMT:

#CMR in Venezuela are highly pissed that Woods has, in their opinion, tried to undermine their national leadership.

# CMR is accused of forming a secret faction in their own organization by IS.

#CMR membership is split but everyone hates manourving of IS and wants it all to stop.

# The entire Venezuelan group is condemned by the IS as being ultra-left (they spread this rumour everywhere, so I'm told) for their newly discovered "failure to do enough work in PSUV" which is now invented as a disagreement by the IS.

#The CC of the British IMT group, Soc.Appeal, is about to discuss this, inviting the Spanish leadership there for talks so split is averted for a week, maybe.

#Spanish want to split but going along for now. Suspect everyone is lining up everyone else now to save what they can.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Q: yet more unattributed and unsubstantiated gossip and rumour. We can all make stuff up, or pass tittle-tattle along.

This is not politics, but gossip-mongering.


(they spread this rumour everywhere, so I'm told)

Is there any hope for us Trotskyists if all we do, all you do, is pass rumours along?

[BOZG]

Bozg:



Ah, now we meet CWI-style comradely abuse.

It's not CWI-style comradely abuse. You're clearly just trolling this thread at this point and admitting to it.

[BOZG]

Don't flame, please. Consider this a verbal warning.

Can Rosa be warned for trolling? The only purpose of her presence in this thread is to annoy other posters by constantly posting the same point.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BOZG:


You're clearly just trolling this thread at this point and admitting to it.

No more than other comrades, who are, in the Politics section, just retailing gossip. If this were Chit Chat, I could understand.


It's not CWI-style comradely abuse.

Ok, so it's CWI-style straight-forward abuse.

[BOZG]

BOZG:



No more than other comrades, who are, in the Politics section, just retailing gossip. If this were Chit Chat, I could understand.



Ok, so it's CWI-style straight-forward abuse.

You're free to ask that this thread be moved or closed!

But what you're really arguing is that this shouldn't be discussed until Alan Woods makes a statement, something which will not happen.

In fact, you could argue that lot of what we discuss is gossip if you really wanted to. US Capitalism doesn't make statements on its true motivations yet we feel free to speculate and gossip on what they are?

And just bear in mind how ridiculous and childish your statement is.

"Everyone else is trolling so why shouldn't I?"

Cop on Rosa.

[Q]

A group called "Learning from our past", which consists of former IMT members still having very close ties and affinity to the organisation, have produced a text that in my view is quite an excellent analysis of the situation. The text was sent by mail over de Socialist Discussion yahoo group, quoted here by permission:


COMMENTS ON THE CURRENT CRISIS IN THE INTERNATIONAL MARXIST TENDENCY

A statement by members of the ‘Learning From Our Past’ online discussion group: [email protected] ([email protected])

It has recently come to our public attention that major divisions have broken out in the International Marxist Tendency (IMT). There will be some inside the IMT who resent the fact that their ongoing internal difficulties have become known outside the organisation. Some may look back with regret to the pre-internet years when internal disputes could be kept secret from the wider movement. At least until it was too late to do something about them. However, online communications are making futile all attempts to seal off members of left-wing groups and to stop individual socialists from talking to each other. This process will not be reversed. If anything it will accelerate. And far from regretting this development, we welcome it with open arms. It will inevitably encourage socialists to compare the operation of democracy inside their organisations and therein expose many of the damaging practices through which they have been held back for so many decades.

IMT Debate: In the main documents in the IMT exchanges, there are some interesting criticisms of its Spanish Section raised by the IMT leadership. These concern a range of issues: the need for organised entrist work in the Spanish Communist Party; a better approach to the Left leaders; mistakes made in organising the Spanish students strike last March, and in the approach to the one-day work stoppage in May in the Basque country. But these are tactical issues that can be discussed and learnt from. Not differences of fundamental principle that require the International Secretariat (IS) to come down on the Spanish comrades with an ideological sledgehammer. Indeed, the Spanish Section have been happy to discuss and in the main accept the criticisms. The IMT leadership’s document admits this in quoting the Spanish leadership: “In the EC of the Spanish section the views of the IS have always been received in a positive and comradely spirit, with the desire to learn from and correct errors we commit.” However, the IMT’s International Secretariat then move on to chastise the Spanish Section on aspects of emphasis in their public material, hardly a cause for a possible split. Nor can the IS complain that they have been denied access to the Spanish Section. They have been invited to address the national conference and CC meetings, and to have their documents circulated to the whole membership.

What then is the root cause of the crisis facing relationships between the Spanish Section and the IMT centre?

First off, it is obvious that this crisis is not really about external political principles or programme. The IS documents convey a definite air of artificial assault. An offensive designed not to solve political differences but to bring the Spanish leadership to heel by undermining them in the eyes of the Spanish members. It is often the case that matters of principle are used as weapons in a struggle for power. This appears to be the case in the IMT leadership’s campaign against the Spanish section. It seems that the Spanish leadership are no longer willing to carry on as the obedient pupil of the ‘all-knowing’ IMT leadership. No doubt this reflects the growing importance of the Spanish Section especially in the positive role they are playing in helping to build Latin American sections.

The approach of the IMT leadership in this dispute highlights serious bureaucratic, dogmatic and elitist tendencies in the way it practices internal democracy. The IMT leaders are not unique in this. The same problems to one degree or another exist in all of the groups on the revolutionary left. It is a fundamental reason why these groups tend to split again and again.

There is a natural inclination to look for fundamental differences in political principle behind such splits. Yet the question of democracy is itself a supremely political question. Democracy is the lifeblood of any socialist organisation. A democratic organisation that combines fraternal discussion with collective experience can have a healthy debate on any issue. It can take major differences in its stride. But without democracy an organisation will splinter at the first serious test.

The tendency we see in the revolutionary movement to repeatedly divide, each time amidst recriminations over a lack of internal democracy, points to a deep malaise in the structure and practice of the Leninist groups. While all these groups claim to represent the finest democratic traditions of the Bolshevik Party, in fact their party structures and practices are far closer to the bureaucratic centralist model established in the early 1920s under Zinoviev’s leadership of the Communist International. Instead of a vibrant internal life full of debates and tendencies reflecting the real choices facing the movement, we see a self-perpetuating leadership always striving to maintain one single monotone ‘true path’ towards the revolution.

Such leaders, usually ‘professional’ full-timers, take full advantage of their central position, their control of information and communication, and their long experience in speaking and writing to dominate the largely ‘amateur’ and less experienced members of their organisations. This reflects a deep-seated insecurity that underlies the thinking of the leadership. It also reflects a feeling that the organisation is theirs and that no-one is going to be allowed to take it away from them.

When individuals or groups of members start to raise questions or make criticisms they are seen as a threat to the coherence and success of the organisation. Often double-speak is utilised to mask the irritation and anxiety of the leaders. Phrases are thrown around such as ‘We are pleased that comrades have raised these questions.” Or “We welcome this opportunity to review a number of important issues” etc. Meanwhile, key people across the organisation are quickly contacted to ensure that they ‘understand’ the issues involved and are ready for the battle. The various collected works of the ‘great teachers’ are dusted down and combed through for appropriate quotations that show the deep errors that the comrades have fallen into. As the debate progresses, the tone rapidly degenerates. What might have been relatively small differences are exaggerated out of all proportion. Trotsky’s quotation ‘from a scratch to gangrene’ is wheeled out to warn members of the danger such ideas contain, with the implication that these are poisonous agents that must be cut out. The last step is usually to discover that these revolutionary discipline is being broken: subs are not being paid; communication channels are being subverted; comrades are talking to people outside the organisation. And so on. Expulsions quickly follow and a split results. The previous purity of the organisation is restored. Until the next time...

If this sounds like a caricature, sadly it is all too often an accurate portrayal of the typical struggles that break out inside the revolutionary groups. Instead of cultivating an atmosphere where comrades as individuals or in groups are encouraged to contribute towards the ideas of the organisation or to feel free to express doubts, we end up with the sterile atmosphere of a semi-religious sect. In such organisations, past leaders such as Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky are not treated as flesh and blood comrades but as saintly, infallible icons to be quoted as authorities by the ‘priesthood’. The IMT’s documents are peppered with quotations from Marx, Lenin and Trotsky to back up even the most mundane points. This turns any debate from one of ideas held by different comrades into who can come up with the best quotations. In such a contest the leadership are usually master performers. But using the authority of past leaders to back up every current idea shuts down debate. Younger comrades or those with less time to comb through the collected works will naturally be intimidated from contradicting the sacred texts.

To make matters worse, the IMT leadership is now attempting to canonise Ted Grant. He is increasingly presented as the fifth ‘great teacher’. His old articles are being carefully sifted through. Only those that have stood the test of time are being highlighted online. Those which were incorrect are left to gather dust. For those of us who know Ted and felt affection for him, warts and all, this is a nauseating and demeaning process. But it typifies their conservative, nay reactionary, approach towards the history of the revolutionary movement. Thus, rather than confront the pressing challenges of the world as it is, the leaders of the revolutionary groups see their role as ‘maintaining the principles of Bolshevik internationalism’, ‘upholding the flame of revolutionary marxism’ and so forth.

The Crisis in the IMT: At the heart of the current crisis in the IMT lies the question of how the International Secretariat relates to the different national sections. It has become clear that the IS has been working with a small group of disaffected Spanish comrades to campaign against the democratically elected leadership of the section. This has been made worse by the secrecy with which it was carried out. When this was uncovered through the publication of confidential emails between the IS and individual Spanish comrades it naturally embittered the situation.

It is likely, that the IS will see nothing wrong with such action. IS members feel entitled to interfere in any section to defend ‘the ideas of Marxism’. And why not? They are supposedly the leaders of one world party. But the reality is that attempts to impose one single line across the planet are bound to fail. National sentiments, languages, cultures and local conditions remain an extremely strong force in the world. Any attempt to develop a powerful movement in a country must know and build on its finest traditions. It must take into account the tempo of society and the state of its existing consciousness, struggles and organisations. While of course we always seek to develop our work on an international basis, the possibility of building one global political party with a single line on all the main policy and tactical issues is just not feasible. And the attempt to do so is fraught with dangers. The experience of the Third and Fourth Internationals was littered with the damage caused by attempts to impose a uniform line internationally. The idea that a central leadership will be able to direct operations across the world is utopian. It encourages a ‘one size fits all’ approach to programme and tactics. It lays the basis for the development of bureaucratic centralism. We saw exactly this in the CWI. And now there is a danger of it being repeated in the IMT.

Inevitable in the one world line concept is an enforcement system, open or by subterfuge, through which the international leadership feel able to change the officers of national sections to fit in with the prevailing political and organisational positions of the ‘worldwide party’. Despite the best of intentions, bureaucracy, manouvering and splits are the result. In the CWI, there were numerous efforts by Peter Taaffe’s group to remove the leadership in different sections using full-timers visits, contact with disaffected individuals etc. How much has really been learnt from these disastrous experiences in the IMT?

What To Do? We believe that a split within the IMT would be very damaging. Even the best of splits diminish both sides with many good comrades becoming demoralised and falling away. By far the best outcome would be for the rank and file of the International to take this opportunity to assert themselves and establish a healthy democratic organisation. For this to realistically happen, the existing leadership needs to start to take a back seat. Some of them have been at the helm in one form or another for over forty years. And if there are those among the old leadership who think of themselves as a modern Lenin they should remember Lenin’s oft-stated willingness to return to the ranks to fight for his ideas.

The old leaders need to show confidence in the good sense and understanding of the IMT membership. Socialist democracy requires humility. If you arrogantly believe that you alone have the answers, that you alone hold the sacred flame, what is the point of discussion? Democracy in our movement must be based on the belief that a genuine debate among many comrades will over time be superior to the views of one or two leaders.

Our democracy also demands flexibility. If you think that everything has already been said by the great teachers, their past works will ossify into commandments set in stone. All discussion becomes just one of interpreting their speeches and writings. Unable to respond to new developments and challenges, the organisation becomes brittle and all too easily fractured.

The IMT’s democracy also needs more appropriate structures. For instance, the International Secretariat is too centralised and its apparatus too dominated by the British comrades. In these days of instant, free communication the requirement to base an international centre in one country no longer applies. It would be much healthier if the functions of the International were distributed across the various national sections. Also, the rights of these sections should be more clearly outlined. In particular, it is essential that national sections can work free from the fear of factional intrigue by members of the International Secretariat. The IS already have enough advantages in any debate. It must respect the democratic channels within the national sections and the elected leaderships of those sections.

The structure of the IMT is too top-down. This is not the way to develop a cadre membership. Far more comrades need to be drawn into decision-making and in the process of drawing up political documents. Collective unified action comes best after the maximum involvement of members at all levels.

The IMT’s leadership in theory is democratically elected. Yet in practice it is self-selecting. That is why it has remained the same for so long. This self-selection is achieved through the system of drawing up leadership-approved slates and proposing them ‘en bloc’ to the members. This was not the system used by the Bolshevik Party. It is argued that the slate system allows for a ‘balanced team’ to be put forward but in practice it removes the accountability of individual leaders which is why they fear it. Worse still, it turns elections into a loyalty test under the control of the existing leadership.

The IS also needs to accept that the days of secret internal political discussions are gone. This requirement is not only increasingly unenforceable but it usually substitutes disciplinary action for political debate. Of course, there will be circumstances under repressive regimes where openness could endanger individuals. Everyone understand that. But in normal situations there is no need to hide significant differences. In fact, the IMT has nothing to fear from other socialists and workers knowing the political alternatives it is debating. The current case of differing views on China is a great example. Such openness can become a way to attract the best elements to the ranks of the IMT. The Bolsheviks in their healthiest periods published their internal material openly. The debates of the Third International were widely publicised. Except in the most extreme circumstances this should be the IMT’s model.

The old leadership should not see the existing situation as a threat but as a great opportunity for the organisation to flourish. The comrades don’t want anarchy or federalism. Just the chance to breathe freely the oxygen of democracy inside the International. Imagine a relaxed atmosphere where discussion over the issues of China, economics, tactics and so on could go forward without all the bitterness and insecurity that currently pervades every attempt to question existing orthodoxies.
But if the leaders maintain a siege mentality and cling onto their arrogant belief that they alone uphold the marxist tradition there can be no way forward for the IMT. A split will become inevitable. Hopefully this will not happen but if it does then all those comrades who are now struggling to assert their democratic rights should strive to ensure that any new movement begins by carefully thinking through what has gone wrong and why. In this way it will not just rush into replicating the same old bad practices as has happened after so many splits in the past. Rather it will be able to develop a new, more healthy tradition.

Capitalism is in the process of destroying the future of humanity. Indeed of all life. It must be replaced with a Democratic Socialist World. The force to do this can only be working people acting though independent mass industrial and political organizations. And the building of international unity between them. Our task is to be part of this process and help fructify these mass organizations with the ideas of scientific socialism. Central to this is the fight for the democracy within our own ranks and the workers’ movement as a whole.

After all, if we can’t achieve collective democracy within our own movement, how do we hope to be able to establish a democratic socialist society across the world?

[Crux]

You're free to ask that this thread be moved or closed!

But what you're really arguing is that this shouldn't be discussed until Alan Woods makes a statement, something which will not happen.

In fact, you could argue that lot of what we discuss is gossip if you really wanted to. US Capitalism doesn't make statements on its true motivations yet we feel free to speculate and gossip on what they are?

And just bear in mind how ridiculous and childish your statement is.

"Everyone else is trolling so why shouldn't I?"

Cop on Rosa.
Don't feed the troll, comrade.

[Q]

Somewhat strange that no one has anything to say on such a good piece of political analysis and commentary like I quoted in my previous post.

[Sam_b]

In true Weekly Worker fashion, it seems that Q has a morbid obsession with rumours and tittle-tattle from other internationals and tendencies than that of his own.

Where's the mill going after this? The sparts? Whatever's going on internally in the IMT is for IMT comrades, not for fringe shouters and hacks.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Perhaps instead of a counter-commentary, a question should be raised about the "canonization" of Ted Grant. To be fair, it isn't on the same level as the Avakian cult in the US, but this is just like Lassalle's post-humous cult (the real precedent of the Lenin cult).

[Lenny Nista]

Where's the mill going after this? The sparts? Whatever's going on internally in the IMT is for IMT comrades, not for fringe shouters and hacks.

I'm no fan of the Weekly W, but this is the other extreme. The IMT through its nefarious policies of calling on the working class to join the PSUV and the PPP, and its right-wing national chauvinism and entryism sui generis in general, is a cancer on the left and the working class, and leftists should seek to intervene to help any potentially healthy elements break with this tradition. Otherwise we renounce debate in the name of formalistic deference to bureaucratic "norms". This was never Lenin or Trotsky's method, they intervened continually into struggles in other tendencies.

[Q]

Where's the mill going after this? The sparts? Whatever's going on internally in the IMT is for IMT comrades, not for fringe shouters and hacks.
Because the developments inside the IMT (and SWP) are of no significance to the working class movement? At least you stay consistent in your sectarianism.

[Davie zepeda]

Enemies of the revolution trying to split us by pitting us against each other, it's a strategy used here in America and now used on a international scale, careful tricks are hard to uncover. let's hope they stick together.

[Q]

Enemies of the revolution trying to split us by pitting us against each other it's a strategy used here now used on a international scale, careful tricks are hide to uncover. let's hope they stick together.
I'm not entirely sure what this is supposed to mean, but I think this is supposed to be a jab at those who call for openness and question what is going on in the IMT?

I for one am worried of a split, I would certainly not welcome it with open arms. Despite the sectarian stance of the IMT leadership in pushing through their own line in a bureaucratic fashion, a split would mean many rank and file activists becoming disillusioned in the organisation and revolutionary politics, thusly losing many for the movement.

To prevent splits from happening I support fully public debate on the disagreements involved. The reasoning is simple as I've written elsewhere (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=553):




Firstly to allow individual members to develop their ideas freely. You cannot develop your ideas, if you don't think about them in a critical fashion If you just accept ideas as they are, you are on the path of a follower, not a leader. An organisation made up of followers is a sect, not a rallying point for the masses of the working class. Related to this is the point of unity: people attach better to an organisation which has something to offer to them in regards of personal development, instead of just blindly following a set of ideas.
Secondly to counterbalance the centralism in the party. In parties with no transparent democracy, you have a followers base in one form or another. The leadership then automatically becomes the "brain" of the organisation. Once this is considered "normal", any different views apart from the leadership line is automatically a threat to the leadership line. The SWP is an extreme example of this. The Dutch SP is too. I'm part of the Dutch group "Offensief" and we just got kicked out of the party because we openly disagreed. In effect there is a monopoly on political discussion by the leadership. However, the views of a clique tend to degenerate over a period of time to become non-proletarian. The SWP's adventure with Respect comes to mind. So, proletarian politics can only happen among as wide a basis as possible.
Thirdly to become the political leadership of the workers movement. Having different views within one organisation is not "confusing" at all for workers. We shouldn't view workers as retards here. Often discussions within the organisation reflects the discussion within the wider working class to some degree. Providing an open platform for discussion makes you the center of the discussion, thus you become the political leadership of the workers movement, or at least the layers in which we have an influence. We should always be striving for the outmost influence as possible in this regard. Popularising the ideas of radical solutions.



So, let me reverse your point: If there would be any "enemies of the revolution" it would be the sectarians that are exactly steering towards a split. This would be the IMT IS and their Spanish sections' EC.

[bunnytheoctopus]

Does learning_from_our_past exist? Couldn't find any reference to them.


.. consists of former IMT members still having very close ties and affinity to the organisation, have produced a text that in my view is quite an excellent analysis of the situation.

So they have picked up gossip from their 'close ties, and have 'affinity to the organisation', this some how does not tie in with their view of the IMT, which apportions all the blame to the IMT, in particular the leadership. The IMT is a Democratic Centralist organisation. This means there is a democratic discussion at every level but when a decision is taken it is everyone who carries it out. This is the method that Trade Unions use , if the majority vote for a strike then everyone comes out. If on the other hand the majority don't vote to strike , the minority don't go out on a limb. The discussion about striking is internal and democratic, but you don't tell the bosses anything.

According to the comrades of "Learning_from_our_past"

It is a fundamental reason why these groups tend to split again and again.


It is the pressure of the conflicting moods of society that weigh down on us all. Splits happen, because of comrades take the transient mood of sections of the working class, as the mood of the whole class. So, for example, after the defeat of a strike, some workers want to leave the union and set up a revolutionary union, others will stay to fight and bide their time, others will loose interest and others will leave the union.

This is reflected in the tiny organisations of the revolutionary left, but in a more concentrated form. Some, because of the lack of progress, will put forward an ultra left view, call for a General Strike - this spark will get the workers moving they think. Others will say we are too dogmatic, too strident, use difficult words like 'Capitalism and Socialism' we need a broad alliance of other groups, this is opportunism. A good leadership needs to understand these tendencies, and use the periods of 'calm' to prepare the cadres for the periods of turmoil.

The Slate:

This self-selection is achieved through the system of drawing up leadership-approved slates and proposing them ‘en bloc’ to the members.

What do the 'comrades' suggest in its place? The leadership are in a position to know the talents of members and a leading body needs to work as a team, but minority groups can be part of the slate proposed by the leadership. It would be foolish to not have them on the leading body.

The following claim is made about articles by Ted :

Those which were incorrect are left to gather dust.

If that is true produce one!

As to discussions


Imagine a relaxed atmosphere where discussion over the issues of China, economics, tactics and so on could go forward without all the bitterness and insecurity that currently pervades every attempt to question existing orthodoxies


Surely what the 'comrades' mean is that their half baked ideas are opposed by the leading comrades and they can't argue their own case.


..in my view is quite an excellent analysis of the situation.

This was a hatchet job by comrades who have left. What have they learnt from our past? Seemingly very little.

[Invigilator]

Does learning_from_our_past exist? Couldn't find any reference to them.

It is an online discussion group. You can find it here:
groups.yahoo.com/group/learning_from_our_past

My understanding is that the people involved are generally from an IMT or CWI background.


So they have picked up gossip from their 'close ties, and have 'affinity to the organisation', this some how does not tie in with their view of the IMT, which apportions all the blame to the IMT, in particular the leadership.

They blame the international leadership certainly. This fits with their general outlook, which is to say that the most or all existing left organisations are not in fact democratic and that under a (rather thin) veneer of democracy they are bureaucratic or autocratic. They take the view that internal democracy is a political question and that the practice of an international leadership forming or encouraging secret factions within national sections is a corrosive and destructive one.

Their view seems to be that things like the degree of emphasis to be put on work inside the CP is a minor, local, tactical issue which should be decided by debate and discussion within the Spanish section. The international leadership shouldn't be aggressively trying to micro-manage such issues. If the international leadership does think that the local section are going very badly off course then they should intervene in an open way by making political arguments. What they absolutely shouldn't do is to intrigue with dissatisfied elements in the local section in a secret manner.

There is a long history of this sort of behaviour in the international movement and it rarely ends well. The IMT and CWI trace their history back to the old British RCP, then the British section of the Fourth International. The FI leadership organised a secret faction around Gerry Healy when they disagreed with the national leadership around Haston and Grant and managed to destroy the RCP in short order.



The Slate:


What do the 'comrades' suggest in its place?

They suggest democratic elections, of the sort used by the Bolsheviks.

[BOZG]

They suggest democratic elections, of the sort used by the Bolsheviks.

Such elections do not necessarily give a democratic representation of the geographical, age, trade union etc. demographics of an organisation.

For example, an organisation that's based largely in a single area can end up with a leadership that comes entirely from that area at the exclusion of other areas. The purpose of a slate system is to give a leadership that encompasses all areas of work whether it's local work, trade union work, community work, public reps work, youth work etc. The membership are free to reject any slates put forward, to propose alternative slates or to propose individual nominations. It is when such failsafes are removed that a slate system ceases to be undemocratic. It's not undemocratic in itself.

[Invigilator]

Such elections do not necessarily give a democratic representation of the geographical, age, trade union etc. demographics of an organisation.

The word "democratic" is meaningless in that sentence. What you mean is that such an election may "not necessarily give a desirable representation...". But what is and is not desirable should be up to the membership, not the outgoing leadership. If the membership want to elect a new leadership consisting entirely of people from one area of the party, that is up to them. Such is the price of democracy.

The Bolsheviks did not use a slate system. It's a later peculiarity stemming from Stalinism and adopted by Trotskyism. In practice, across the revolutionary movement as a whole, it has demonstrably had the effect of reinforcing the strength of the existing leadership as against the wider membership.

There are of course different variants of the slate system. You can have voting by slate, or nomination by slate but voting by individual, or nomination by slate or individual, or any one of a bunch of other methods. In general however, the effects are the same in tendency while sometimes differing in degree.

[BOZG]

The word "democratic" is meaningless in that sentence. What you mean is that such an election may "not necessarily give a desirable representation...". But what is and is not desirable should be up to the membership, not the outgoing leadership. If the membership want to elect a new leadership consisting entirely of people from one area of the party, that is up to them. Such is the price of democracy.

You're correct, desirable is the correct word. But the membership have the ability to reject the slate and propose another slate or to force a vote on individuals. You've yet to show how it isn't democratic.

[Invigilator]

You're correct, desirable is the correct word. But the membership have the ability to reject the slate and propose another slate or to force a vote on individuals. You've yet to show how it isn't democratic.

It is less democratic than a free vote. It isn't entirely undemocratic. In terms of bourgeois democracy its like the difference between those regimes called "guided democracies" and those simply called democracies.

In practice, and this has now been demonstrated in hundreds, even thousands, of organisations around the world, slate systems lead to more entrenched, harder to get rid of, leaderships than straightforward voting for individual candidates. This is a bad thing.

[A New Tradition]

I am very happy that a supporter of the IMT leadership is willing to debate these things on this public forum. This is a really good start.
The post makes a number of serious points. I will try to answer them in the order they were written.
First off, I hope that the learning_from_our_past group does exist because I am a member of it and last time I checked I'm still flesh and blood.
Just to make things clear, the article was not an attack on the IMT but specifically on the mistaken approach of the majority of its leadership.
We could go into a theoretical discussion of democratic centralism which would be interesting but this issue was not actually raised in our commentary on the IMT dispute. Rather we focused on the way it is used in the IMT to keep the existing leadership in power. The authority of the Bolshevik Party is invoked to justify these practices but to their credit the Bolsheviks never tried to impose such uniformity, at least until they started to degenerate along with the state that they were running.
On the question of splits, I have to say that to quote trade unions as an example to explain why the revolutionary left keeps splitting is very strange. In fact, with all the criticisms that could be made of the mass workers organisations this is the last one I would make. The membership in general understand the need for unity and that is one of the main reasons why splits within them are very rare.
The revolutionary left on the other hand regularly split. Of course comrades will be affected as the post says by "the conflicting moods of society that weigh down on us all." This may be one of many reasons why debates would open up within a socialist group but it doesn't explain why splits happen. From my own personal experience and from following many of the splits that have fractured the revolutionary movement, it is the hostile and combative way that the leadership of these groups responds to criticism or differences that leads so quickly to such splits. That this very obvious fact is not admitted to by members of these groups, at least until they leave, is part of the refusal of the revolutionary left to be self-critical. They will tend to blame everyone else for their problems but never their own group which to their mind is in all essential points 'perfect', until they leave it. Why is it that after every split the minority that is driven out provides similar details of the undemocratic tactics used by leadership to defeat them: manouvers, denunciations, slanders, rigged hearings, explusions etc. Yes, there may be variations in the severity of such repression between each group but the pattern is the same - caused by a common form of bureaucratic centralism which is laughably called Leninist democratic centralism. And all those who are not currently under the sway of the leaderships of these groups knows this.
On the question of slates Bunny the Octopus asks "what do the 'comrades' suggest in its place?" Before dealing with this, you will note that 'comrades' is put in apostrophes. Thus whether we are comrades is questioned. The fact that I have devoted over 30 years to the movement sacrificing so much time, energy and money, was involved in the Militant for 13 years and then in the IMT for 3 years is thus dismissed. What does it take to be a 'comrade'. Someone who agrees with everything you say and doesn't criticise any aspect of your group's leadership? Then you wonder why so many left-wingers do not want to join the revolutionary groups. And why the phrase from Life of Brian "No, we are the Judean People's Front" still sums up the typical revolutionary group members' attitude to all fellow socialists.
Bunny the Octopus asks us for an alternative way to elect the leadership. Our article clearly indicates this. We believe in open elections just as the workers have always done and was indeed the practice of the Bolshevik Party. The idea that elections are all about creating a team is fine if you want to run your group as a small, monotone organisation where there are no significant differences. But where is the accountability of individual leaders in such a system. Slates always turn elections into a loyalty test which is why the leadership slate is almost always carried.
As to the idea that the slate system allows minority groups to be represented forgets the fact that this is only at the grace and favour of the leadership. Even if they are willing to nominate minority representatives which they very often aren't (more on this shortly), the leadership still decide which minority representative is put on the slate and how many. And can change this decision in any future election. In contrast to this, open elections in the labour movement with all their flaws have usually allowed significant minorities to be regularly elected. And just as important, give the chance for individual leaders to be replaced.
In the IMT the leadership employ a most unusual tactic towards minority groups. They maintain the right to decide if the differences are sufficient to justify whether such a group should be recognised as a faction and have faction rights to circulate their documents etc. The leadership whom the minority group is differing with have the power to decide if these differences are important or not. Kafkaeque indeed. To my own persona knowledge, in the short life of the IMT the leadership have used this argument on at least two occasions to prevent dissent.
On Ted Grant we are challenged to produce any writings that are incorrect. That this question is even raised says everything. The clear implication is that Bunny the Octopus believes that every article written by Ted Grant in 70 years of activity was correct. That is the mythology that step by step the IMT's leadership is trying to create. However, Ted was a real person and like every real person included in his many good writings were some bad ones. For instance, at the end of the Second World War Ted was the leading person in the RCP who argued against the comrades joining the Labour Party. This was the ideal time to join Labour as the Labour Government started to backtrack on its policies and a mass left-wing began to develop. Indeed, I would argue that it was a dreadful mistake for these comrades to leave Labour in 1944 just before the great Labour victory in 1945 when it was elected on its most left-wing programme. It was Ted who maintained his opposition to work in the Labour Party for some years until the RCP broke up and in the absence of any viable alternative Ted led his small group into the Labour Party. Thus a great opportunity was lost. But you will never see Ted's justifications aginst joing Labour at the time put up on the IMT's website as it would be too embararassing and would be seen as undermining the IMT's current tactics. It would be possible to produce many other articles written by Ted that included predictions that turned out to be wrong. I say this not to knock Ted Grant for whom I still retain affection and respect but in opposition to any attempt to try to create a false image of Ted's infallibility. Nor am I singling out Ted Grant. I disagree with attempts to do the same with past leaders of the revolutionary movement whoever they were.
The last points of Bunny the Octopus's piece talks about our ideas being half-baked and that we can't argue our case. I will have to leave the reader to decide whether this is true or not. As to our article being 'a hatchet job' I thought it would be useful to check online for a definition of this expression. It defined this as "a malicious or devastating verbal or written attack". Well our article was not malicious. We argue against a split and constructively call on the IMT's leadership to allow a more open atmosphere inside the International. Whether our article is 'devastating' we again leave to the reader to decide. I finish by saying that I regard Bunny the Octopus to be a comrade. I was in the same place he/she is now. It is only the school of hard knocks that has convinced me that there is a better way of doing these things.

[bunnytheoctopus]

Yes Learning_from_our_past does exist. I did find it.

It wasn' the case that I believe everything Ted wrote was correct but I took the Quote from

His old articles are being carefully sifted through. Only those that have stood the test of time are being highlighted online. Those which were incorrect are left to gather dust. For those of us who know Ted and felt affection for him, warts and all, this is a nauseating and demeaning process

The implication that some documents are being hidden or not put in the Archive. That's why I asked you to name one of these documents.

[bunnytheoctopus]

Taken from IMT website

Jimmy Deane and myself, isolated in the leadership, were in a profound dilemma. It was clear that entry into the Labour Party could not solve our problems. That is why we originally opposed it at the Political Bureau and the Central Committee. That didn't mean that the open party was going to produce miracles either. To be honest, given the objective situation, entry or non-entry would not have made any fundamental difference. Outside the Labour Party we wouldn't gain much under the existing circumstances, but inside the Labour Party we wouldn't gain much either! Looking back on it, we made an opportunist mistake. It was difficult to see at the time. In hindsight it is much clearer.
We believed that we had a fundamental responsibility to maintain the organisation. The WIL and the RCP had shown its mettle in the period 1938-48. The organisation had been reinforced by the experience of the whole period, during and after the war, when we had been educated in the debates on a whole host of question, including entrism and revolutionary tactics. We knew that if we conducted a political struggle over this question to maintain the open party, we would undoubtedly have gained the overwhelming majority of the organisation. Haston and the majority of the Political Bureau would have certainly been isolated. But the problem that we faced was that they were the top leaders of the organisation. We had built up this leadership in a period of common work for ten years or so, and we didn't want to throw it away.
Experienced cadres are precious. They are created in the course of struggle. Our cadres had been tested in the course of the war, the Newcastle trials, the Neath by-election, and so on. They had been tested by the war itself, the pressures of capitalism, reformism, and Stalinism. They had maintained themselves under fire. They were extremely talented people. Therefore, Jimmy and I were in a terrible quandary. What were we to do? We agonised over the question and decided, rightly or wrongly, that it was a question of attempting to preserve the leadership. We wanted to maintain the leadership at all costs for the future. And so we decided not to oppose the proposals of the PB majority. This was a bad mistake, and one that had unforeseen consequences



From History of British Trotskyism by Ted Grant

[Die Neue Zeit]

Such elections do not necessarily give a democratic representation of the geographical, age, trade union etc. demographics of an organisation.

For example, an organisation that's based largely in a single area can end up with a leadership that comes entirely from that area at the exclusion of other areas. The purpose of a slate system is to give a leadership that encompasses all areas of work whether it's local work, trade union work, community work, public reps work, youth work etc. The membership are free to reject any slates put forward, to propose alternative slates or to propose individual nominations. It is when such failsafes are removed that a slate system ceases to be undemocratic. It's not undemocratic in itself.

Such a "technocratic" slate system should be randomly selected and not handpicked by the central committee.

In fact, you should read the academic paper The Soviet Elite from Lenin to Gorbachev (http://books.google.com/books?id=FeouUeq5_6gC&dq). The slate system is alternatively called the "job slot" system.


The Bolsheviks did not use a slate system. It's a later peculiarity stemming from Stalinism and adopted by Trotskyism. In practice, across the revolutionary movement as a whole, it has demonstrably had the effect of reinforcing the strength of the existing leadership as against the wider membership.

Early on the Bolsheviks may not have, but later on they did, according to the aforementioned academic paper.

In fact, the first chapter can be found in its entirety here:

Revolutionaries in Power: 1917-1923 (http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-829738-6.pdf)

[Davie zepeda]

I'm not saying bash criticism, what i'm saying is don't let criticism become a split because it's a old divide and conquer tactic which was used on the black panther party, The more militant against the more pacifist section's, not realizing in unity they must work in order to overthrow capitalism.

[BOZG]

Such a "technocratic" slate system should be randomly selected and not handpicked by the central committee.

How exactly would random selection work? The purpose of the slate system is to put forward a balanced leadership for election. By its nature, it couldn't be randomly selected?

[Q]

How exactly would random selection work? The purpose of the slate system is to put forward a balanced leadership for election. By its nature, it couldn't be randomly selected?
Randomly selected groups of 30 or larger give a representational value of the whole collective, thus balanced, without the negative trait of slates being pushed forward in the interests of the leadership (which might not always coincide with those of the collective).

See this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-oligarchyi-t119643/index.html) for more stuff on the matter.

[BOZG]

Randomly selected groups of 30 or larger give a representational value of the whole collective, thus balanced, without the negative trait of slates being pushed forward in the interests of the leadership (which might not always coincide with those of the collective).

See this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-oligarchyi-t119643/index.html) for more stuff on the matter.

I'll have a proper read of it later though from a quick glance through it, it seems that he's arguing for random selection in a state. A revolutionary party is not a state.

[Q]

I'll have a proper read of it later though from a quick glance through it, it seems that he's arguing for random selection in a state. A revolutionary party is not a state.
True, but the matter of the revolutionary party gets discussed aswell further on in the thread. There are many overlaps anyway to the core question of representation and leadership.

[Jonas Elossov]

Such a "technocratic" slate system should be randomly selected and not handpicked by the central committee.

In fact, you should read the academic paper The slate system is alternatively called the "job slot" system.


I don't see any particular problem with a slate system, as long as there's a tendency right and an relatively easy way to recall the CC.

The slate system gives various advantages. Firstly it gives the possibility of a balanced CC, with different tendencies in the organisation incorporated, which would not always be the case in an proportionally election system. A random selection by contrary has the problem that it doesn't select the most compatible elements, both with most experience and most talent; which of course is crucial in a revolutionary cadre-organisation.

[Crux]

Somewhat strange that no one has anything to say on such a good piece of political analysis and commentary like I quoted in my previous post.
I think it didn't say much at all really, and the point about internal discussions now not being able to happen is patently wrong. However now the documents are out, so hardly just rumours.

This opens up some discussions, as I have already mentioned before. Why do we need to slip into met-diuscussion?

[Jonas Elossov]

This is reflected in the tiny organisations of the revolutionary left, but in a more concentrated form. Some, because of the lack of progress, will put forward an ultra left view, call for a General Strike - this spark will get the workers moving they think. Others will say we are too dogmatic, too strident, use difficult words like 'Capitalism and Socialism' we need a broad alliance of other groups, this is opportunism. A good leadership needs to understand these tendencies, and use the periods of 'calm' to prepare the cadres for the periods of turmoil.


How exactly do you mean that a call for a general strike is 'ultra-leftism'? Is that part of the discussion between the IS and El Militante?

Because on the demo on 12/12 in Madrid the 'el militante'-leaflets were clearly putting the need forward of a general strike. And that was the only correct position, I think... - I was also the position of the PCE, IU, CWI, and a lot of trade union delegations...

[Die Neue Zeit]

The slate system gives various advantages. Firstly it gives the possibility of a balanced CC, with different tendencies in the organisation incorporated, which would not always be the case in an proportionally election system. A random selection by contrary has the problem that it doesn't select the most compatible elements, both with most experience and most talent; which of course is crucial in a revolutionary cadre-organisation.

Re. the second point on qualifications: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition


The most common argument against pure sortition (that is, with no prior selection of an eligible group) is that it does not discriminate those selected and takes no account of particular skills or experience that might be needed to effectively discharge the particular offices filled.

Also, I too have argued for a tendency balance, but based on random selection and not CC handpicking, which was nevertheless critiqued below:


On the other hand, the "elitist" filter can also be based on tendency affiliations. For example, some party organ might need x- Trots, x- Maoists, x- class-strugglist anarchists, but no neo-Kauts. I'm referring to committees like "transitory action platform" committees. Something similar can be said for "electoral platform" committees, but with different compositions.

The editorial committee in particular would have to be filtered based on tendency, so as to include as many tendencies as possible on a "senatorial" footing (one member each, regardless of tendency size).



That looks like a Lebanese nightmare of a constitution.

Here's the old link on this:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/senatorial-organization-online-t79582/index.html


Given my very vocal stance in recent weeks regarding the need for socialists in advanced countries to organize SPD-style (ie, revolutionaries and real, post-welfarist reformists), would a good start for unity revolve around "senatorial" organization for online and/or print newspapers?

For example, the editorial board would have one pareconist along the lines of Michael Albert, one "market socialist" along the lines of David Schweickart, one generic "democratic socialist" (but one who opposes mere "social democracy"), one liberation-theologist, one Trotskyist, one ortho-Marxist, one "maximalist" (revolutionary demands only, no minimums), one generic Marxist (preferrably a small-r revolutionary Marxist), and maybe even one anarcho-Marxist.

It's just my personal opinion on one tactic towards countering sectarianism, so that no one "eligible" tendency (can't just be literally "two men and a dog," as the Grantites would say) can say that their political positions are being censored from the party press.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This is reflected in the tiny organisations of the revolutionary left, but in a more concentrated form. Some, because of the lack of progress, will put forward an ultra left view, call for a General Strike - this spark will get the workers moving they think. Others will say we are too dogmatic, too strident, use difficult words like 'Capitalism and Socialism' we need a broad alliance of other groups, this is opportunism. A good leadership needs to understand these tendencies, and use the periods of 'calm' to prepare the cadres for the periods of turmoil.

You're twisting the Kautskyan strategy of patience in a non-revolutionary period for the purpose of collaborating on a strategic basis with class-collaborationists. I too think that calls for "general strikes" are ultra-leftist, precisely because it's a minoritarian conning of the masses to power.

[nideaquinidealli]

You're twisting the Kautskyan strategy of patience in a non-revolutionary period for the purpose of collaborating on a strategic basis with class-collaborationists. I too think that calls for "general strikes" are ultra-left, precisely because it's a minoritarian conning of the masses to power.
Jacob,
are really ultra-left the calls for a general strike?
Then, all the greek unions are suffering the ultraleftist illness, and tne Comunist Party of spain, and a lot of branches of both main unions in Spain (CC.OO. and UGT)...

[Q]

Another contribution from the "Learning from our past" group. This gives a more historic angle to the matter, very interesting. Quoted with permission:


It is interesting to me to see relatively little discussion on our material on the crisis in the IMT. This is the case in some areas in particular. The most glaring example is the Socialist Discussion List. I suspect that the reason is that many Comrades on that list went through groups such as the CWI and the IMT and participated in these false methods of internal life and they are not prepared to, or do not know how to, or think it is hopeless to try to, or think it is unnecessary to try to, deal with this.

For those of us who came out of the CWI stable there is also I feel another reason. Old Ted used to dismiss the problems of internal life by saying that if our perspectives and our program were wrong then there was no way our internal life could be healthy, that inevitably bureaucratic methods would develop. The inference was that if our perspectives and program were right then the internal life would look after itself. His suggested conclusion therefore was that there was no point in paying much attention to the health of the internal life. I think there is some truth in this. But only a very very small truth. However in spite of what he said Ted, and Taaffe and the rest of the British EC did pay quite a lot of attention to internal life, specifically to how it would allow the existing leadership to keep control. But to go back to Ted's general point, it is not only a question of whether the perspectives and program are correct, it is also a question of how the discussion of perspectives and program is handled when they are shown to be incorrect as they always will be at one time or another.

Look at the issue of capitalism going into the former Stalinist states. We, all of us, in the CWI and what later became the IMT spent decades explaining that this was ruled out. By the way if the IMT Comrade who has been debating Pat wants an example of a mistake that Ted, and all of us made, he need go no further than this. When capitalism was being restored into the Stalinist world this negated our perspectives in a big way. This was no small mistake. It opened up a major debate in the old CWI. At the same time it became clear that we had not foreseen the extent of the years of economic growth, the rise of China and the extent to which capitalism was able to utilize the new technology. In other words our perspectives were shown to be very wrong. This applied to the entire CWI which at that time included the leadership of the CWI and the leadership of the IMT.

Was a split at that time and over these issues inevitable. I believe it was not. It became inevitable because of the incorrect way in which the leadership of the CWI, including Ted G and Alan W and Peter Taaffe saw the issue of internal organization. There are many points i could make in this regard but I will confine myself here to only a few.

The leadership of the old CWI which included the present leadership of the IMT saw and see their role as teachers of the organization and the membership. They do not see the organization as a whole where there is a dialectical relationship between the membership and the leadership, where the ideas are developed by the organization as a whole in debate and struggle and where the leadership is accountable to the membership. Take a few examples.

In the old CWI when a branch would move a motion to the conference the EC would meet with that branch and try to talk it into withdrawing the motion. The reason for this was simple. The leadership wanted their agenda to be the agenda of the conference, they did not want the conference to be discussing other issues. They wanted the conference to be an opportunity for them to teach the membership, this meant they wanted the agenda of the conference to be set by them. There was no acceptance of the idea that the ideas of the organization were developed through collective discussion and debate, no instead the ideas were to be developed by the leadership teaching the membership.

I was on the IS of the CWI for a number of years. Lynn Walsh was delegated to develop a draft on economic perspectives. After a few meetings it became clear to me he would go away and discuss with Andrew Glynn, develop some ideas between them and come back and present these to the IS. I objected saying the IS collectively should discuss and debate the perspectives. His reply? And this was not contradicted by anybody else on the IS. "I have no time to give seminars to the IS." If this was his view of the IS imagine what was his view of the membership.

Then there was the view of a collective leadership. The truth is there was no view of this amongst the leadership. Each thought they knew everything and was the key person. They looked at the Russian revolution and saw the key role Lenin played. This was an extreme weakness of the Bolshevik organization and should be pointed out when this is discussed. But is it pointed out? Very seldom. The reason why is that the leadership of the left groups to almost the last person believes that there will be one person who will know it all, and it will be themselves, they will be the Lenin.

When it became clear that the CWI was wrong on perspectives on Stalinism and capitalism what should the leadership have done? it should have opened the organization up to discussion and debate as never before. The leadership should have started this off by announcing how wrong they had been and in this way created an atmosphere where Comrades would have felt confident to put their ideas forward. This was what was necessary. It would have made it more likely that the organization would have been able to stay together. But what did the leadership do?

The debate was reduced to was there a clique in the leadership or not? The debate should have been on why we had made such serious mistakes on world perspectives, was there a mistake in method. I think there was, it was that the organization was far too unconditional on perspectives and that the leadership was far too authoritarian and top down and strongly discouraged the membership of the organization as a whole from expressing its views, opinions and doubts. We had the embarrassing spectacle of experienced leading Comrades denying that capitalism was going back to the Stalinist world after it had been established and another who claimed that he had not been wrong because at a party he "had set a hare running" by saying capitalism might go back.

The discussion should have been on the method and internal life of the organization and how such serious and major mistakes could have been made. The discussion should have been on the perspectives for the former Stalinist world and the capitalist world economy. And on the perspectives for the workers movement in the face of the new major shift in the world balance of forces.

But this did not happen. Instead what happened was a vicious internal fight over was there a clique or not and flowing from this a dirty underhand battle to win people to one side or the other. Comrades who could pay high subs or who had particular skills were particularly targeted. The inevitable result was the split. We need to be honest. The majority of the leadership of both sides wanted this and wanted themselves to to be the leaders of their respective factions, new organizations. That is what they got. But this was extremely damaging to the working class movement and to the organization. The forces that were built up and which had led such great struggles as the poll tax and Liverpool and Youth Against racism in Europe were decimated and many demoralized. This was a crime.

It is my strongly held opinion that with the correct approach to internal life a split in the CWI at that time could have been averted. On the issue of perspectives for the former Stalinist world, perspectives for the developing world economy, differences on these could have been handled easily within the one organization if the internal life of that organization had been healthy.. Different groups and factions could have put forward their views and agreed to let events unfold and see whose opinion if any was confirmed. In the meantime the struggle for the program and the battle against the bosses offensive could have been continued.

Ah but I can here the voice. What about the issue of the Labor Parties, the social democratic parties? This was an immediate concrete issue of tactics. How could this be lived with? You were either in the social democracies or out, in the mass communist parties or out.

Well I would suggest that things were not so simple. The organization could have explained that if the issue was posed in that way then a split was inevitable. And who would gain from this, what would be gained from this? Instead could we not discuss the issue, look at the forces involved in the different countries, look at our own forces. Explain that there is not agreement on the issue, particularly not agreement to impose a universal tactic and on this basis where it looks useful to work in the mass organizations we will do so and where it does not we will not and after one to two years we will discuss the issue again. In this way we could have avoided a split.

There are other issues but I will leave them for now. Just a final detail on my own role. Like everybody else in the CWI at the time I based myself on the wrong perspective. There was talk of five to ten years to the revolution. My work on the IS and throughout the international as a full timer was based on this, as it turned out false perspective. Where I was working I drove the organization forward with everything I had. Recruitment, paper sales, raising money, build and build. What was the result of this. Increasingly any discussion of ideas, rather any questioning of the existing ideas, came to be seen as obstacles to recruitment, paper sales, raising money, building and building.

We discussed ideas alright. But we did so only to recruit and to affirm our existing ideas. As the world was changing around us with Stalinism collapsing, with China developing, with capitalism recording new growth and utilizing the new technology we kept repeating the old basic formulas and to our credit kept fighting for the basic traditional transitional demands. But that was not enough. Based on false perspectives, and with the best intentions to build the revolutionary organization, I also contributed to the crisis and the unhealthy internal life of the CWI and the revolutionary left in general.

Our false over optimistic perspectives was increasingly destroying the internal life which had been unhealthy to begin with. All was the best in the best of all possible worlds. This was the stance that was asked for. Meanwhile the unhealthy internal life was making it more and more difficult to correct the false perspectives. The unhealthy internal life, and part of this was the obsession of many of the leading Comrades to the entirely un dialectical idea that they were always right, made what would have inevitably been a crisis in the organization due to our wrong perspectives into a split in the old CWI and the destruction of many of the resources that existed in that large organization at that time. What a waste. And to think that some Comrades still think that it is not necessary to discuss and conduct a struggle against unhealthy internal regimes and for a new way to organize in the internal life of the revolutionary left. I hope more Comrades on this list will contribute more to this discussion.

[genstrike]

For those of us who came out of the CWI stable there is also I feel another reason. Old Ted used to dismiss the problems of internal life by saying that if our perspectives and our program were wrong then there was no way our internal life could be healthy, that inevitably bureaucratic methods would develop. The inference was that if our perspectives and program were right then the internal life would look after itself. His suggested conclusion therefore was that there was no point in paying much attention to the health of the internal life.

I can't for the life of me imagine why there might be a split in the IMT with that attitude...

[Tower of Bebel]

I don't see any particular problem with a slate system, as long as there's a tendency right and an relatively easy way to recall the CC.

The slate system gives various advantages. Firstly it gives the possibility of a balanced CC, with different tendencies in the organisation incorporated, which would not always be the case in an proportionally election system. A random selection by contrary has the problem that it doesn't select the most compatible elements, both with most experience and most talent; which of course is crucial in a revolutionary cadre-organisation.

Random selection nor the slate system work when these are only formal measures. That's also the case with soviets for example.

Random selection is simply a meassure of democratic control among others, just like soviets were in the Soviet Union. You know, the value of having soviets quickly disappeared at the time when a standing army and a high court were set up that could effectively act against any soviet only if the government - SovNarCom, even though it was elected by the All-Russian Soviet - wanted to.

The system of random selection worked in Athens because every candidate knew he could lean upon slaves for state administration, the help of councils and basic education. That's one of the reasons why women, young men and slaves were excluded from state management. But the same could be said of parties: with the help of organized bodies of comrades, and especially the know-how of experienced comrades, almost anyone should be able to help lead a party. And unlike ancient Athens we need not to restrict women. But for experienced comrades that are not (s)elected to cooperate, we must not ensure that they become docile and servile like slaves, but organizationally emancipated. Thus, we need more democratic measures to ensure an effective dialectic between leadership and base.

Equally, the right to set up a tendency isn't worth a penny when only your oppenent (mostly the current leadership of the party) can decided whether you can or cannot form a tendency. If this happens the right to form a tendency is also just formal. Without other measures to assist, a party can as easily become retarded just because it randomly selected some idiots, as it could turn bureaucratic jus because only loyal opposionists can form tendencies. Cadres too are not worth a penny without the kind of democratic system that would allow their independent development. Without that cadres are just ... well.. an empty frame(work).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Random selection nor the slate system work when these are only formal measures...

Random selection is simply a measure of democratic control among others...

The system of random selection worked in Athens because every candidate knew he could lean upon slaves for state administration, the help of councils and basic education... But for experienced comrades that are not (s)elected to cooperate, we must not ensure that they are docile and servile like slaves but organizationally emancipated.

I think you're implying term limits here as another measure of ensuring that non-selected folks in the here and now are not "docile and servile like slaves." That was suggested in Cockshott's article, too.


Without other measures to assist a party can as easily become retarded just because it randomly selected some idiots

:lol: :laugh: :thumbup:

[Tower of Bebel]

I think you're implying term limits here as another measure of ensuring that non-selected folks in the here and now are not "docile and servile like slaves." That was suggested in Cockshott's article, too.
I thought more of the freedom of information and the necessary means to distribute information freely. I got the "docile and servile" part from the Rome mini-series were centurio Vorenus said that a someone who is "docile and loyal" (I think loyal would have been more appropriate in my previous post as well!) is "all we need". Experienced comrades should used their experience for the best of the party, and they can only do that when they have the necessary "freedoms" (possibilities) to do that. I don't want them to become slaves, we must not copy all of Athenian demokratia.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Another contribution from the "Learning from our past" group. This gives a more historic angle to the matter, very interesting. Quoted with permission:
This post comes from a former member of the CWI IS who was expelled by the US Section of the CWI about fifteen years ago for attempting to undermine and circumvent the democratic decisions of the membership of the US Section of the CWI. He has spent the last fifteen years trolling internet sites putting up long posts about the 'internal life' of the CWI and how he was badly treated.

Much of what is written here is either inaccurate or written through seriously biased glasses. Although for the first time in fifteen years he has actually admitted that he was 'wrong'.

[Benjamin Hill]

Apparently out of the blue the IMT posted an historical article on the split in the Marxist movement (titled "Marx versus Bakunin: Fictitious Splits in the International"). Is this a move to justify a split/expulsion soon to come?

In other news: elmilitante.org is now elmilitante.net, firmly under the control of the Spaniards.

[Invigilator]

Apparently out of the blue the IMT posted an historical article on the split in the Marxist movement (titled "Marx versus Bakunin: Fictitious Splits in the International"). Is this a move to justify a split/expulsion soon to come?

In other news: elmilitante.org is now elmilitante.net, firmly under the control of the Spaniards.

The Venezuelan CMR have also changed web addresses. Like the Spanish, they moved from a domain registered by the international to one registered in Spain.

They've gone from Venezuela.elmilitante.org to elmilitantevenezuela.org

These moves are clear indications of the split that is unfolding (and which has indeed already happened informally).

That means that in 14 months, the IMT have lost more than a third of their only large section (Pakistan), plus the bulk of their Spanish speaking members. Careless, Alan.

[Benjamin Hill]

The Venezuelan CMR have also changed web addresses. Like the Spanish, they moved from a domain registered by the international to one registered in Spain.

They've gone from Venezuela.elmilitante.org to elmilitantevenezuela.org

These moves are clear indications of the split that is unfolding (and which has indeed already happened informally).
Interesting. Does their Mexican section made similar moves yet?


That means that in 14 months, the IMT have lost more than a third of their only large section (Pakistan), plus the bulk of their Spanish speaking members. Careless, Alan.
So I heard. Quite an amazing feat to do just that.

[nideaquinidealli]

As far as I know, the majority of the former IMT's sections in Spain, Venezuela and Mexico have already left the organization.
As everybody could see, the web sites of those sections share a lot of articles, and, at least since December, no publications by Alan Woods or other IMT leaders have been published by them. The main IMT website acts in the same way, and no publications by the former spanish, venezuelan and mexican sections' leaders have been published in the last two months.
Split is a fact. What we don't know is its extent. Many IMT rank-and-file militants (at least in Belgium, France and UK) have very little information. The IMT leaders are hiding this mess, trying to avoid IMT militants putting the blame on them.
What a shameful end for Ted Grantthe life's work!!

[Benjamin Hill]

As far as I know, the majority of the former IMT's sections in Spain, Venezuela and Mexico have already left the organization.
How do you know?


As everybody could see, the web sites of those sections share a lot of articles, and, at least since December, no publications by Alan Woods or other IMT leaders have been published by them. The main IMT website acts in the same way, and no publications by the former spanish, venezuelan and mexican sections' leaders have been published in the last two months.
Split is a fact. What we don't know is its extent. Many IMT rank-and-file militants (at least in Belgium, France and UK) have very little information. The IMT leaders are hiding this mess, trying to avoid IMT militants putting the blame on them.
Here lies a principle task of rank and file memers to discuss these vital issues fully into the open. Secrecy is not going to help the organisation, the cancer will just fester on.


What a shameful end for Ted Grantthe life's work!!
The IMT itself was a product of a split over tactical questions, officially. In reality the split was a result of the collision of ego's, which Ted Grant lost and thus he split.

What never happened however was a critical evaluation of the weak points in organisational structure of the CWI (mainly its high focus on centralism) and so the IMT ended up as a carbon copy of the CWI.

From comrades in the UK I heard that CWI comrades have been pressured by their leadership not to respond to these topics in public anymore, I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact the similarities with the IMT are so close that they might fear similar troubles?

[Jolly Red Giant]

The IMT itself was a product of a split over tactical questions, officially. In reality the split was a result of the collision of ego's, which Ted Grant lost and thus he split.
If you seriously believe that the split occurred because of ego or purely tactical questions then I suggest that you read about the issues in more detail -

This would be a good starting point-
http://www.marxist.net/grantreply/index.html


What never happened however was a critical evaluation of the weak points in organisational structure of the CWI
And you have knowledge of the fact that no critical evaluation of the organisational structures has ever been carried out - I must have been dreaming about those discussions.


(mainly its high focus on centralism)
If anything the problem was not focussing enough on or implementing correctly democratic centralism.


From comrades in the UK I heard that CWI comrades have been pressured by their leadership not to respond to these topics in public anymore,
Must have missed that circular as well - maybe you could give me the details.


I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact the similarities with the IMT are so close that they might fear similar troubles?
The splits in the IMT originate from a coming together of incorrect orientation and at the same time sucking up to some quite 'odd' organsiations (for want of a better phrase) - a confused and contradictory political outlook.

As for the CWI - like any other revolutionary organisation - splits can occur - however since 1992 the CWI hasn't suffered anything remotely on the scale of what is happening the IMT and there are no indications that anything like this is in the offing.

[Kropotkin85]

As far as I know, the majority of the former IMT's sections in Spain, Venezuela and Mexico have already left the organization.
As everybody could see, the web sites of those sections share a lot of articles, and, at least since December, no publications by Alan Woods or other IMT leaders have been published by them. The main IMT website acts in the same way, and no publications by the former spanish, venezuelan and mexican sections' leaders have been published in the last two months.
Split is a fact. What we don't know is its extent. Many IMT rank-and-file militants (at least in Belgium, France and UK) have very little information. The IMT leaders are hiding this mess, trying to avoid IMT militants putting the blame on them.
What a shameful end for Ted Grantthe life's work!!

As IMT member from Belgium I can say we are very good informed and have had multiple discussions about the situation in the International.

[nideaquinidealli]

As IMT member from Belgium I can say we are very good informed and have had multiple discussions about the situation in the International.
That's great.
Could you, without revealing internal questions, what is happening in the IMT, and why Mexicans, Spanish and Venezuelans have left?

[bolchevique]

That's great.
Could you, without revealing internal questions, what is happening in the IMT, and why Mexicans, Spanish and Venezuelans have left?
I'm a member of el militante in Spain, I'm not going to tell you anything about our internal discussions, but what you are saying and writing here , all these Imt experts are simple nonsense,slander and very naive , with a clear intention of harming the IMT,If the CWI think any member of el militante is going to join them,minority or mayority, they are totally ignorant, one thing is clear, for both part CWI ideas of creating the revolutionary party are completely wrong

[Jolly Red Giant]

I'm a member of el militante in Spain, I'm not going to tell you anything about our internal discussions, but what you are saying and writing here , all these Imt experts are simple nonsense,slander and very naive
Go on - tell us - it wouldn't be the first time - the IMT was quite happy to go public during the split with the CWI.


If the CWI think any member of el militante is going to join them,minority or mayority, they are totally ignorant,
Stranger things have happened - but if it did, it would have to be on the basis of clear political discussions and agreement on perspectives.


one thing is clear, for both part CWI ideas of creating the revolutionary party are completely wrong
Given the IMT's roaring success over the past 18 years, I find this comment ironic.

[Benjamin Hill]

If you seriously believe that the split occurred because of ego or purely tactical questions then I suggest that you read about the issues in more detail -

This would be a good starting point-
I'm well aware of the documents, from both sides of the divide.


And you have knowledge of the fact that no critical evaluation of the organisational structures has ever been carried out - I must have been dreaming about those discussions.I was actually talking about the IMT, but you're correct about feeling it addresses you as well. As someone with a leading position yourself you could probably tell me how many tendencies and factions the CWI has currently? And if the answer is "none", which I expect, then you could maybe explain to me how this is a sign of a healthy democratic environment as opposed to the more down to Earth explanation that the central leadership makes it clear no real opposition is being allowed.


If anything the problem was not focussing enough on or implementing correctly democratic centralism.I agree. Disagreement should be aired openly as opposed to merely inside the organisation. Temporary and permanent factions and tendencies (nationally and internationally) should be common, as opposed to the exception. Why? Because disagreement thrives development. Only by critical thinking can progress occur.


Must have missed that circular as well - maybe you could give me the details.You have more connections to the leadership than I do, you could probably tell us more.


The splits in the IMT originate from a coming together of incorrect orientation and at the same time sucking up to some quite 'odd' organsiations (for want of a better phrase) - a confused and contradictory political outlook.This doesn't satisfactorily explain why the IMT has been able to maintain an international organisation of a few thousand members internationally. Have all of them been "tricked" into believing a "confused and contradictory" political outlook?

This does show to another problem, indirectly. You apparently view members as mindless drones following the commands of the (international) leadership. Because they can't think for themselves they can go from a "correct" to an "incorrect" political position over a short period. This at the very least points to a faulty political education and more fundamentally towards a culture in which members are not treated as self-thinking, critical individuals, trained into independent leaders in the working class movement, but as people who should blindly follow the latest order of the leadership.

In this culture I find it not at all strange that a major split can happen over ego fights within the (international) leadership. This has happened all over the place within the Trotskyist movement, I'm sure you're aware of the Healyite explosion in the 1980's. Why would the CWI be any special case if it works on the same premises?


As for the CWI - like any other revolutionary organisation - splits can occur - however since 1992 the CWI hasn't suffered anything remotely on the scale of what is happening the IMT and there are no indications that anything like this is in the offing.Not on this scale, no. But if you're implying "no splits" I'll point you to the SSP debacle in Scotland in 1997, the USP split in Sri Lanka in 2007 and the recent expulsion of the Russian majority last December. I'm sure there are more cases, but they're often not spoken about in the open.

[nideaquinidealli]

I'm well aware of the documents, from both sides of the divide.
Benjamin, please, if you know the documents from both sides, could you kindly tell us the political reasons of the divide?
I'm not interested in gossip or internal questions, but it must be a political explanation of this situation. I've worked for years with some leaders of the spanish section, people with a strong position in unions (mainly in CC.OO.) and inside the Communist Party. I cannot imagine them acting in a capricious way. So, I guess there must be political differences. Is there any problem in explaining them?

[Benjamin Hill]

Benjamin, please, if you know the documents from both sides, could you kindly tell us the political reasons of the divide?
I'm not interested in gossip or internal questions, but it must be a political explanation of this situation. I've worked for years with some leaders of the spanish section, people with a strong position in unions (mainly in CC.OO.) and inside the Communist Party. I cannot imagine them acting in a capricious way. So, I guess there must be political differences. Is there any problem in explaining them?
A fair enough question. The political reason I'm seeing as to why a split occurred over a tactical issue like entrism in the old social-democracy is because of the structure of the organisation.

The CWI (and today the IMT as well) are very centralised organisations in which only really one permanent faction is allowed to exist and have their own secret meetings: the leadership. They have a tremendous advantage over normal members in that they meet far more regularly, have more information available to them, etc. So, when they make a proposal they do so with serious preparation and can often win the day despite the membership not liking it.

This leads to a culture of bureaucratic centralism, like I pointed out in my previous post. Any serious opposition is seen as a threat, an attempt to split or a reason for expulsion. So when a disagreement on perspectives occured within the international leadership, an international split was inevitable.

The problem comes down to how you view the purpose of the revolutionary party: As an army marching as one with party discipline with a leadership that sees itself as the educators of the whole class and to which everyone, including their own members, should simply listen to... Or as an network of socialist militants facilitating their work and training them as leaders in the movement and also to spread the ideas of socialism in the wider movement by open and frank discussion.

I'm "bending the stick" here a bit, but I hope it translates my point. The struggle for socialism can only be done by the self-emancipation and self-organisation of the working class. Communists are not necessarily the leaders (as in: commanders) of this, but should strive to integraly part of it. That's why I think structures are very much a political question.

[Jolly Red Giant]

I'm well aware of the documents, from both sides of the divide.
Then you should also be aware that there were a significant number of political issues involved rather than just egos - or are you just trying to take a swipe at both organisations.


As someone with a leading position yourself you could probably tell me how many tendencies and factions the CWI has currently? And if the answer is "none", which I expect, then you could maybe explain to me how this is a sign of a healthy democratic environment as opposed to the more down to Earth explanation that the central leadership makes it clear no real opposition is being allowed.
To start with I am very far removed from being in a leading position of anything. As a result I have no idea whether factions exist in any of the sectiosn of the CWI. I am not aware of any.

But it does astonish me that people argue that in order to have a healthy democratic environment there must be factions - this is utterly preposterous. Factions exist for a reason - when necessary they emerge and when the issue is resolved (in whatever way) they disappear. To suggest that a revolutionary organisation should have self perpetuating factions is to suggest a recipe for paralysis.


Temporary and permanent factions and tendencies (nationally and internationally) should be common, as opposed to the exception. Why? Because disagreement thrives development. Only by critical thinking can progress occur.
But factions are not necessary to have disagreements. I have on many occasions been in opposition to the leadership, on some occasions I have been proved right (on a couple of occasions winning the issue against the leadership), on most occasions I have been proved wrong. I would hope that the issues I have raised in the past have contributed to debate and the political development of my organisation, but I have never felt the necessity to form or join a faction.


This doesn't satisfactorily explain why the IMT has been able to maintain an international organisation of a few thousand members internationally. Have all of them been "tricked" into believing a "confused and contradictory" political outlook?
Events will eventually demonstrate whether a political outlook is correct or not - and when events demonstrate that the political outlook is incorrect then circumstances like those currently under the way in the IMT.


You apparently view members as mindless drones following the commands of the (international) leadership.
On the contrary - every leadership has to justify the role it is playing to its membership. At times the organisation can advance and lull people into a false sense of security (happened in the CWI in the mid-1980's in my opinion). With the IMT I think it is likely that the role it played in Venuzuela impacted in maintaining support for the international leadership's position. Eventually, however, events catch up with political positions, if they are incorrect they lead to crisis.


In this culture I find it not at all strange that a major split can happen over ego fights within the (international) leadership. This has happened all over the place within the Trotskyist movement, I'm sure you're aware of the Healyite explosion in the 1980's. Why would the CWI be any special case if it works on the same premises?
Of course splits can occur over egos - the point I was making was that the CWI/IMT split was not a split about egos (although no doubt the individuals involved in the leadership of both groups are/were very strong individuals).


Not on this scale, no. But if you're implying "no splits" I'll point you to the SSP debacle in Scotland in 1997, the USP split in Sri Lanka in 2007 and the recent expulsion of the Russian majority last December. I'm sure there are more cases, but they're often not spoken about in the open.
Again I didn't say that no splits occurred, I said that nothing on the scale of the current IMT split occurred and I am glad to see that you concur. I have to say that the loss of the majority of the Scottish organisation was particularly difficult - but again I would trace that back to the difficulties in the mid-1980's.

[nideaquinidealli]

A fair enough question. The political reason I'm seeing as to why a split occurred over a tactical issue like entrism in the old social-democracy is because of the structure of the organisation.
I suppose you are talking about entrism in the PSOE, the Spanish Socialist Party. What exactly was the issue? Was the spanish section defending entrism in the PSOE, and the IMT leadership was defending entrism in IU?
As far as I know, the Spanish Section is dedicating very few forces to the PSOE, and a lot to IU and the CP, so I cannot understand the split. There must be a clear point where no agreement was posible. Have you identified this point?

[Benjamin Hill]

New development, as carried elsewhere:


A closer look reveals that the venezuela.elmilitante.org-group
published far less articles on the website, and they're almost
exclusively international ones. It almost looks as if there was no
organisation (in venezuela) behind it any more.

Elmilitante.net (which still links to marxist.com) is hosted on the
same server as elmilitantevenezuela.org according to ping.
elmilitante.org/venezuela.elmilitante.org has an extremely similar IP
to marxist.com. The strange thing is that at the moment
elmilitante .org and .net seem to be completely identical.And


Originally the web address of the Spanish organisation was elmilitante.org and that of the Venezuelan organisaton was venezuela.elmilitante.org, with both web addresses registered by the IMT.

As spotters are aware, the Spanish organisation and the Venezuelan organisation shifted to new addresses recently, elmilitante.net and elmilitantevenezuela.org both registered in Spain. The old web addresses at that point redirected browsers to the new ones.

That has changed in the last day or two.

Now the old Venezuelan web address, controlled by the IMT, no longer redirects to the new CMR website but to a clone CMR website. The new clone website is exactly the same in style as the actual CMR site and also claims to be the site of the CMR. The content consists of much the same articles from before early December, although oddly the dates have been changed, then a series of articles from the international and various IMT sections, then a gap of more than a month and one new article.

This is self evidently the site of a pro-IMT split from the CMR going live. It is now the site linked to by default by all existing IMT links, except the Spanish who have updated their link to the new CMR site. That is, the CMR is now outside of the IMT.

In addition, the front pages of the CMR site, the Spanish site and the Mexican site do not carry the little link button to In Defence of Marxism, the IMT international site. The Spanish site, at the least, used to have one on its front page up until a day or two ago.

I wonder how their Mexican group is faring.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Patbyrneme raises this important issue:


On the question of splits, I have to say that to quote trade unions as an example to explain why the revolutionary left keeps splitting is very strange. In fact, with all the criticisms that could be made of the mass workers organisations this is the last one I would make. The membership in general understand the need for unity and that is one of the main reasons why splits within them are very rare.

The revolutionary left on the other hand regularly split. Of course comrades will be affected as the post says by "the conflicting moods of society that weigh down on us all." This may be one of many reasons why debates would open up within a socialist group but it doesn't explain why splits happen. From my own personal experience and from following many of the splits that have fractured the revolutionary movement, it is the hostile and combative way that the leadership of these groups responds to criticism or differences that leads so quickly to such splits. That this very obvious fact is not admitted to by members of these groups, at least until they leave, is part of the refusal of the revolutionary left to be self-critical. They will tend to blame everyone else for their problems but never their own group which to their mind is in all essential points 'perfect', until they leave it. Why is it that after every split the minority that is driven out provides similar details of the undemocratic tactics used by leadership to defeat them: manouvers, denunciations, slanders, rigged hearings, explusions etc. Yes, there may be variations in the severity of such repression between each group but the pattern is the same - caused by a common form of bureaucratic centralism which is laughably called Leninist democratic centralism. And all those who are not currently under the sway of the leaderships of these groups knows this.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1642737&postcount=168

I do not wish to de-rail this thread, but I have outlined several important contributory factors which help explain why the class war drives workers together, but revolutionaries in the opposite direction, here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_02.htm

[Wladek Flakin]

It looks like the split has been completed. The Spaniards have updated their links page, referring only to a "Corriente Marxista Revolucionaria" with sections in Spain, Mexico, Venezuela and Colombia - no mention of the IMT except a link to the Iranians.

And all this without a single statement by either side! I've had a look at some of the internal documents and it's just an endless series of "you're defaming us!" and "no, you're defaming us!" - I wasn't able to find a single political question.

[Invigilator]

That seems like its done and dusted then.

We have a new addition to the constellation of Trotskyist Internationals!

Interesting that they took the Colombian section too, as well as the three we knew about.

Truly amazing that the IMT could split just like that, with neither side mentioning that anything had happened. Not a word of explanation to their supporters or to workers more generally about the sudden disappearance of the previously much talked about "marxist tendency" in Spain, Venezuela, etc on the one hand or in Pakistan, Italy, etc on the other.

[Invigilator]

On the upside now that the split has happened, it is no longer an internal factional dispute but a disagreement between publicly separate organisations. Presumably this means that their version of democratic centralism will no longer prevent members of the IMT or the new CMR from explaining what the political differences between the two organisations are.

I really do hope that there's some halfway important issue at the root of all this.

[whore]

splitters!

[Crux]

Supposedly the new CMR takes a more critical stance towards Chavez, no?

[Invigilator]

Supposedly the new CMR takes a more critical stance towards Chavez, no?

Where did you hear this?

I had heard that one of the issues in the dispute, at least after the Venezuelans failed to fall in line against the Spanish, was about the emphasis the CMR should put on work inside the PSUV. That's obviously an issue that could reflect different assessments of Chavez but doesn't necessarily do so.

[Tower of Bebel]

Howw come this happened so quickly and silently? Did some sections organize discussions? Were there any congresses?

[Benjamin Hill]

Howw come this happened so quickly and silently? Did some sections organize discussions? Were there any congresses?
Highly centralised organisations don't need their members support on such vital issues per se, the leadership just need a good set of bombastic language to justify it. In this split it looks like there was a big collision between the leaderships of the international secretariat around Alan Woods and the Spanish leadership, apparently without political cause.

According to a post on another discussion group, these are roughly the developments in the last 18 months:

Well, the IMT 18 months ago had the following sections with more than about 80 members:

1) Pakistan. The biggest by a long way.
2) Spain. By some distance their second biggest group.
3) Italy, Mexico, Venezuela, Britain. Probably in that order. All between maybe 60 and 200.

Since then they have lost nearly half of the Pakistan section, plus practically all of Spain and Venezuela plus most of the Mexicans (I say most in that case despite not knowing which side was the majority because such bitter splits also result in peopleOn dropping out altogether).

On the credit side of the scales they had the addition of a group in Brazil with maybe 180 or so activists. So the new list looks something like this:

1) Pakistan.
2) Brazil
3) Italy
4) Britain.

After that we are in to long lists of very small to tiny groups. Losing Colombia or adding a few more groups of a half dozen or less really isn't relevant one way or the other to a discussion of their strength.

This latest split has probably cost them 600 members, at a conservative estimate. Just as importantly it's cost them their "prestige" section in Venezuela and the Spanish section which provided them with a huge part of their financial and human resources. The Spanish were by far the biggest first world group, which means they had the money. They also provided the emmissaries to help out the ageing British group and some of the smaller sections and most importantly they were the people sent to Latin America. Resources are going to be a lot tighter at Woods Towers for the forseeable future.

The split in Pakistan probably cost them more people, but it doesn't have as many other knock on effects. I would be surprised if they now have 2,500 members worldwide.

If the 2,500 number is more or less correct, and I'm inclined to agree, then they lost 2,000 members in this period since the Pakistan split. This is quite a staggering number, relatively speaking. I really do wonder how much longer this cult around Woods remains in existence.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yet another indictment in a long series of indictments of British influence on the global worker movement:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/first-international-forged-t128697/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/didnt-happen-here-t128261/index.html

[el_chavista]

[
Supposedly the new CMR takes a more critical stance towards Chavez, no?
Where did you hear this?

I had heard that one of the issues in the dispute, at least after the Venezuelans failed to fall in line against the Spanish, was about the emphasis the CMR should put on work inside the PSUV. That's obviously an issue that could reflect different assessments of Chavez but doesn't necessarily do so.

Actually, the CMR (former Venezuelan section) is under Spanish control. At the beginning they even managed to use the CMR's Web page (nobody cared). Therein one could see their new mild anti-chavista stance in articles like "Chávez in his labyrinth" (this article seems to be removed after the CMI retook control of the Web page).
The CMI supporters provisionally are in an "In defense of the CMI's unity Fraction" until the last unifying effort expires.
The Spaniards really have had the money, but this seems to be overcome with a little help of the Brazilian section.

[Benjamin Hill]

[
Actually, the CMR (former Venezuelan section) is under Spanish control. At the beginning they even managed to use the CMR's Web page (nobody cared). Therein one could see their new mild anti-chavista stance in articles like "Chávez in his labyrinth" (this article seems to be removed after the CMI retook control of the Web page).
The CMI supporters provisionally are in an "In defense of the CMI's unity Fraction" until the last unifying effort expires.
The Spaniards really have had the money, but this seems to be overcome with a little help of the Brazilian section.
As a sidenote, for people who don't know this new acronym CMI: It's the old name of the IMT. When Grant and Woods splitted from the Committee for a Workers' International (mainly from the Militant Tendency in the UK, with the main addition of the Spanish section and some smaller groups), it called itself the Committee for a Marxist International. They seem to have dropped this name in 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Marxist_Tendency) for International Marxist Tendency.

The Spanish section was the biggest western section of the IMT and thus the main financial resource for the international organisation. It was also the section putting most resources in making new contacts and setting up new sections in other countries. This has now all been dropped out. A significant setback for Grant if there ever was one and the reason why I predict the IMT's collapse in the next few years.

[Crux]

I guess we'll have to wait for statements from the respective organizations, if the split is indeed done.

[BOZG]

I guess we'll have to wait for statements from the respective organizations, if the split is indeed done.

If they ever make statements.

[nideaquinidealli]

[
Actually, the CMR (former Venezuelan section) is under Spanish control. At the beginning they even managed to use the CMR's Web page (nobody cared). Therein one could see their new mild anti-chavista stance in articles like "Chávez in his labyrinth" (this article seems to be removed after the CMI retook control of the Web page).

I've looked for this article, and readed it carefully, and I cannot find a "mild anti-chavist stance" at all.
Rather, it's a very solid attack against the PSUV bureaucracy, and a defence of Chavez and his will of buiding socialism in Venezuela. These guys say Chavez need to lean on the working class, with a socialist program... ¿is this anti-chavism?

From your post, it seems this article has been censured by the IMT. Not surprise, the IMT leadership have censured some days ago an article about Iran written by Maziar Razi, the leader of the IMT Iranian section. I knew this event by FB, but you can read about this in a lot of forums.

Censorship, two of the main IMT sections (Spain and Venezuela) expelled, half of the Pakistani section also expelled... probably we're witnessing the last days of the IMT as an relevant organization.

[Invigilator]

What was the article about Iran and what was censored in it?

As far as the Venezuelan article is concerned, I don't think it's "censorship" so much as the consequences of a split. There are now two different websites purporting to be that of the Venezuelan CMR.

One, which is regularly updated and seems to have many more people involved in it, is controlled by the majority around the old national leadership:
elmilitantevenezuela.org

The other, which has only one recent article on it, and which is controlled by the IMT is at the old web address:
venezuela.elmilitante.org

For a while the old web address pointed to the new web address, but as the IMT had ownership of the address they then pointed it towards a clone site which had none of the recent articles on it.

On another note, the use of CMI in this factional dispute isn't directly linked to the old name of the IMT in English. The Spanish version of International Marxist Tendency is Corriente Marxista Internacional, or CMI.

[Benjamin Hill]

On another note, the use of CMI in this factional dispute isn't directly linked to the old name of the IMT in English. The Spanish version of International Marxist Tendency is Corriente Marxista Internacional, or CMI.
Oh right, learning something new every day!

[nideaquinidealli]

What was the article about Iran and what was censored in it?
This is the article (I'm sorry, I cannot write the link correctly):
h t t p :

/ /

w w w.

elmilitantevenezuela.org/content/view/6659/179/

I knew by a member of the USA section of the IMT that their leadership rejected its publication at IDOM.
I think this gives us some clues about the political reasons of thr splits: opportunism towards the PSUV bureaucracy by the IMT leadership.

[el_chavista]

I guess we'll have to wait for statements from the respective organizations, if the split is indeed done.
If they ever make statements.
The only ideological difference would be between the Spaniards' sectarianism and the IMT's entryism. It may be hard to enter the PSOE for a revolutionary Marxist. Venezuela is another story. Here the Spaniards limited entryism to win potential cadres from the PSUV although the possibilities in Venezuelan conditions are those of a "profound or deep entryism".

[Jolly Red Giant]

It may be hard to enter the PSOE for a revolutionary Marxist.
Probably the understatement of the century :rolleyes:

[nideaquinidealli]

The only ideological difference would be between the Spaniards' sectarianism and the IMT's entryism. It may be hard to enter the PSOE for a revolutionary Marxist. Venezuela is another story. Here the Spaniards limited entryism to win potential cadres from the PSUV although the possibilities in Venezuelan conditions are those of a "profound or deep entryism".
Comrade Chavista, I'm sorry I cannot get your point.
Are the Spaniards proposing enter the PSOE now? I live in Spain and I have no notices about that turn. Last time a gave a glimpse to the IMT in Spain (winter 2008-2009), they were fully dedicated to organize school students' strikes, with great success as everybody could see in the tv news. But they have no links with the PSOE, and even with the PCE, at least until I know.

[Crux]

They are active in the PSOE in Malaga, as far as I know. Has the Spanish leadership changed their view on the PSOE?

[BOZG]

They are active in the PSOE in Malaga, as far as I know. Has the Spanish leadership changed their view on the PSOE?

I can't be bothered looking back for the post but I got the impression that the IS was pushing for an intervention into PSOE which the Spanish leadership was resisting.

[Invigilator]

My understanding is that it is not about whether or not to have membership in the "mass organisations", ie PCE and PSOE. Both the Spanish leadership and the IS agree on that. It is about the balance of work and the type of intervention to make in those parties.

The IS want the Spanish to work more like the Italians or French, predominantly through the PCE or PSOE. While the Spanish don't think that's viable and are doing a lot of independent work too.

[Benjamin Hill]

My understanding is that it is not about whether or not to have membership in the "mass organisations", ie PCE and PSOE. Both the Spanish leadership and the IS agree on that. It is about the balance of work and the type of intervention to make in those parties.

The IS want the Spanish to work more like the Italians or French, predominantly through the PCE or PSOE. While the Spanish don't think that's viable and are doing a lot of independent work too.
If that is really the dominant reasoning for the split, then that is just stupid. Forgive my French.

[Die Neue Zeit]

If the 2,500 number is more or less correct, and I'm inclined to agree, then they lost 2,000 members in this period since the Pakistan split. This is quite a staggering number, relatively speaking. I really do wonder how much longer this cult around Woods remains in existence.

Where will Woods and co. fold towards once the gag is up? The CWI, notwithstanding economistic issues, has become too "ultra-left" for them.

[Benjamin Hill]

Where will Woods and co. fold towards once the gag is up? The CWI, notwithstanding economistic issues, has become too "ultra-left" for them.
Time will tell really. Maybe a new (yet another!) "international" is founded, which would then be active in Latin-America, Spain and perhaps Iran. I myself hope a step is made towards the CWI as it is still the closest thing politically besides the IMT, but I concur in your pessimism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Are you saying that as an implied critique of the CWI, that it isn't taking bolder steps towards forming proletarian-not-necessarily-communist parties?

[Tower of Bebel]

Highly centralised organisations don't need their members support on such vital issues per se, the leadership just need a good set of bombastic language to justify it. In this split it looks like there was a big collision between the leaderships of the international secretariat around Alan Woods and the Spanish leadership, apparently without political cause.
That's what I feared. Notwithstanding your criticism of highly centralized organizations (on the international scale) like the IMT or the CWI, I do think that even in this case the 'leadership' needs to interact with its 'base'. An interesting case study would be the question if and how the party organized the debate.

[Wladek Flakin]

There are two different groups in Venezuela calling themselves "CMR". Now there are also two different web sites for "El Militante Mexico": The first address (militante,org) is controlled by the Spaniards while the second one (mexico.elmilitante.org) is controlled by the British. Apparently the Mexican section of the IMT was split down the middle, while large majorities in Spain and Venezuela went with the Spanish leadership. Interestingly, the old Spanish address elmilitante.org (which is owned by the British) still redirects to the new address elmilitante.net (owned by the Spanish). And of course there has been no public mention of the split by either side!

[cmdrdeathguts]

Somewhat strange that no one has anything to say on such a good piece of political analysis and commentary like I quoted in my previous post.

Little late coming, but I thought it was very good. Since the Weekly Worker's name has been taken in vain throughout, I should say that there will be an article this week, written by me. Truth is it isn't drastically different from that document, which even seems to use our distinctive jargon and 'Leninology'.

Wonder how Rosa's determined scepticism is holding up...?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

cmdrdeathguts:


Wonder how Rosa's determined scepticism is holding up...?

My alleged 'scepticism' was merely aimed at baseless, sectarian speculation; if and when hard evidence turns up, that is a different matter.

[Benjamin Hill]

cmdrdeathguts:



My alleged 'scepticism' was merely aimed at baseless, sectarian speculation; if and when hard evidence turns up, that is a different matter.
So, you still maintain the split is "baseless, sectarian speculation"? Wow.

[BOZG]

So, you still maintain the split is "baseless, sectarian speculation"? Wow.

Only the Gospel according to St. Alan Woods is a concrete truth.

[cmdrdeathguts]

cmdrdeathguts:



My alleged 'scepticism' was merely aimed at baseless, sectarian speculation; if and when hard evidence turns up, that is a different matter.

Websites, Rosa. If there's no split in the IMT, there's certainly a split in its techie department. Or a split personality in the techie department, resulting in two sites for Venezuela, and two sites for Colombia...one lot claiming to be part of an international called the IMT, the other lot claiming to be a section of the CMR. But, of course, I don't expect you to take my word for it, fine metaphysician that you are! Those sites in full:


I.
http://www.elmilitantevenezuela.org/content/view/14/
http://www.elmilitantecolombia.org/


II.
http://venezuela.elmilitante.org/content/view/14/
http://colombia.elmilitante.org/


Compare the links pages - set one refer to each other, and set 2, but not to the other set at all. Additionally, though set 2 refers to the same Mexican and Spanish sites as set 1, the Spanish and Mexican sites - both alleged in all your hated 'gossip' to have split with the IMT - only link to set 1. That would be a split, then, along exactly the lines all the 'gossip' said it would. Fancy that.

This situation, needless to say, may change daily. But any rational mind would expect it to clarify the faultline, not obscure it. All the way through you, and the rest of us, have been asked to make a judgement on the balance of probabilities. The judgement of those who accepted the split was happening has been vindicated time and time again. Accept it, and perhaps consider trading in your epistemology for a newer model.

[el_chavista]

There are two different groups in Venezuela calling themselves "CMR". Now there are also two different web sites for "El Militante Mexico": The first address (militante,org) is controlled by the Spaniards while the second one (mexico.elmilitante.org) is controlled by the British. Apparently the Mexican section of the IMT was split down the middle, while large majorities in Spain and Venezuela went with the Spanish leadership. Interestingly, the old Spanish address elmilitante.org (which is owned by the British) still redirects to the new address elmilitante.net (owned by the Spanish). And of course there has been no public mention of the split by either side!
Thank you for the info. But in Venezuela actually it is the majority of the CC who went with the Spaniards. In the files and ranks it's another story.
BTW, as the supporters of the Spaniards will eventually retain the CMR name, which name would you recommend for the fraction supporting the IMT? I suggest "Nuevo Movimiento Trotskista de Venezuela" (New Trotskyist Movement of Venezuela) as Chávez has somehow popularized Trotsky's image :)

[BOZG]

Websites, Rosa. If there's no split in the IMT, there's certainly a split in its techie department. Or a split personality in the techie department, resulting in two sites for Venezuela, and two sites for Colombia...one lot claiming to be part of an international called the IMT, the other lot claiming to be a section of the CMR. But, of course, I don't expect you to take my word for it, fine metaphysician that you are! Those sites in full:


I.
http://www.elmilitantevenezuela.org/content/view/14/
http://www.elmilitantecolombia.org/


II.
http://venezuela.elmilitante.org/content/view/14/
http://colombia.elmilitante.org/


Compare the links pages - set one refer to each other, and set 2, but not to the other set at all. Additionally, though set 2 refers to the same Mexican and Spanish sites as set 1, the Spanish and Mexican sites - both alleged in all your hated 'gossip' to have split with the IMT - only link to set 1. That would be a split, then, along exactly the lines all the 'gossip' said it would. Fancy that.

This situation, needless to say, may change daily. But any rational mind would expect it to clarify the faultline, not obscure it. All the way through you, and the rest of us, have been asked to make a judgement on the balance of probabilities. The judgement of those who accepted the split was happening has been vindicated time and time again. Accept it, and perhaps consider trading in your epistemology for a newer model.

On the top of both Columbian pages, it links to elmilitantecolumbia.org.

[cmdrdeathguts]

Where on the page? They are exact byte for byte copies with only new material any different, along with relevant links - it's more than possible Woods & co missed a link.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Oil-slick divisions (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1002564)



International Marxist Tendency has suffered a damaging split. Not a new phenomenon, notes James Turley



At the 2007 Barcelona world school of the International Marxist Tendency - a not insubstantial, relatively speaking, Trotskyist ‘international’ led primarily by its British section - spirits were as high as the grandiose title of such an event, held in a culturally iconic city (especially on the left), would imply. After days of discussion, apparently involving comrades from more countries than ever before, the IMT’s In Defence of Marxism website reported that “the general feeling is one of a tendency that is going forward, growing in numbers and sections”.

Now, however, the comrades have somewhat less to be cheerful about. In the last few weeks a long-running dispute between the IMT leadership and several national sections, overwhelmingly in the Spanish-speaking world, has apparently erupted into a full split, with the rebels calling themselves, with the left’s usual lack of lexical originality, the Corriente Marxista Revolucionaria (CMR - Revolutionary Marxist Current), also the name of the Venezuelan group.

This follows another recent split, during which the IMT lost almost half its Pakistani section after a dispute with former national assembly member Manzoor Ahmed led to him and his allies leaving the organisation. The IMT did not even acknowledge it had broken with Manzoor for another six months. (Manzoor, for his part, claimed to have taken far more members than acknowledged by the IMT group, whom he accuses of bumping up conference attendance figures by inviting and counting NGO activists in large numbers.)

The Pakistani section was, and remains, by some distance the largest in the IMT, and all the lost sections this time round in all likelihood do not add up arithmetically to the number of departed comrades in Pakistan. Yet among them are those in Spain and Venezuela - both flagship sections, and both larger than the British group, Socialist Appeal.

Ted Grant

The IMT has its roots in the British Militant Tendency, which became in the 1980s the largest Trotskyist formation in Britain. Strongly committed to Labour Party entry - a strategy adopted by Militant earlier than its 1980s rivals, whose principal remnants today are the Mandelite International Socialist Group, Ken Livingstone’s former hired flunkies, Socialist Action, and the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty - Militant was by far the most successful in Labour entry’s history (if you discount the CPGB’s record in the 1920s and 30s). At its 1980s peak, Militant had around 5,000 members, three MPs and effective control of Liverpool city council.

This was all a little too much for the Labour right, whose rising star was former Tribunite left MP Neil Kinnock. After assuming the party leadership in the wake of the catastrophic 1983 election showing, Kinnock bided his time until a budget crisis in Liverpool - the result of a battle between leftwing councils and the government of Margaret Thatcher, who wanted to bring them to heel - saw Militant issue redundancy notices to thousands of council workers. Seeing his chance, Kinnock moved to purge Militant and other entry groups from Labour’s ranks.

His success was not total - by the 1990s, Militant still existed, and by some counts had only seen 200 members expelled; but its movements were constricted far more severely in the new conditions. The majority - led by Peter Taaffe - initiated an ‘open turn’, declaring Labour a dead duck and reorganising themselves first as Militant Labour and then as the Socialist Party in England and Wales (SPEW’s bureaucratic regime saw it lose whole swathes of its membership in the late 90s, including most of the Liverpool organisation and the Scottish section).

The factional struggle over this move was understandably intense in an organisation which by then had over 30 years’ history as an entry group, and had formed its whole ideology and identity around this strategy. The minority leader was Ted Grant, a Trotskyist since the 1930s and the founding leader of Militant. His differences were announced to the wider world, as is the way with bureaucratic left organisations, not in his organisation’s public press, but in a letter to The Guardian protesting the ‘sectarian’ drift of Militant’s majority. Grant was expelled; his supporters regrouped around the new publication Socialist Appeal, founded in 1992, by whose name the group is generally known.

This split was reflected in the international support accumulated over the years - the Committee for a Workers’ International had been founded in 1974, and remains one of the largest and widest-spread Trotskyist ‘internationals’ to this day. Grant’s side became the Committee for a Marxist International and then the IMT.

From the beginning, the IMT was a demographically peculiar group. Its earliest bit of good fortune came with the development of the Pakistan section, known as The Struggle and pursuing a course of long-term entry into the Pakistan People’s Party, the mass bourgeois party associated with the Bhutto dynasty. Lal Khan, the Struggle’s principal leader, had become closely acquainted with Grant ally Alan Woods, and brought his supporters into the IMT in the early 1990s. That meant an organisation dominated by a British section which was by all accounts tiny, yet featuring a several-thousand-strong subordinate group abroad. As time went on, the IMT grew substantially in Spain as well, and Grant and Woods became increasingly reliant on the human and financial resources of the hundreds of Spanish comrades.

Then history delivered unto Grant and Woods a messiah, in the form of a Venezuelan former junior army officer turned populist politician. Since Hugo Chávez’s rise to power in that country, the IMT has become the most energetic Marxist cheerleaders of the ‘Bolivarian revolution’. Unsurprisingly, as an increasingly popular Chávez cemented his power, a sympathising section of the IMT grew in strength and influence. Unsurprisingly also, it too soon outstripped the mothership in these terms. And, given the centrality of Chávismo to IMT propaganda, all comrades’ eyes have been on Venezuela.

The split

Losing Spain and Venezuela, then, is an unmitigated disaster for Woods. Exactly how he managed to lose them is a rather more obscure matter. Numerous candidates for the political basis have been advanced - it was suggested, for example, that the rebels no longer believed China to be a ‘deformed workers state’, as per orthodox post-Trotsky Trotskyist dogma, but IMT comrades have hotly denied that this was the splitting issue; the debate over China, such as it has surfaced publicly, does not apparently coincide with the organisational pattern of the split.

Other rumours suggested that the IMT’s dedication to entry into what it calls the mass parties of the working class (and, in Pakistan, of the popular masses) was in question. This looks a more likely candidate, with a particular leadership document referred to widely on internet discussions criticising the Spaniards for being insufficiently energetic in pursuing “the need for organised entrist work in the Spanish Communist Party; a better approach to the left leaders; mistakes made in organising the Spanish students strike last March, and in the approach to the one-day work stoppage in May in the Basque country.” This paraphrase comes from a perceptive statement issued by former IMT comrades in America, centred on an e-list called Learning from our Past, a couple of weeks before the split was finalised.

There is also the case of a statement, Venezuelan in origin, on the struggles in Iran. The IMT website apparently refused to publish it - I have not seen a translated version yet, but its title, ‘Marxists must stand firm against Ahmadinejad’, says it all. The IMT, it has to be said, came out with if anything too rosy an estimation of the protest movement that emerged last year in Iran - but one Hugo Chávez certainly did not, immediately congratulating Ahmadinejad on his victory in patently rigged elections. It was always unclear how Woods would square this circle - now, it seems, he has done it to the detriment of the Iranian masses. The IMT section in Iran, meanwhile, has not come out on either side - it is the only remaining IMT group linked on the CMR’s website.

The real cause of the unrest, however, is different - as the statement from Learning from our Past makes clear. It is obvious, furthermore, that the CMR, like the IMT leadership, remains for the time being committed to both Chávismo and entryism - the political differences are those of nuance.

In reality, the whole thing appears to be almost completely apolitical - the Spanish and Venezuelan sections have complained of persistent interference in their affairs by the international majority. This unrest reached its peak last year, when the international majority’s supporting faction in Spain came into fierce conflict with the local leadership, getting accused of breaking the organisation’s rules. Many comrades were expelled, although a split was averted at that point. A million tiny complaints and sallies from each side later, we can only conclude that the contradiction between the IMT’s demographics and its structures has finally ruptured, with the Spanish and Venezuelan comrades finally rejecting their ‘junior partner’ status.

And why not? They are, after all, bigger - they are more powerful in their own countries, and provide both foot soldiers and prestige to even the runts of the IMT litter. It is patently ridiculous that in a supposedly ‘democratic’ organisation numerically and politically more significant sections are under orders from people who have effectively gerrymandered them out of their share of leadership representation. Trotskyist leader James P Cannon once quipped that in any split there were two causes - the good reason and the real reason. This time around, the good reason is the real reason.

Furthermore, the IMT, despite its surreal, pre-Marxist fawning before petty bourgeois nationalist leaders in Latin America, is the most rhetorically urgent claimant to the mantle of Trotskyist orthodoxy on today’s left (excluding the likes of the Spartacist League). The web address of In Defence of Marxism is www.marxist.com - naturally. This orthodoxy has had, it has to be said, the positive side effect that the IMT’s politics - however wrong - are not philistine: dogmatists at least take their dogma seriously. Its main function, however, is to consecrate a ‘Marxist’ priesthood whose mandate comes from the Word and, thus, cannot be challenged by the earthly powers of the rank and file. The Learning from our Past comrades note an increasingly reverential cult of personality developing around Grant, who died in 2006. It is here, as everywhere else, an alibi for bureaucratic control. It was the entirely dogmatic attachment to entry work - applied in all IMT sections - which caused the problem in the first place when, predictably, this strategy produced vastly varying results in a complicated world.

In its fatal lopsidedness, the IMT poses in a peculiarly sharp way the problems of this style of ‘international’-building. We have called this type of grouping an ‘oil-slick international’ in the past, and indeed the IMT has spread outwards from London over the world. An oil slick, furthermore, can stretch out until it is only a single molecule thick, and the IMT indeed has a particularly large swathe of tiny sections from Canada to Iran. Building organisations in a way that pays no attention to local conditions of necessity produces this unevenness - it just happens that, this time, the strategy was politically bankrupt at the centre and intermittently successful on the periphery. The oil spreads out not from London any more, but Barcelona.

International organisation is a burning necessity for our class. It is so important that it has to be done properly, on a sound basis - effective international unity grows out of serious national political organisations, bringing serious forces together. None of this can be done by opening ‘foreign bureaus’ in sundry states around the world - parasitic from the beginning on pretty ramshackle foreign support, these groups almost invariably fail to take off in any real sense.

The split in the IMT is an unorthodox take on a tale we have, depressingly, told many times in this paper - bungled unity, bureaucratic manoeuvring and a whole lot of hot air. It appears, at least, that some ex-IMTers are learning from their past on this one. Let us quote them again: “There is a natural inclination to look for fundamental differences in political principle behind such splits. Yet the question of democracy is itself a supremely political question.”

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

cmdrdeathguts:


Websites, Rosa. If there's no split in the IMT, there's certainly a split in its techie department. Or a split personality in the techie department, resulting in two sites for Venezuela, and two sites for Colombia...one lot claiming to be part of an international called the IMT, the other lot claiming to be a section of the CMR. But, of course, I don't expect you to take my word for it, fine metaphysician that you are! Those sites in full:

1) Wtf has this got to do with what I posted?

2) I'm not a metaphysician -- in fact, I am the exact opposite.

[BOZG]

Where on the page? They are exact byte for byte copies with only new material any different, along with relevant links - it's more than possible Woods & co missed a link.

Underneath the Colombia, Internacional, Teoria marxista tabs at the very top.

[BOZG]

cmdrdeathguts:



1) Wtf has this got to do with what I posted?

2) I'm not a metaphysician -- in fact, I am the exact opposite.

You mentioned that there was no hard evidence for a split when there very clearly has considering that at least two of the sections that are linked to the split rumours, allegations or whatever you want to call them have new websites that no longer link to the IMT. What exactly do you require for hard evidence? Is nothing short of Alan Woods declaring that a split occured proof? You're like a fucking ostrich.

[cmdrdeathguts]

quite.

[Tower of Bebel]

Bit of CWI statement by Peter Taaffe in the theoretical article called "The Permanent Revolution today (http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2010/02/1802.html)". Now CWI comrades can speak freely ;). This is the relevant part for this thread:

Yet, unbelievably, the basic demand for the right of self-determination of the oppressed nationalities of Pakistan is, in practice, rejected by the alleged ‘Trotskyists’ in the present crisis-riven ‘Class Struggle’ tendency in Pakistan. Only the SMP has pursued a consistent, principled and sensitive position on this issue. It stands, as Lenin and Trotsky did, for the rights of all oppressed peoples, for equality and against discrimination on racial, ethnic, religious or national lines. This does not mean advocating the right of self-determination, including the right to secede, without taking into account the mood of the masses. It is the right of peoples in the distinct national areas of Pakistan outside of Punjab, and even in Punjab itself, to choose their own path. The ideal position from the standpoint of the workers’ movement in Pakistan would be a socialist confederation. This would provide full rights of autonomy, allow all legitimate national rights, down to the elimination of the slightest expression of nationalism or national superiority of one ethnic or national group over another. However, if oppressed nationalities wished to separate from even a democratic workers’ state, then the workers’ movement must accept that, as Lenin consistently argued and, in effect, carried out in the case of Finland in 1918. ‘Class Struggle’, led up to now internationally by the Alan Woods group, has consistently opposed such a policy in Pakistan. This has alienated them from some of the best fighters and leaders of the oppressed workers and peasants in the non-Punjabi parts of the country, many of whom have consequently gravitated in the direction of the SMP.

Crisis in the International Marxist Tendency

At the same time, they have a totally false position of sticking to the so-called ‘traditional organisations of the working class’ – without taking into account the concrete circumstances as to whether these organisations still represent the working masses. This policy now lies in ruins as a big split has developed in the Woods ‘International’, the International Marxist Tendency (IMT), on the consequences of this amongst other issues. It has had disastrous consequences for their organisation in Pakistan, as shown by the voluminous documentation detailing the bureaucratic methods of the Woods group, which split from the CWI in 1991.

Very few class-conscious workers now entertain any illusions that the PPP – led by ‘Mr Fifty Per Cent’ Asif Zardari – remotely represents in practice the working masses and the poor farmers of Pakistan. It is flooded out with the influence of the feudals, both in the towns and the rural areas. It is a party which has opposed strikes, called for and tried to organise strike-breaking, of the telecoms workers, for instance. The position of the PPP from what it was under its founder Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, a ‘populist’ party capable of responding to the demands of the masses, has long gone. Therefore the same task is posed in Pakistan, as in other countries throughout the world, the development of a new mass party of the Pakistani workers and peasants, which the SMP has consistently argued for. The Woods group – which its leaders boasted was immune from the processes of ‘splits’ that allegedly condemned other organisations to ‘marginal’ influence in the workers’ movement – is seriously divided.

Ironically, it is on the very issues which formed the main ‘political’ reasons for their break from the CWI in 1992. Then it was the alleged existence of a ‘clique’ at the ‘top of the CWI’. This was rejected by 93% of the members of the British organisation and also by a majority of the CWI. Yet this is the same charge, in effect, now levelled against Alan Woods and his circle. There was absolutely no substance in this charge made by Woods and Co in 1992 about the CWI and its internal methods. The proof of this lies in the subsequent development of the national sections of the CWI with independent and thinking leaderships, capable of responding to the concrete circumstances in each country, which collaborates internationally but acts without waiting for ‘instructions’ from an international centre. The CWI operates on the basis of democratic centralism with full rights for all its members and sections with, in fact, a greater emphasis at this stage on the need for discussion and debate rather than the formal aspects of centralism.

The present split in the IMT has been kept under wraps – hidden from some of their members – up to the present time of writing. Yet all the political disputes in the CWI on a number of issues in the 1990s and the ‘noughties’ were public discussions, and documents were made public while the discussion was going on. Current debates are publically aired, for instance, in our journal ‘Socialism Today’ on such issues as China. This is done in order to allow all workers to see and, if needs be, to participate in the discussion of vital issues. Nothing like these democratic discussions takes place in the IMT.

An opposite picture is presented of the IMT, its internal life, its ideas and especially of its leadership in the incredible documents emanating from Pakistan, Spain and others who have fallen out with Woods and his closest circle. The Pakistani ‘dissidents’ around Manzoor Khan – the former PPP MP – paint a tragic picture of where Ted Grant and Alan Woods’s false position on the dogmatic insistence on undeviating work in the PPP and the ex-workers’ parties can lead. Manzoor justifies his opposition – on behalf of the PPP leadership – to strikes in Pakistan by wanting to remain in the PPP “at all costs”. Woods objected to this and promptly expelled Manzoor and his supporters. But a similar approach to that of Manzoor in Pakistan was adopted by Grant and Woods in Britain over our Militant MPs’ stand against the poll tax in 1991-92. We, the leadership and overwhelming majority of Militant (now the Socialist Party), stated that Terry Fields and Dave Nellist (our two MPs) could not pay the poll tax. This was because they and we had successfully urged millions of workers not to pay it and, faced with a similar situation, we declared they should take a similar principled stand. Grant and Woods argued that the MPs should pay as a means of staying inside the Labour Party!

Socialists were ‘dead’ outside of this ‘traditional organisation’, they argued, much as they had miseducated Manzoor and others in ‘Class Struggle’ in continued work in the PPP. We would have been ‘politically dead’ if the MPs and we had followed their advice. The Labour Party has since degenerated like the PPP into a bourgeois formation. Grant and Co were trapped in a false outmoded perception: that all political life of the working class was restricted to the Labour Party; to go outside meant ‘going over a cliff’. What is the result of this? They are insignificant in Britain while the Socialist Party has grown in numbers and influence. The same applies on an international scale with the IMT losing influence in many countries with Woods increasingly reduced to the role of a ‘benevolent advisor’ to Hugo Chávez in Venezuela. They reacted to the opportunist and indefensible actions of Manzoor – which was but the logical conclusion of their own ossified position on the ‘traditional organisations – by expelling him!

There are still sincere Marxists and Trotskyists within its ranks that we hope will cut through the thicket of lies and misrepresentations that have been particularly levelled by Alan Woods and his leading organising group against the CWI, its organisations, its leadership and its policies. A conscientious examination of the ideas of the CWI will, it is hoped, lead the best of these comrades to re-examine their past policies, and those of the CWI’s, and hopefully find a path back to a consistent Trotskyist position.
The Permanent Revolution today (http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2010/02/1802.html)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BOZG:


You mentioned that there was no hard evidence for a split when there very clearly has considering that at least two of the sections that are linked to the split rumours, allegations or whatever you want to call them have new websites that no longer link to the IMT. What exactly do you require for hard evidence? Is nothing short of Alan Woods declaring that a split occured proof?

One or two comrades here seem to be confusing the internet with reality.


You're like a fucking ostrich.

Cheek! I'm nothing like you.

[BOZG]

BOZG:



One or two comrades here seem to be confusing the internet with reality.



Cheek! I'm nothing like you.

Please do tell us why a number of sections of an International that are reportedly after splitting set-up new websites that don't like to their International means if not a split?