What organisations do you find supportable?

[Benjamin Hill]

RedManatee's profile gave me some inspiration, I'll quote the relevant part of it:

Organisation: ICC-CPUSA-SPUSA-IWW-CWI-PSOL-CPGBI'm not sure if he was being sarcastic or genuine in his approach, but I find it interesting enough to start a discussion about it. The question is simple: What revolutionary organisations do you support, wholly or partly, besides your own (if applicable)?

I hope this could start a process in which we see our similarities and strengths instead of our differences, so we can cut some sectarian borders perhaps.

Let me start out, in alphabetical order:
- CPGB: Publishers of the Weekly Worker. Their paper is one of the very few platforms on the far left that is open for debate. Their politics is also anti-sectarian, striving for working class organisation through uniting the far left on a Marxist programme. Despite that, they're small, arguably because they spent so much time and energy on others as opposed to themselves. I think this is a weakness.
- CWI/IMT: These near-identical Trotskyist twins sadly broke up over a tactical issue (officially anyway, I think personal ego's colliding played a big part in it). Despite that and despite the current troubles in the IMT, they are still the biggest "internationals" (I don't really count the USFI because they have a far more confederate structure). Despite having a somewhat economistic outlook (an endemic feature of the Trotskyists, or so it appears), they have a good focus on working class struggles and are actively involved in these. Having said that, in working class organisation they seem to focus too much on leftwing bureaucrats as opposed to rank and file membership, this is certainly a weakness.
- ICC: Their strong points are that they are very clear on the politics and principled. Everyone newly introduced can directly read their platform and basic positions. They also wage a relentless battle against all they hold as opportunists. In that though also lies their weakness: Their ultra-leftism (to coin a phrase). They don't consider unions as (limited) working class organisations and consider much of the left to be the "leftwing of the bourgeoisie". I think this is very sectarian. A strong point is that they take cadre building very seriously, on the other hand it takes a considerable amount of time (often years!) to become a member. The CWI/IMT by contrast let people join much more easily and then try to form them as cadres as participating members, on the other hand they only seem to have a small part of the membership as a cadre (at least one you could qualify as such, that is: a leader within the working class movement). The latter also have a much more top-down organisational model which is related to this.
- IWW: The IWW is of course the classic example of a real red union: a union run directly by its members (as opposed to a professional layer) and having quite a radical stance in the class struggle. The major weak point of the IWW though, in my opinion, is the point that it has an anti-political stance as an organisation. This has a historical background (the CPUSA trying to take them over in the 1920's), but I still think it to be very wrong for the simple reason that you should never depoliticize the class struggle. There are some other red unions that avoid this problem, but as fas as I'm aware these are all smaller compared to the IWW (which is also tiny these days).
- Permanent Revolution: One of the other "57 varieties" of Trotskyism in the UK. They are a split from Workers Power (which has their own "international", the L5I) which was again a split from the SWP back in the 70's if I'm not mistaken. Despite being very small (no more than a few dozen people), they publish a lot of analysis, often of a high standing quality. They are one of the few Trotskyist groups that actually think that capitalism is in a longwave boom period and manage to reasonably argue for this too. I don't know enough about them to cite any specific weaknesses at this point, although the general weakness of sectarianism to one form or another undoubtedly applies.

Your turn :)

[Devrim]

- ICC: Their strong points are that they are very clear on the politics and principled. Everyone newly introduced can directly read their platform and basic positions. They also wage a relentless battle against all they hold as opportunists. In that though also lies their weakness: Their ultra-leftism (to coin a phrase). They don't consider unions as (limited) working class organisations and consider much of the left to be the "leftwing of the bourgeoisie". I think this is very sectarian. A strong point is that they take cadre building very seriously, on the other hand it takes a considerable amount of time (often years!) to become a member. The CWI/IMT by contrast let people join much more easily and then try to form them as cadres as participating members, on the other hand they only seem to have a small part of the membership as a cadre (at least one you could qualify as such, that is: a leader within the working class movement). The latter also have a much more top-down organisational model which is related to this.

I would just like to comment on a few things that you say about the ICC. The issue of our attitude towards the leftist parties is a major one, and I think would need another thread though I would be very happy to discuss it with you if you were interested in starting it. A few points though I'd like to make here though:


A strong point is that they take cadre building very seriously, on the other hand it takes a considerable amount of time (often years!) to become a member.

This is a little exaggerated. It doesn't take years at all! We do want people to be in agreement with our politics before they join though. It can take a few months, but it is generally shorter.

See this article: http://en.internationalism.org/joinicc


The CWI/IMT by contrast let people join much more easily and then try to form them as cadres as participating members,

I think this applies to other leftist groups too. It is, for us, completely the wrong way of doing things. They tend to get people in as members, get them paying dues, and selling the paper without real political agreement, often with no more agreement than people saying they are 'socialists'.

This has profound implications for the internal life of these organisations. It means basically that any sort of democratic structure is impossible.

Devrim

[Benjamin Hill]

I would just like to comment on a few things that you say about the ICC.
Thank you, that is very appreciated.


The issue of our attitude towards the leftist parties is a major one, and I think would need another thread though I would be very happy to discuss it with you if you were interested in starting it.
Yes, I would be interested. I think it is a very important question in how we organise.


This is a little exaggerated. It doesn't take years at all! We do want people to be in agreement with our politics before they join though. It can take a few months, but it is generally shorter.
I know some comrades which are "joining" for longer then that. But I'm willing to accept that these are exceptions to the norm.


I think this applies to other leftist groups too. It is, for us, completely the wrong way of doing things. They tend to get people in as members, get them paying dues, and selling the paper without real political agreement, often with no more agreement than people saying they are 'socialists'.
Yes, but why can't political agreement come from discussion and participating while being a member?

New developments in society are bound to give rise to different views. You can deal with this in several ways: you can suppress it (which might cause splits), you can only discuss issues internally and force a "party line" to the outside world (which also might cause tensions) or you can discuss them openly.

I favor the latter as I believe it is the only way to avoid splits altogether (and in fact strive towards unity) as you pursue a "unity in diversity" (as Mike Macnair likes to phrase it). Because your discussions are part of the wider class movement, open discussions can also have a very educative function for the movement with us being in the reciprocal political leadership of it (it also has educative values towards new members nd even the party members itself in that we should strive to make our case clear and develop our points further where needed). Lastly it ensures democratic relations within the organisation, which I think is vital in developing a class organisation.


This has profound implications for the internal life of these organisations. It means basically that any sort of democratic structure is impossible.
That is a valid consideration and I agree with it. Because new members are not deemed "important enough" by many organisations to actually participate in the political process, this then gets concentrated to a leadership which then tends to consolidate into a top-down relationship. The SWP in the UK is a rather extreme example of this, yet a logical conclusion. From a leadership point of view the question is simple: if you let in anyone in your organisation, who then can you trust with politics? The answer is obvious.

I'm wary though of the ICC's solution to this in discussing with new contacts for months (and in some cases years?) before they can become a member. I think the attitude of developing cadres "in action" as it were is the right way but should be complemented with two things: 1. education, people should be aware of the group dynamics involved and their role as a cadre; 2. we should adopt some form of Lenin's phrase "if everyone is a bureaucrat, then no one is". Leadership should be divided into a political part (carried out by the widest possible form of membership participation) and an administrative part, which could then be carried out by every member on rotation.

I'm sorry if I ranted on a bit :)

[The Idler]

The Commune (http://thecommune.wordpress.com/)
CPGB (PCC)/Weekly Worker (http://www.cpgb.org.uk)
Permanent Revolution (http://www.permanentrevolution.net)

I used to think membership of any left organisation is better than none or membership of a capitalist party, now I'm not so sure. Is it worth recommending a party that you disagree with, provided its left-wing? If a capitalist or apathetic is attracted to Zeitgeist movement, is it worth recommending as an improvement?

[The Ungovernable Farce]

The Commune (http://thecommune.wordpress.com/)
CPGB (PCC)/Weekly Worker (http://www.cpgb.org.uk)
Permanent Revolution (http://www.permanentrevolution.net)

I used to think membership of any left organisation is better than none or membership of a capitalist party, now I'm not so sure. Is it worth recommending a party that you disagree with, provided its left-wing?
Not if their tactics are ineffective or counterproductive.

[Devrim]

I know some comrades which are "joining" for longer then that. But I'm willing to accept that these are exceptions to the norm.

Really? I know someone who went through all the discussions in a day, which certainly isn't the norm either. I imagine the people it is taking a long time for want to join, but aren't that close to us.


Yes, but why can't political agreement come from discussion and participating while being a member?

I think that political agreement has to be based on something. For example, we are against parlimentarianism. If we recruited people purely based on them describing themselves as socialists, as some groups do, we could end up in a situation where we had a majority against that position.

We have a lot of discussion within the organisation, but we have agreement on our platform.


New developments in society are bound to give rise to different views. You can deal with this in several ways: you can suppress it (which might cause splits), you can only discuss issues internally and force a "party line" to the outside world (which also might cause tensions) or you can discuss them openly.

Yes, I think we have that discussion. Maybe we tend to discuss things internally first too much though and then present our conclusions.


That is a valid consideration and I agree with it. Because new members are not deemed "important enough" by many organisations to actually participate in the political process, this then gets concentrated to a leadership which then tends to consolidate into a top-down relationship. The SWP in the UK is a rather extreme example of this, yet a logical conclusion. From a leadership point of view the question is simple: if you let in anyone in your organisation, who then can you trust with politics? The answer is obvious.

We trust all of the members, but then that is because we have had a long process of discussion first. We don't have that sort of 'top down' relationship.


I'm wary though of the ICC's solution to this in discussing with new contacts for months (and in some cases years?) before they can become a member. I think the attitude of developing cadres "in action" as it were is the right way but should be complemented with two things: 1. education, people should be aware of the group dynamics involved and their role as a cadre; 2. we should adopt some form of Lenin's phrase "if everyone is a bureaucrat, then no one is". Leadership should be divided into a political part (carried out by the widest possible form of membership participation) and an administrative part, which could then be carried out by every member on rotation.

But the sympathisers take part in the organisations work too.


I'm sorry if I ranted on a bit :)

No, it was interesting.

Devrim

[Benjamin Hill]

The Commune
CPGB (PCC)/Weekly Worker
Permanent Revolution

I used to think membership of any left organisation is better than none or membership of a capitalist party, now I'm not so sure. Is it worth recommending a party that you disagree with, provided its left-wing? If a capitalist or apathetic is attracted to Zeitgeist movement, is it worth recommending as an improvement?
I agree with TUF here; if you can't support any part of their principles, theory, programme, strategy or tactics, it is useless to support them. But it also does beg the question: Don't you support it because you're that strict (sectarian?) or because they're really anti-working class in outlook? It's not a question specific to you, but one we should all ask ourselves. Most organisations have far more in common than they differ after all.

I should look into The Commune, I've been hearing good things about them.


Really? I know someone who went through all the discussions in a day, which certainly isn't the norm either. I imagine the people it is taking a long time for want to join, but aren't that close to us.
That would make sense.


I think that political agreement has to be based on something. For example, we are against parlimentarianism. If we recruited people purely based on them describing themselves as socialists, as some groups do, we could end up in a situation where we had a majority against that position.

We have a lot of discussion within the organisation, but we have agreement on our platform.I think that this "cherry picking" attitude is counter-productive. Most new members aren't at all (properly) educated in the ideas of socialism, and I think it is far more efficient that these activists are formed inside rather than outside the organisation.

Secondly, how is it bad to differ on basic ideas, like for example the issue of parliamentary work? I myself see parliamentary work as a valid tactic and, as with all tactics, no tactic should be excluded by principle.


Yes, I think we have that discussion. Maybe we tend to discuss things internally first too much though and then present our conclusions.I do think this attitude is a problem (not specifically attacking the ICC here as this is an endemic feature on most of the far left). How is the working class movement able to learn anything from just reading out a statement after internal discussion is closed? How does it help to learn workers to think critcally for themselves on matters of politics?

A statement is rather binary: You can either agree with it or disagree. As such it is also passive in the sense that workers are not invited to join the discussion. Open discussion on the other hand does invite exactly this as workers are invited to think on which position they agree with in the discussion.

In one word, open discussion has a very important educational value.


We trust all of the members, but then that is because we have had a long process of discussion first. We don't have that sort of 'top down' relationship.That is good to hear.


But the sympathisers take part in the organisations work too.Yet they (presumably) don't have a say in the politics, they just carry out what has been agreed upon by the membership.


No, it was interesting.Ok :)

[Devrim]

I think that this "cherry picking" attitude is counter-productive. Most new members aren't at all (properly) educated in the ideas of socialism, and I think it is far more efficient that these activists are formed inside rather than outside the organisation.

The question then arises though of how you can have a democratic organisation if people who are members don't understand its politics.


Secondly, how is it bad to differ on basic ideas, like for example the issue of parliamentary work? I myself see parliamentary work as a valid tactic and, as with all tactics, no tactic should be excluded by principle.

We don't think that it is a valid tactic. We think that it is a part of bourgeois politics. Do you think we should be in the same organisation?


I do think this attitude is a problem (not specifically attacking the ICC here as this is an endemic feature on most of the far left). How is the working class movement able to learn anything from just reading out a statement after internal discussion is closed? How does it help to learn workers to think critcally for themselves on matters of politics?

A statement is rather binary: You can either agree with it or disagree. As such it is also passive in the sense that workers are not invited to join the discussion. Open discussion on the other hand does invite exactly this as workers are invited to think on which position they agree with in the discussion.

In one word, open discussion has a very important educational value.

I agree totally here. As an organisation we realise this and are trying to become more open. The questions are about how we do it. I would like the process to be faster than others.


Yet they (presumably) don't have a say in the politics, they just carry out what has been agreed upon by the membership.

Symathisers have a 'say'. For example, they come to the section meetings, and write in our press as do some people who are sympathisers on Revleft. If something comes to a vote though you are right, they don't.

Devrim

[genstrike]

- IWW: The IWW is of course the classic example of a real red union: a union run directly by its members (as opposed to a professional layer) and having quite a radical stance in the class struggle. The major weak point of the IWW though, in my opinion, is the point that it has an anti-political stance as an organisation. This has a historical background (the CPUSA trying to take them over in the 1920's), but I still think it to be very wrong for the simple reason that you should never depoliticize the class struggle. There are some other red unions that avoid this problem, but as fas as I'm aware these are all smaller compared to the IWW (which is also tiny these days).

I think you have a mistaken impression of what the no politics clause is.

First, the historical background to the no politics clause comes not from the 1920s and actually predates the CPUSA. It comes from the 1908 convention and the fight between DeLeon and "the bummery" (as DeLeon pejoratively referred to the direct action oriented workers). Essentially, DeLeon wanted the IWW to function as an auxiliary of his SLP, and in 1908 was confronted at convention by "the bummery" (mostly workers from the northwest), resulting in the removal of the references to political action in the 1905 preamble which DeLeon insisted on in 1905, the no-politics clause, and DeLeon quitting the IWW when his delegate credentials were challenged to set up his own rival IWW (The Detroit IWW or Yellow IWW, later to be renamed the WIIU, as opposed to the Chicago IWW/Red IWW).

Also, DeLeon had a reputation as being a total dick.

The IWW isn't anti-political. In fact, I would say it is inherently political - just look at the preamble, it's an inherently political document and in my opinion one of the best articulations of class struggle. Also, the IWW took part in many campaigns which could be considered political, such as free speech fights

That clause is just there so people can't say "The IWW is a union of the Socialist Labor Party" or "The IWW is a union for anarchists" or "The IWW supports the NDP"