Definite Splits in IMT

[Invigilator]

To IEC members, national leaderships, sections and groups

Dear Comrades,
We send you a first report on the IEC meeting of March 1-7. This IEC represents a turning-point in the International's development. Contrary to the false impression that a small group of individuals are attempting to create, there was no mood of crisis, and all the discussions took place in a calm and serious atmosphere. The comrades in Spain, Mexico and Venezuela displayed complete confidence and enthusiasm for the perspectives that open up in these countries.
The experiences of these sections provide both the comrades concerned and the whole International with important lessons, which we will discuss in detail over the next few months. We had very in-depth discussions on orientation, tactics, organisation building, etc. for all these three countries. The reports show that possibilities in Venezuela and Mexico are tremendous, and that the reorientation of the work in Spain can give important fruits in the next future.
We will produce more detailed material on these subjects in the future. All comrades should study this material and learn from it, as it is rich with lessons for our future work in the mass parties and the unions.
The explanations of the comrades from those sections shed a lot of light on the problems of the work that was being done there before, the real political differences that were emerging with the old leadership, and organizational methods that had become or were becoming consolidated which were completely alien to our traditions. It goes without saying that we were not looking for a split. But it is clear that, under the circumstances, a split was inevitable.
The quality of the comrades who support the International is very high. In Mexico we took a big majority. In Venezuela we took a majority of the active members. In Spain the comrades have regrouped and are already intervening. For example, in a recent demonstration in Bilbao, we had more comrades selling our brochure as against the supporters of the EC and we have recruited our first worker since the split and have many contacts who can join. In spite of the difficulties they have experienced, the morale in all three sections is excellent.
The expulsion of HK
Comrades will have seen the resolution on the expulsion of HK we sent out on Friday, and the attached explanation. We do not often resort to expulsions. In almost twenty years we have never expelled anybody. But where it is necessary to defend the organization against provocations and sabotage, we have the right to take the appropriate measures. We point out that this resolution was passed with no votes against and the abstention of only one full member and one alternate. This means that not even members of the "faction" were prepared to defend him.
We have been informed today that HK is continuing his provocations. As part of his personal war against the International has decided to publish on the internet, available to the broad public, the whole content of the intranet website that was set up by the self proclaimed "Bolshevik Faction". By his deeds HK is showing to the whole organisation how well founded were the objections we raised to the use of intranet or facebook forums to host internal debates. This is not a game, nor a justified difference of opinion between comrades. It is an all-out attack against the International.
We ask all sections to inform all members of the International as soon as possible of these developments, in order to counter the lies and disinformation that is being spread by this individual.
The IEC had to take other measures to defend the organisation from what is quite clearly an organized and concerted attack against the International, namely, the expulsion of MR and the disaffiliation of the Iranian section (see resolutions).
A criminal act
What is the reason for this drastic step? Before the IEC, MR had publicly attacked the positions of the International on several occasions. In spite of being offered all the internal channels to express his disagreement, he decided to boycott the IEC, considering it to be a bureaucratic rubber stamp for the IS (he sent a representative to read a statement to this effect).
His deliberate boycotting of the democratically elected leadership of the International and his slanderous campaign against it were sufficient reasons for disciplinary action – suspension from the IEC at the very least. But what he did subsequently can only be described as a crime. In his latest tirade of insults against the International, sent out to undisclosed recipients, he deliberately leaked personal information on two young Iranian comrades who support the line of the International.
This information was enough to allow the Iranian state to identify them, making it virtually impossible for these comrades to return to Iran to build the International or even to visit their families. These comrades' "crime" was to disagree with the position defended by MR that there is no revolution in Iran. This is no longer a political question. It is a betrayal of the most elementary principles of the workers' movement and is equivalent to acting like a police informer. The only possible response was immediate expulsion. And since these actions were carried out in the name of the whole Iranian group (there are only a few of them), the consequence was the disaffiliation of the group itself.
This does not mean the end of our work in Iran. On the contrary, it will be stepped up and put on a far healthier basis. Our ideas are having a big impact in Iran and we have many contacts in Iran and in exile, in addition to the Persian speaking comrades in Pakistan. The antics of MR, who denies that there is a revolution in Iran and has a sectarian approach, has alienated many people on the Left who would otherwise have joined us. His departure from our ranks, far from being a problem, will open new doors. On this basis we are sure that the work in Iran (which was at a very embryonic stage) can be quickly rebuilt on a far sounder basis.
JC's walkout
For months JC and his followers (including HK) have been waging a noisy campaign to the effect that there is a "bureaucratic and totalitarian" regime in the International. He issued a document putting forward a completely false and distorted picture of the International. He was offered the chance to participate in an orderly debate, and the IS guaranteed to distribute his document, first to IEC members and then to the whole International and give him equal time to defend it on the IEC. Instead, he immediately distributed it to an undisclosed list of recipients.
How did the IEC react? Did it decide to suppress the views of JC and his supporters? No, it gave them plenty of opportunity to put their views, including a special session devoted to these ideas. During the IEC discussion on democratic centralism, contrary to the norm, which would be an IS lead off followed by a counter lead off, we proposed JC to give the only lead off, to allow for more time for discussion.
In his speech in the session on democratic centralism JC complained that there were "unwritten rules" that he did not recognise and would not obey. These rules are really ABC for anyone with the slightest knowledge of democratic centralism and the history of our movement. What did the IEC do? It simply to put these rules in writing. In that way there could be no confusion or ambiguity about the position.
What the IEC did was to establish the rules by which a genuinely democratic debate could be conducted, and what was acceptable and what was not. It established certain perimeters that must not be transgressed. It prohibited the irresponsible use of emails to conduct campaigns against the official positions of the International – both inside and outside our ranks. It prohibited the practice of leaking internal IEC correspondence and publishing internal documents on Facebook. It specified our attitude towards the formation of factions etc.
It was precisely at this point that JC decided to walk out, together with the representatives of the self-proclaimed "Bolshevik faction": ML (a Swedish alternate), and WF (a visitor from Poland), walked out of the IEC, announcing they were leaving the IEC and would the next day "recommence the work of building a revolutionary organization". This happened on Friday at the beginning of a session where a number of resolutions were to be discussed and voted, including one reaffirming the right of the IEC to confidentiality.
An organized walk-out
There was also nothing spontaneous about the walk-out of JC, ML and WF. In the resolution of the "faction", we read the following:
"In view of the fears expressed by some comrades that the present internal discussion can lead to a split, either as a result of expulsions by a majority or the withdrawal of a minority" (our emphasis)
Nobody had mentioned expulsions before. Neither had anyone hinted at the possibility of a "withdrawal of the minority". On the other hand, in the emails of MR, there were implied threats of a split, if the IS did not print his views denying the existence of a revolution on the website of the International. These threats and ultimatums were a form of blackmail: "do as I say – or else!" HK used the same method: "do what I demand or I will denounce you as Stalinists!" But we have never given in to blackmail and do not intend to start now.
What we have here is an unscrupulous and cynical attempt to force the majority to accept the ideas and methods of a tiny minority, on the basis that the latter can make a lot of noise, cause a scandal, throw mud at the organization in public, provoke splits etc. This is like the behaviour of a spoilt child, who shouts and breaks his toys and wrecks his bedroom because he cannot get everything he wants. Such behaviour is not acceptable on the part of adult people, and far less on the part of people who claim to be revolutionary Marxists.
The International is a democratic organization, with well-established channels in which comrades are free to defend whatever views they wish. But in a democratic organization, there are rules that everyone must obey, and the majority decides. This is not the first time our movement has seen such conduct. In the Second Congress of the RSDLP, Lenin broke with Martov and his supporters precisely because they would not accept being in a minority. Let us remember that the word Bolshevik originally meant a supporter of the Majority (bolshenstvo in Russian) and Menshevism meant a supporter of the Minority (menshenstvo). It was the refusal of the Martovites to accept the decisions of the Congress that led to the split in 1903, although on all the political questions there were apparently no differences.
Let us be clear. Nobody forced JC to walk out. Nobody prohibited him from expressing his opinions inside the organization, and not outside it, following the rules of debate agreed by the majority, not made up by an unelected and unrepresentative minority, using the internal channels that are open for democratic debate, not facebook, Intranet and emails to "undisclosed recipients".
JC walked out, complaining of an "unbreathable atmosphere", but everybody in the room was breathing quite normally. What did he mean by this? Only this: that JC can only feel "free to breathe" when there are absolutely no rules and anyone can behave as scandalously as they wish – including in the public domain – with complete impunity. When he realized that this game was up, and the IEC was going to pass resolutions that would finally introduce some order into the proceedings, he decided to walk out and organize a split. And this is supposed to represent "democracy"!
What do they represent?
Other than those who walked out, these ideas received no support whatsoever on the IEC. We could only interpret their words and actions as an indication that they were leaving the International. The full transcript of JC's statement is attached as the resolution condemning their walkout that was passed with one abstention of an alternate member.
For months we have been receiving emails and documents signed by the "Swedish, Polish and Iranian ECs". When he was asked who was on the Polish EC and when they were elected, WF from Poland told the IEC that their EC is composed of just two comrades. He also admitted that they had only sent out their factional documents two weeks before the IEC.
In other words, they flooded hundreds of comrades and non-comrades from around the world with their factional emails signed by the Polish EC (jointly with the Swedish and Iranian ECs) before they even informed the comrades in their own section. All this in the name of democracy.
The representative of the Iranian group (who we invited to the session on Iran, although we were under no obligation to do so, since MR, the elected IEC representative had boycotted the meeting) was asked several times to give the figures for membership of this group, but refused to do so "on security grounds". But they showed no such concern for security when they effectively betrayed two young Iranian comrades to the authorities. To the best of our knowledge the group consists of only a handful, with not more than a few in the interior. And the "Iranian EC", like the "Polish EC" consists in reality of two people: MR and A.
The situation in Sweden is not much better: only around 12 members are, according to the EC, actually active in the labour movement of the 45 members. Of these twelve active members, five have declared their disagreement with the EC on these questions, including the whole of the Gothenburg branch. Moreover, the question of declaring a faction has never been put to the Swedish CC.
The mass organizations and the Fifth International
The IEC was not devoted purely to these questions, which we reluctantly had to deal with as a result of the scandalous campaign that has been waged inside and outside the International.
The IEC held very good discussions on a number of very important matters that will be part of our discussion up to the world congress. We held an in-depth discussion on the question of our work in the mass organisations. Throughout the last 20 years we have accumulated much experience in many sections which should be discussed and shared with the whole International. On the basis of this discussion, the IS will present a short document to be discussed in the International in the lead-up to the World Congress and voted upon there.
Also of great importance, is the IEC's decision to support Chavez's call for the 5th International and participate actively in it. In the words of comrade SG (Brazil): "this is a discussion of transcendental importance because it concerns the essence of what Trotskyism is." We will be publishing material on this question very soon and it will be discussed at all levels of the International in the lead-up to the World Congress.
We will also be re-emphasizing the Venezuela solidarity work in light of the upcoming regional elections, and will hold a Panamerican gathering in Caracas in April, in conjunction with the official launch of the 5th International. We will have more statements and information coming soon, and the sections should prepare to organise delegations to Caracas. We will also be launching issue 2 of the Pan-American journal. More information on this will be forthcoming.
Comradely,
The IS

[Crux]

In his latest tirade of insults against the International, sent out to undisclosed recipients, he deliberately leaked personal information on two young Iranian comrades who support the line of the International.
This information was enough to allow the Iranian state to identify them, making it virtually impossible for these comrades to return to Iran to build the International or even to visit their families. These comrades' "crime" was to disagree with the position defended by MR that there is no revolution in Iran. This is no longer a political question. It is a betrayal of the most elementary principles of the workers' movement and is equivalent to acting like a police informer. The only possible response was immediate expulsion. And since these actions were carried out in the name of the whole Iranian group (there are only a few of them), the consequence was the disaffiliation of the group itself.
The only right thing to do in my opinion. Betraying your fellow comrades like that warrant nothing less than expulsion.

[Woland]

we had more comrades selling our brochure as against the supporters of the EC and we have recruited our first worker since the split


Our ideas are having a big impact in Iran


The situation in Sweden is not much better: only around 12 members are, according to the EC, actually active in the labour movement of the 45 members.

Is Trotskyism really so pathetic?

[Invigilator]

The only right thing to do in my opinion. Betraying your fellow comrades like that warrant nothing less than expulsion.

Read it more carefully.

He is accused of saying something which the IMT leadership thinks could be used by the Iranian regime to identify two Iranian leftists. Which sounds terrible. But if you look more closely, the IMT don't actually know who the email was sent to. Plus the two Iranians mentioned don't actually live in Iran. And you have to take the IMT's word that the information mentioned would actually serve to identify to them.

So it's something that could be a terrible act worthy of expulsion, or could be an utterly insignificant act blown up as a factional weapon. We do not have the information to judge - and neither do the rank and file of the IMT.

[Crux]

Is Trotskyism really so pathetic?
No, but IMT in sweden really are that small. And spanish split obviously really was that severe.

Oh and if this is the space to brag, when the split occured the IMT took with them about 50 comrades, and we were about 100, I believe, left in the CWI.
Today apparently they have 45 members, while we just broke the 400 mark. But I digress.

[Crux]

Read it more carefully.

He is accused of saying something which the IMT leadership thinks could be used by the Iranian regime to identify two Iranian leftists. Which sounds terrible. But if you look more closely, the IMT don't actually know who the email was sent to. Plus the two Iranians mentioned don't actually live in Iran. And you have to take the IMT's word that the information mentioned would actually serve to identify to them.

So it's something that could be a terrible act worthy of expulsion, or could be an utterly insignificant act blown up as a factional weapon. We do not have the information to judge - and neither do the rank and file of the IMT.
True, but if there is any veracity to their claim that's pretty much unforgivable. Them not living in Iran doesn't really matter, even if it, of course would be worlds of worse if they did. The Iranian secret police can get to you even if you are not in Iran, and further more if you still have family and friends back in Iran that might be a problem as well. But of course, as you say, the IMT IS has a very clear reason to portray it as they do, while it might have been nothing of the sort, simply because it is such a grave accusation.

[nideaquinidealli]

The only right thing to do in my opinion. Betraying your fellow comrades like that warrant nothing less than expulsion.

Mayakovski,

in karlmarx.net you can read the document where former Iranian IMT leaders (now they have been expelled) made public the names of two Iranian IMT members. The IS call this BETRAY".

If you look for these names in Google, you'll find a lot of news about their political activities: articles about the Iranian situation, public meetings, pics, etc.

So, no secret have been revealed. The Iranian police, or intelligence services, have had all the information they need exposed in the Internet along several months.

The "betrayal" claim by the IS sounds very dramatic, but it's a joke. I'm very susprised that you, a veteran revolutionary, let the IS deceive you so easily.

Be careful next time you read a statement from the IMT IS, and don't help then to spread slander.

[vyborg]

I see that the attitude to publish internal material before the democratic elected body of a group can discuss it is going on. This shows very well the ideas and morality of who is doing it.

Luckily he/she will not be able to do more harm. As for the behaviour of the Iranian "leader" anyone can judge for himself. The fact that the police already knew this guys is completely irrelevant anyway.

at the end of the day, besides they irresponsible way they acted, and I think anyone honestly have to aknowledge this is the case, the 2 main problem here are: A) different political lines, b) unwilligness to discuss them or to work in the real word. they prefer internet to earth. too bad.

The decided not to discuss with the othere comrades but to slander the organization. this is a pity but, anyway now that this genius have abandoned us, they will be able to build with their methods what they want. and we can go back to serious business.

[Bright Banana Beard]

This sucks, another splitter? How many more are coming up?

[Jammer]

Is Trotskyism really so pathetic?

Hmm tough question here. Which is more pathetic, bragging about selling a few magazines or intervening into a discussion with a pic of a mass murder and serial bungler for some apolitical abuse of the Trots?

[Rojo Rojito]

Looks like the demize of the IMT has been greatly exaggerated and overplayed by the sour grapes crowd who do nothing but act like a lynch mob waiting to happen.

I expect them to come back from this even stronger in Venezuela and the world...

Rojo Rojito
:thumbup1:

[Die Neue Zeit]

Will the IMT and its splinter groups liquidate themselves into the new International? How will that help or hinder other Marxist organization in the new International?

[Jolly Red Giant]

Looks like the demize of the IMT has been greatly exaggerated
The entire consequences of the current events within the IMT have yet to be played out - so, I suspect, their demise or not will only emerge after a period of time has passed.


I expect them to come back from this even stronger in Venezuela and the world...

Despite the claims to the contrary, the conflict within the IMT is clearly the result of mistaken tactics by the leadership and in particular an incorrect orientation to the workers movement. When there is a sharp change in the objective situation (as has recently occurred with the world recession) some left organisations can be caught off-guard and, as a result suffer internal conflict. The IMT isn't the only left organisation that has been faced with this - the recent difficulties in the SWP is a example of the same thing.

I suspect that, given the adherence of the IMT to the SD's, further difficulties will arise. As the perspectives of the leadership are proved incorrect and the IMT is unable to adapt to the constantly changing situation - some individuals, groups or sections will begin to have doubts about where they are and what they are doing.

[Invigilator]

IEC resolutions – March 1-7, 2010

1) The split in Spain, Venezuela and Mexico
This IEC notes that the Spanish EC and their supporters in Spain, Mexico and Venezuela split from the IMT in December 2009 and have now publicly announced a separate group. They have not been expelled by anybody who supports the IMT. They were not expelled, but have left of their own accord and in a completely undemocratic and bureaucratic manner.
This is an unprincipled split which was decided without any consultation with the rank and file members of these sections. The political differences that emerged in the polemic between the IS and the Spanish EC in 2009, though important, did not justify a split. The Spanish EC, fearing an open and frank debate of ideas, decided to split away. This shows a light-minded and irresponsible attitude towards politics, one that puts the prestige of the leadership above principled political considerations.
The split also reveals a completely bureaucratic attitude which deals with political questions with administrative measures by resorting to splits and expulsions. These methods are alien to our international and to the genuine traditions of Bolshevism.
The casual way in which they decided to split also reveals a narrow, parrochial and nationalist approach, which has nothing to do with genuine proletarian internationalism. Rather than attempting to convince the IEC and the membership of the International of their points of view, they decided to split away before the debate could take place.
From the end of November, comrades in the Spanish section who did not agree with the Spanish EC were excluded from branch meetings and other activities. The Spanish EC refused to pay international subs, JIR resigned from the extended IS and they cut off all links with the IMT. This process led to the expulsion by the Spanish EC of anyone who was not in favour of splitting away from the IMT, including comrades who did not support the views of the IS in the debate in 2009.
At least in Spain there had been a semblance of a debate. In Venezuela and Mexico the situation was worse. In these two countries, the supporters of the Spanish EC in their ECs and CCs decided to split even before any documents had been sent to the ranks and before there was any debate about those, never mind a debate about splitting away from the IMT.
In the case of Mexico, the majority of the EC took the decision to split against the expressed will of the majority of the members of the section. In the case of Venezuela, 40 comrades, representing at least half of the active membership, signed an appeal for an extraordinary congress which the EC completely ignored, fearing that such a meeting would never support the split with the international. The small group in Colombia decided, without hearing the opinions or the IMT to also split away with the supporters of the Spanish EC.
The IEC therefore:
condemns this unprincipled split in Spain, Venezuela and Mexico.
appeals to all comrades in these countries to come back to the IMT, regardless of their political views, as long as they are prepared to work within the democratic structures of the International.
fully supports the efforts of the comrades in Spain and Venezuela who are rebuilding the sections of the IMT.
recognises the democratic congress of the Mexican section of the IMT which took place on January 16 and 17, and the CC that was elected.
[Passed unanimously]

2) On Security, Intranet and FB
It has been brought to the attention of the IEC, presently in session, that a "Facebook" discussion group has been set up in order to discuss the internal affairs of the International. The IEC has not authorised this initiative – and was not even asked to do so – and considers it to be a totally unacceptable breach of internal democracy. It poses a very serious security threat to the work of our national sections. In a number of countries, this work is carried out in extremely difficult and potentially dangerous conditions. Such methods expose our organisation to attacks from the ruling class, from the state, and also from our enemies within the workers' organisations.
The IEC understands that not all comrades will necessarily agree with this point of view. These comrades have the right to put forward their arguments, on this and on any other question, within the organisation. In the meantime, however, as the elected leading body of the International, the IEC demands that this discussion group, together with the "Intranet" site set up for the same purpose, should be immediately closed down, and formally instructs the comrades who are responsible for it to do this within the next 24 hours, as from 22h.00 this evening (2nd March).
The IMT is a democratic organisation. All comrades, at all levels of the organisation, are free to present their views and criticisms on all aspects of our policy, perspectives and organisational methods, through the democratically established structures of the tendency. However, the unauthorised publication of internal discussions, outside the structures of the organisation, is clearly an intolerable breach of revolutionary democracy. The maintenance of these public networks would amount to active sabotage of our organisation.
[Passed in a special session on Tuesday, March 2]
Full members: In favour: 24; Against: 1; Abstentions: 0
Alternates: In favour: 5; Against: 1; Abstentions: 0

3) On the Expulsion of HK
For many months, the International has been subjected to a systematic campaign of harassment and intimidation, organized by Heiko Khoo.
This campaign, allegedly intended to "inform" the membership of the International, is in fact based on an avalanche of lies, insults, slander and disinformation. It is calculated to create the maximum confusion, disrupt our work and demoralize comrades.
These attacks on the International have been deliberately introduced into the public domain, where they are being used by our enemies, to blacken the name of the International.
The only effect of this campaign has been to cause resignations, damage the work in a number of sections and assist our enemies.
In the face of gross, deliberate and repeated provocations, the International has shown extraordinary patience and restraint. But all things have their limit.
We have made repeated requests to Heiko Khoo to desist from his disruptive actions. He has had every opportunity to make use of the democratic channels of the organization to put forward his ideas. But he has not used these channels and all our appeals have been cynically ignored.
These actions show a complete contempt for the most elementary norms of revolutionary morality and discipline.
The exact motivation behind Heiko Khoo's activities remains obscure. But we can say that they constitute a deliberate and systematic sabotage of the work of the revolutionary tendency.
Whether Heiko Khoo is conscious or not, such activities are indistinguishable from the work of a provocateur who seeks to destroy the organization from within.
The International has the right to defend itself against sabotage and provocation. We therefore resolve that Heiko Khoo is expelled from our ranks with immediate effect.

[Passed without votes against – Thursday, March 4]
Full members: In favour: 24; Against: 0; Abstentions: 1
Alternates: In favour: 5; Against: 0; Abstentions: 1
Visitors: In favour: 9; Against: 0; Abstentions: 1

[On Friday morning, March 6, before a session where a number of resolutions were meant to be voted, JC (Full member), ML (alternate) and WF (visitor) announced their walk-out – See full transcript of the statement of JC further below.]

4) Resolution on Intranet Forums
1.This IEC pledges to uphold the democracy and security of the International. All differences and discussions should be channelled through the existing structures of the organisation.
2.This IEC for reasons of internal democracy and security rejects the setting up of online discussion forums (intranet). Such mechanisms are wide open to security breaches where our internal material would be easily made available to our enemies. This has already occurred. They are in flagrant contradiction with our existing policy making structures. They would be dominated by those with plenty of time and immediate access to the Internet and would tend to exclude those comrades with restricted time and access. This is a recipe for substituting control by elected leading bodies by the rule of unelected and self-appointed cliques.
3.The "assurances" that it will be "strictly controlled" and "for members only" are worth nothing. In the period that opens up, and especially with our growing success, witch-hunts and attacks on the organisation will become more frequent. As this intranet will make available all our internal material in electronic form, such sites would be a magnet for provocateurs and infiltrators, eager to get their hands on compromising internal material. It greatly increases the risk of expulsions, proscriptions and witch-hunts in a number of countries and also of state repression in others. This is completely unacceptable.
4.For these reasons, this IEC places a ban on intranet sites and calls on sections to keep all discussions and disagreements within our internal channels.
[Passed unanimously, Friday March 6]

5) Resolution on emails
1.This IEC recognises the damage done to the International by the indiscriminate circulation of emails, in a completely destructive manner. It is an attempt to undermine the democratically elected structures of the organisation.
2.The practice of sending unsolicited blind carbon copies of email correspondence for factional and destructive reasons has resulted in our security being breached and our internal affairs being leaked to non-members and enemies of the tendency.
3.This kind of behaviour creates disruption, forcing the elected bodies to drop important work in to respond to the a mass of misinformation. If this practise is allowed, it will have a damaging effect on our work and undermine the organisation.
4.This IEC views such behaviour as an assault upon the democracy of the organisation and condemns it. The International must take steps to defend itself. We consider such activity to be incompatible with membership of the IMT and call upon national leaderships to take whatever measures they consider necessary to put a stop to it.
[Passed unanimously, Friday March 6]

6) Resolution on Winter School
This IEC considers that the manner in which the 2010 Winter School was organised is unacceptable. The IEC resolves that in future the Winter School or any other events encompassing more than one section should be in the hands of the IS, the appropriate elected body to oversee such events.
[Passed with 1 abstention (alternate member), Friday March 6]

7) On Confidentiality
1) The IEC is the highest body of the IMT between World Congresses. Membership of the IEC implies rights, but also obligations. There is no question of IEC members or invited guests doing whatever they please, without reference to the rules of conduct agreed by the IEC as a whole.
2) The IEC guarantees to provide the membership of the IMT with full reports of the political discussions and organizational decisions.
3) However, the practice of systematically leaking information about internal discussions on the IEC is unacceptable.
4) Without the principle of confidentiality, it would be impossible to have a free and frank discussion on any question. The leaking of internal IEC business is a violation of the democratic rights of IEC members.
5) Correspondence between the IS and IEC members is of a confidential nature, unless otherwise stated. It is impermissible for any IEC member to circulate internal IEC correspondence to persons outside the IEC. Any member who breaks this rule will receive a warning, and if these actions are repeated, may be suspended from the IEC, subject to ratification by the next World Congress.
6) The use of Facebook, or any other public electronic media, for unauthorized and unofficial factional purposes, and the unauthorized publication of internal documents , audio recordings and other information, which in the hands of our opponents does serious damage to the work of the International is unacceptable.
7) The IEC has the duty to take whatever measures are necessary to preserve the democratic rights and security of the membership. Members of the leading bodies of the International, must be able to express their ideas and criticisms without fearing the communication of these outside the normal channels.
8) The IEC instructs the IS immediately to take whatever measures it deems necessary – up to and including expulsions – in order to protect the rights and the security of the membership of the International.
[Passed unanimously, Friday March 6]

[vyborg]

I think the general point made by JRG is correct. Without correct perspectives and principles you are doomed, but after securing them, there is the big topic of tactics: how to work concretely in the labour movement of any single country.

In this epoch this is not an easy task. The good aspect is that the official leadership didnt enjoy absolute command on the class anymore. for example, in the 70s attacking the leadership of the PCI in a factory meant a visit to te hospital or worse. The bad thing is that anything connected to marxism, socialism, communism etc. is considered more or less neanderthal stuff by the normal guy coming out from a school or a workplace (i'm exagerating but the point is clear i think).

So, strong principles and skillful tactics, that's what marxists need.

[Invigilator]

8) On Factions
The right to form a faction is a democratic right, which is recognized by the International. However, it is not the case that every group of comrades can simply declare themselves a faction without more ado. Factions are not a good thing, but are sometimes necessary, after all the normal channels of democratic discussion have been exhausted. They are not a first, but a last resort; they should not be resorted to in a light-minded manner and should reflect a clearly defined political line.
The "declaration" of a faction by some comrades in the last few weeks does not comply with the most elementary conditions for a faction.
In the first place, we have yet to see a coherent political platform for such a faction. The document "Forward to Democratic Centralism" does not constitute such a platform. What is being proposed, in effect, is a faction formed on the basis of forming a faction. This is not serious. Before forming a faction, the comrades should have exhausted all the normal channels for democratic discussion that were open to them: branches, central committees, national congresses, the internal bulletin, the IEC, and the World Congress. This was not done. At this moment in time, therefore, we consider a faction to be premature and out of order.
We call on the comrades to take a step back, to dissolve the faction, and participate in the common work of building the International and strengthening it politically through a comradely exchange of opinions. This must not be a confrontational and public discussion of differences on the Internet and Facebook, and the indiscriminate distribution of alarmist and misleading emails to members and non-members alike.
We draw the comrades' attention to the fact that we are at present in a pre-Congress period, where there will be every opportunity for every comrade to express their point of view on any subject. We invite the comrades to participate in the pre-Congress discussions and to go through all the normal democratic channels inside the organization. Such discussions will help to raise the collective political level of the whole International.
[Passed - Friday March 6]
Full members: unanimously in favour
Alternates: In favour: 4; Against: 1; Abstentions: 0

9) On the Walkout of JC, ML and WF
The IEC condemns the walk-out of JC and ML from Sweden and WF from Poland. This behaviour is unprecedented in the whole history of the International. The tactic of boycotts, walk-outs, threats, ultimatums and blackmail is completely unacceptable in our organization. We note that in the resolution on "Unity" which they submitted they talked about the dangers of a split and the "withdrawal of a minority" (which until then had not been raised by anyone). Within 48 hours, these comrades had staged just such a withdrawal. This clearly indicates that this was a premeditated act.
The IEC stresses that nobody forced these comrades to leave. They had every opportunity to speak and defend their ideas. In fact, a whole session on Wednesday was devoted to a discussion of JC's document "Forward to Democratic Centralism", where JC gave the introduction and the IS renounced its right of reply in order to allow more time for the discussion.
On Thursday, the IEC voted for the expulsion of HK for his actions, which amounted to deliberate sabotage of the work of the International. The vote was unanimous except for JC and ML, who abstained. This indicated an ambiguous attitude toward the destructive activity of HK, who is a member of the self-proclaimed "Bolshevik Faction" set up by JC, ML and others.
In recent months, internal IEC correspondence and documents have been systematically leaked and published on the internet. This has led to serious damage being inflicted on our work in a number of sections. The IEC was going to vote on a resolution on confidentiality which prohibits these unacceptable practices. Before the matter could be discussed and voted on, JC announced that he wished to make a "Short Statement". He stated that the International was "like the [Taaffeite] CWI and the Swedish Young Socialists". He concluded by saying that they were leaving the IEC, and "we will recommence the building of a revolutionary organisation".
He then walked out, followed by ML and WF. As he was leaving, he was asked to clarify whether he was leaving the International, but he said only, "I have answered enough questions". These words and actions can only be interpreted in one way: they have split from the International. The conduct of their faction in recent weeks confirms this. The publication of internal documents and audio recordings on the internet, the sending of factional emails to non-members and to the leaders of the split-off group in Spain, were clear acts of sabotage, calculated to do maximum damage. Comrades in Spain and Venezuela were given to understand by the Spanish split-off group that something serious was going to happen at the IEC. In addition to this, there is the scandalous attack of MR, who has circulated personal details of comrades, exposing them to reprisals by the Iranian state.
By their words and actions, it is clear that these three comrades have split from the organization. The International must take immediate action to defend itself against what is clearly an organized and systematic attack.
The IEC therefore instructs the IS to intervene in the Swedish and Polish sections to rally the forces that support the International.
[Passed with no votes against and one abstention (alternate member)]
Appendix: FULL TRANSCRIPT of JC statement
"Well, comrades, unfortunately this IEC has proceeded in a manner which is both expected and familiar. I recognize it both from the last period in CWI and the last period in the Swedish Young Socialists. And we will leave the IEC now, because there is no point in continuing to be here. We will go out into the sunshine. We'll have dinner tonight, we'll have a laugh tonight, tomorrow morning we'll get up and have a shower. And then based upon our firm convictions we will recommence the building of a revolutionary organization. Other people will leave the IEC with different attitudes. Some comrades will be pleased about what has happened this week. They will feel a sense of belonging and a sense of power and they will build nothing. I think the majority of comrades will be a bit disquieted. Maybe in one year, maybe in two years, maybe in five years, they will understand what has happened and I hope, at that point, they don't draw the conclusion to leave
revolutionary politics. Because that is the most common conclusion to draw at that point, but we must continue the struggle and we certainly will be."
[He was then asked whether he was splitting to which he replied:]
"I have answered enough questions. I will not answer any more questions."

10) On the Work of the Spanish Section
This IEC ratifies the decisions adopted by the provisional National Committee of the IMT in Spain, held on 6-7 February.
Particularly, we think the Spanish comrades must take advantage of the project to relaunch Izquierda Unida and decisively orient their forces to work in IU, as a Marxist current, linking the newspaper of the section to this orientation.
We mandate the IS to produce a more detailed resolution to serve as a basis for discussion in the debate that will take place in all branches, in the lead up to the June conference which must take definitive decision on the tactics we should adopt.
In the meantime, we call on the comrades in Spain to intervene in the movement and not limit themselves to an internal and introspective discussion.
[Passed unanimously]

11) On the M. Appeal
Having considered the appeal by the group of comrade M., this IEC concludes that these comrades were unjustly expelled from the former Spanish section of the International.
Irrespective of the political positions defined by comrade M., the methods used by the former Spanish leadership, including the hacking of emails, were unacceptable, and amounted to an attack to eliminate by bureaucratic means an opposition that they were unable to answer politically.
The IEC recognizes that the International made a very serious mistake in failing to investigate these matters with the necessary attention at the time, and in accepting as good coin the false arguments of the Spanish leaders to justify their actions.
We express our appreciation for the courageous and principled stand taken by the comrades in maintaining their commitment to revolutionary internationalism under difficult conditions. We accept the offer of the comrades to open the lines of communication and discuss our ideas, with the aim of arriving at a principled agreement. We understand that the comrades have expressed some doubts and differences concerning the positions taken by the International, and the prolonged period of separation may have deepened these differences. We hope that we will be able to overcome those differences through patient discussions, and, where possible, practical collaboration. The IEC therefore instructs the IS to open a discussion with the Municio group, and report to the next IEC meeting on its progress.
With comradely greetings,
The IEC
5 March 2010
[Passed unanimously]

12) Resolution on the Conduct of Comrade Maziar Razi (1)
This IEC condemns the action of comrade MR in boycotting this meeting. Comrade MR was elected to the IEC by the World Congress. If he has serious differences with the line of the International on Iran or any other question, he had the duty to attend the IEC and explain his ideas. For unacceptable reasons, he has refused to attend the IEC and instead sent a letter announcing he was boycotting the meeting. The International is a democratic organization where comrades with differences are given every opportunity to put their point of view. The IEC has guaranteed comrade MR's right to express his ideas freely, with the same time as the representative of the IS. For unacceptable reasons, he has refused to attend. We reject the undemocratic method of "debate by email". Neither do we accept the method of threats, ultimatums and blackmails that has characterised comrade MR's correspondence with the IS in the recent period. We totally reject the unfounded
allegations made by comrade MR against the IS, and in particular the assertion that he has been "censored". We point out that, while any comrade is free to express criticisms and differences within the normal channels of the International, the articles published on the public organs of the International must reflect the line of the International, decided democratically by the World Congress and its elected bodies - the IEC and the IS. Neither comrade MR nor anyone else has any right to demand that our public organs must publish opinions that contradict the line of the International. The actions of comrade MR, in publishing articles in alien websites, and giving interviews on the radio, attacking the positions of the International and the International itself constitute a blatant and unacceptable violation of revolutionary discipline.
[Passed unanimously]

13) On the Provocations of MR (2)
Following the deliberate and scandalous boycott of the IEC, MR has launched a vicious attack on the International which has been sent to an undisclosed list of recipients. The material he circulated includes personal attacks against two young Iranian comrades whose only "crime" is that they dared to disagree with the political line of MR. In making these personal attacks, MR saw fit to publish detailed information about them, from which their identities can be easily determined by the Iranian state forces. One of these comrades has previously been arrested, imprisoned and tortured in Iran.
By publishing information that compromises these two comrades, MR has made it impossible for them to return to Iran to build the International without putting their lives in danger, even to visit their relatives. MR is not an inexperienced person. He is well aware of the question of security. His group has even refused to give the most basic membership figures to the International, alleging it was a "security risk". He was therefore well aware of what he was doing when he circulated this information. It was an attempt to strike back at his critics by exposing their identity, thus opening them to identification by the Iranian authorities. This was the action, not of a Marxist revolutionary, but of a vulgar police informer. This is a crime against the International, against the working class, and against all the democratic and progressive forces in Iran. We therefore declare that MR is expelled with ignominy from the International with immediate effect. In
view of the fact that this criminal conduct was carried out with the active participation of both the internal and external ECs of the Iranian section, the IEC hereby disaffiliates the Iranian section of the International.
[Passed unanimously]

14) The IMT and the V International
In November 2009 Chavez made an appeal for the formation of a V International. He specifically explained that this international should be anti-imperialist but also anti-capitalist and socialist. He also put the appeal in the context of the previous Internationals (I, II, III and IV). Some of the representatives present at the Gathering of Left Parties in Caracas opposed this call with the argument that we already have the "Foro of Sao Paulo" and that such an international did not need to be openly anti-capitalist. Chavez said that the appeal is made to parties, organisations and currents.
The appeal has opened a mass debate in Venezuela and also a debate within many left wing parties and organisations throughout Latin America and beyond. In El Salvador for instance, while president Funes has opposed the V International and said he has nothing to do with socialism, the FMLN has officially come out in favour. In Mexico the idea has been taken up by sections of the PRD and other mass organisations. In Europe this will be surely discussed in the Communist Parties and ex-Communist Parties in Europe.
We as Marxists are in favour of the setting up of mass international organisation of the working class. The IV International created by Trotsky was destroyed after the 2nd World War, and in effect is only alive in the ideas, methods and programme defended by the IMT. As Marxists we carry out work in the mass organisations of the working class in all countries.
We do not know wether this appeal for a V International will actually lead to the formation of a genuine international or not. It is possible that it will remain on the level of an idea, or a meeting of bureaucrats from different parties on a regular basis.
However, it is clear that the fact that this appeal comes from Venezuela and president Chavez means that it will be an attractive proposition for many. This appeal will also raise many questions about the programme such an international should have and about the history of the previous internationals, their rise and fall.
This is a debate in which the IMT, which is already recognised widely for its role in building solidarity with and providing Marxist analysis about the Venezuelan Revolution, must take a clear position.
We need to take a bold initiative and declare our support for the setting up of a mass based revolutionary international, and make a clear proposal of what we think its programme and ideas should be.
This IEC agrees to:
issue a public statement of the IMT supporting the appeal for a V International, while at the same time stressing that this should be armed a clear socialist programme, and based on the struggle of the working class.
discuss in each country how we can participate in or launch initiatives to promote the V International and how we can best intervene politically in these
participate in the founding conference of the V International in Caracas in April and other meetings like that, where we will defend our programme and ideas
[Passed unanimously]

[Benjamin Hill]

Invigilator, is there a reason you posted the IEC document over three posts? It is a bit confusing.

(and to everyone: yes, I can confirm this three part is the full document)

[vyborg]

It is an absolut scandal that someone posted the document. But I guess is how this smart guys work.

[Invigilator]

Invigilator, is there a reason you posted the IEC document over three posts? It is a bit confusing.

I thought it might be too long for one post.


It is an absolut scandal that someone posted the document.

Why? It is already circulating outside the IMT.

[vyborg]

Why? It is already circulating outside the IMT.

That's a good reply...it means: I didnt was the first one to do this smart move...I'm only contributing in it...

[Invigilator]

That's a good reply...it means: I didnt was the first one to do this smart move...I'm only contributing in it...

It is already in the public domain.

[Benjamin Hill]

It is already in the public domain.
Correct, you can read about it on karlmarx.net (http://sites.google.com/a/karlmarx.net/open/topics/democratic-centralism-1/degenerationoftheimtleadershipattheiec).

Heiko commented already on resolution 4 (http://sites.google.com/a/karlmarx.net/open/analysis-and-criticism/theabsurdityoftheimtpostitiononintranetsandfaceboo k).

I'm awaiting what the Iranians have to say about resolutions 12 and 13.

[Rojo Rojito]

As the documents explain the IMT did the correct thing and followed proletarian democracy and democratic centralism and even bended over backwards to avoid the split by a some ego trippers in a few sections , more than what some have done or said in their histories.:thumbup1:

[Jolly Red Giant]

As the documents explain the IMT did the correct thing and followed proletarian democracy and democratic centralism and even bended over backwards to avoid the split by a some ego trippers in a few sections , more than what some have done or said in their histories.
The documents above give one side of the story (and I think some of the stuff about the internet is a bit off the wall) - I am sure the other side will emerge in due course.

The one thing that I find interesting is that the IMT condemn people for 'walking out', when that is exactly what they done themselves when they lost a vote - was 'proletarian democracy' not relevent then?

[A New Tradition]

People are jumping to conclusions. In this thread you have only seen the position of the IMT leadership and not the answers from the Iranian, Swedish and Polish comrades. When you do, you will see that the IMT position is wholly unjustified. And in the case of the Iranian section completely made up.
In the meantime, you can see from the IMT's statement and resolutions their approach to political life. Their language is full of authoritarian phrases: "provocations", "sabotage", "betrayal", "alien", "war", "lies", "disinformation", "concerted attack", "criminal act", "slanderous", "tirade of insults", "deliberately leaked", "acting like a police informer", "immediate expulsion", "noisy campaign", "false and distorted picture" and so on.
This language is from the worst traditions of the Trotskyist movement and reads more like an extract from the history of Gerry Healy's lunatic Workers Revolutionary Party or one of the extreme maoist cults.
Moreover, the practical decisions made by the IMT meeting make them look line King Canute trying to hold back the waves of online communications rather than embracing and using them to their advantage. It is clear that they will not be able to effectively implement these decisions. You just cannot isolate yourself from the online world. They will face these problems again and again as new members join and become active.
The IMT are trying to make themselves look democratic but this is just spin. This will become clear when the details emerge of their manouevers against the comrades who were raising differences. How else can you explain when long-standing leading comrades suddenly go from being active, loyal, talented and hard-working members to dissidents ready for expulsion?
When all the arguments have been made on both sides and the dust settles, IMT members will still have to ask themselves how their leadership could have lost so many of its sections in such a short time. Included in this are sections in two countries, Venezuela and Iran, that are in the forefront of international struggle. This is a disaster. The IS are trying to dress up this debacle by ridiculing these sections which they previously praised to the skies. Apparently the IMT leaders accept no blame for any of this. Instead their tactic is to go onto attack. Down this road lies disintegration. The question is: will the IMT rank and file come to their senses before it is too late and call their leaders to account?

[Kassad]

No, but IMT in sweden really are that small. And spanish split obviously really was that severe.

Oh and if this is the space to brag, when the split occured the IMT took with them about 50 comrades, and we were about 100, I believe, left in the CWI.
Today apparently they have 45 members, while we just broke the 400 mark. But I digress.

...You guys seriously only have 400 members internationally?

[Q]

...You guys seriously only have 400 members internationally?
No, he was talking about Sweden.

[Voloshinov]

The IMT is dead, long live the International!

Statement on the expulsion of Maziar Razi and disaffiliation of the IRMT by Alan Woods’s Clique

Today’s extraordinary conference of the Iranian Revolutionary Marxists’ Tendency (IRMT) was called immediately after the events at the March International Executive Committee (IEC) meeting of the International Marxist Tendency (IMT). Once the proceedings of the session on Iran were reported to our members it was clear that a conference would have to be convened for the specific purpose of disaffiliation from the IMT. This is because of Alan Woods’s Clique’s consistently opportunist position of pandering to President Hugo Chavez’s foreign policy towards the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) for the sake of appearances on Venezuelan TV and regular red carpet treatment at Miraflores Palace.

Yesterday’s two resolutions by the IEC of the IMT merely brought forward by a day the final episode of a political relationship that began with patient political discussions and joint solidarity activities in June 2001. This process reached its height on 2 August 2008, when the World Congress voted unanimously in favour of the affiliation of the Iranian Revolutionary Socialists’ League (IRSL) as the official Iranian section of the IMT. Then in September 2008 the IRSL, a group in exile, merged with the editorial board of Militant in Iran and the Workers’ Action Committee to form the IRMT.

The events following the apparently fraudulent ‘presidential election’ in June 2009, which occurred in the midst of the biggest economic slump of the world capitalist economy for over 60 years, brought this relationship under serious strain. What began as a difference of opinion on how to condemn Chavez’s plodding attempts at world diplomacy and solidarity with an ‘anti-imperialist’ regime, developed, in a little over eight months, into a serious rift because of Alan Woods’s Clique’s refusal to publish our material on Chavez’s support for the repression; the Clique’s refusal to circulate our material to other IEC members or the leadership of the IMT’s national sections; and the Clique’s unleashing of a range of organisational measures to silence our criticism and undermine the work of our group – the IMT’s official Iranian section, as recognised by the World Congress.
The Clique and Chavez’s policy towards the IRI
Criticism of Chavez by Iranian labour activists and Marxists is nothing new. Over six years ago, in November 2004, Iranian Workers’ Solidarity Network (IWSN) wrote a polite open letter to President Chavez highlighting Iranian workers’ lack of basic trade union and other rights. This was followed by an open letter by the IRSL in July 2006 contrasting the main policies of the Bolivarian government and the IRI and explaining the regime’s role in the crushing of the 1978-79 revolution. There have been numerous open letters and statements (usually on the occasion of state visits) on Chavez’s close relationship with the Iranian regime since then, including an IMT statement which we drafted but the IS, in its infinite wisdom, watered down before publication.

It is important to point out that this is not merely a hobby-horse of the Iranian left but that Iranian workers are also disgusted by Chavez’s very cosy relationship with the leaders of the Iranian bourgeois state. In July 2006 Chavez visited Iran Khodro, the biggest car and vehicle manufacturing plant in the Middle East. The workers had heard many positive things about Chavez and were excited to meet him in person. To begin with the workers were pleasantly surprised at the President of a country shaking hands with workers and even kissing them on the cheek. They were about read out a statement in his honour, welcoming this revolutionary leader to their factory. But before they could read it Chavez began praising Ahmadinejad, calling him his brother, calling the Iranian regime a revolutionary government and so on. The workers were totally disgusted by him. They tore up the statement and left the hall.

The refusal of Alan Woods’s Clique to condemn Hugo Chavez for his whole-hearted support of the IRI in its suppression of the post-‘election’ street protests, therefore, brought matters to a head. As the regime used increasingly brutal methods to smash the street protests, Mr Chavez became more determined in his support of the repression of what he thought were CIA-sponsored protests.

Alan Woods’s Clique also tried to pretend that our highly critical position did not exist. In particular, the so-called International Secretariat (IS) refused to publish Maziar Razi’s Open letter to the workers of Venezuela on Hugo Chavez’s support for Ahmadinejad and all subsequent material that disagreed with the totally wrong, indefensible and opportunist ‘analysis’ of the official IMT position. This made the IRMT’s work inside Iran almost impossible. This official position was decided by the IS, the hard core of Alan Woods’s bureaucratic clique, without consultation with anyone - including neither the IRMT, the Iranian section as recognised by the 2008 World Congress, nor the IEC! Even video footage of demonstrators denouncing Chavez in the ‘revolution’ that the Clique had predicted did not bring about a change in policy!

In addition to censorship of all our material that disagreed with the ‘official line’ from the websites and publications of the IMT, the IS refused to circulate this material to members of the IEC for around two months – even after repeated requests for its distribution. Some of the material was eventually distributed after more and more of the IEC members were persuaded, cajole or threatened to agree with the IS decision in preparation for an IEC meeting that was postponed by two months (apparently, because of refurbishment at the usual venue!). The result of these manoeuvres and machination by the ossified bureaucracy, which used the resources of the International for its factional fight with the IRMT and all other dissenters, were exactly as we predicted: a medieval inquisition, totally stage-managed by the IS so that the hissing mob (the so-called IEC) gets it request for punishment satisfied by the ‘benevolent nobility’ (the so-called IS)!

That is why the EC of the IRMT instructed our representative on the IEC, Maziar Razi, to boycott the March meeting of this ‘democratic structure’ that is supposed to be the ‘highest decision making body’ of the International between congresses - but is, effectively, an ‘orchestra of sheep’ masquerading as the leadership of a purportedly Marxist international.
The revolution began 11 years ago!
Bizarrely, Alan Woods’s Clique couples this opportunist line that turns a blind eye to Chavez’s legitimisation of the increased repression in Iran with its impressionistic and journalistic ‘analysis’ that the Iranian revolution has begun, that indeed its first shots were fired 11 years ago!

The Clique, if it had been made up of clever opportunists, ought to have changed its orientation after the street protests in June 2009 - events that it believes have signalled the beginning of the revolution! Our dullard opportunists, however, have slid so close to reformism that they cannot see the perspective of the ‘revolution’ - the very same ‘revolution’ that they had predicted 30 years ago - ever being victorious! It is therefore no wonder that they cannot give up today’s red carpet treatment at Miraflores for the red guard of Tehran’s shoras in a few years’ time! They have no perspective for their ‘revolution’ (the revolutionary situation to all real Marxists) being successful in overthrowing capitalism! One bird in the hand is worth two in the bush for all petty bourgeois right centrists.
It’s a two stage revolution!
“What are the immediate tasks of the Iranian revolution? It’s precisely democracy, the fight for revolutionary democratic demands, against the mullahs, for the freedom of speech, freedom of assembly.” […]
“An attack against Mousavi, in the sectarian style of these comrades, who don’t know how to speak to these demonstrators of these people in Iran.” (Alan Woods, IEC session on Iran, 3 March 2010).

It may be a truism to say that the revolution is the ultimate test of all bragger mouth revolutionaries. Yet there is no better way of expressing this. If we look at how our ‘revolutionary leadership’ has behaved since June 2009 then its true character becomes fully exposed.

Although there were many signs of Alan Woods’s total lack of knowledge about the basic facts of Iranian society today, the history of the past 30-35 years and the organisations of the Iranian left in his journalistic and impressionistic articles written since June 2009, the recent IEC meeting was when all these strands came together into a ‘coherent’ whole and laid bare his perspective for the ‘revolution’ that he predicted 30 years ago! For once Alan Woods took off his ‘revolutionary’ mask and made a number of clear statements about his concept of a two-stage revolution: a revolution that begins without the workers on the basis of slogans of “revolutionary democracy”.

Alan Woods and his Clique claim that today’s Iran is “mainly a peasant country but with a powerful proletariat in some centres” like Spain in 1930! They also maintain that the IRMT does not understand that Iran is basically a peasant country and that the Iranian revolution can begin without the workers. It is “an ABC question” that the students start the revolution, not the workers.

Yet our Titan theoretician’s greatest gift is that he does not need to sully himself with the concrete facts and chooses to remain ignorant and spout generalities that would fit many underdeveloped countries - but not, unfortunately for him, Iran! The ‘leader of leaders’ does not know that already in 1981-82 Iran’s population was over half (50.53%) urban and the urbanisation rate reached over two-thirds (67.87%) by 2005-06. So Iran has been mainly an urban country since the early 1980s and over two-thirds urban for about four years! The ‘information’ of Alan Woods’s Clique about Iran, therefore, is about 30 years out of date! The Clique may find it uncomfortable to know that the Iran of the 21st Century is more urban than Japan, Italy or Austria! If we look at this in terms of GDP composition, we see that agriculture makes up just 10.8% of economic output, as opposed to 44.3% for the industrial sector and 44.9% for services (2008 est.).

However anyone looks at it, today’s Iran is nothing like Spain in 1930! But it would be a big mistake to think of this as a mere case of the ignorance and arrogance of the Clique. This totally incorrect information is used to support the Clique’s ‘analysis’ of class forces in Iran and drawing up slogans and tactics for intervention in the ‘revolution’. The logical conclusion of their perspective is encapsulated in Alan Woods’s criticism of the IRMT for having a “sectarian style” toward Mousavi! If criticising blood-soaked bourgeois leaders like Mousavi (who was Prime Minister not only at the time of the slaughter of political prisoners in 1988, but also during most of the Iran-Iraq war, when the shoras, the left and all independent organisations of the workers, women, students and national minorities were smashed!) means that we are ‘sectarian’, then we are proud of that!

The only possible ‘justification’ for not being ‘sectarian’ towards Mousavi and the ‘reformists’ of the regime would be as part of preparations for “orienting towards” them. Instead of staunch criticism of Mousavi the Clique is heading for critical support!

Of course, if the Clique can be that ‘friendly’ with the butchers of the 1978-79 revolution then it is no surprise that it is also thinking of becoming close to “bona fide left organisations”! “We should also seek roads to any bona fide left organisations that have influence within the Iranian workers and youth. Our approach to these should be “friendly but firm”, and we should seek to work with them where possible.” (IEC resolution, On the situation in Iran, March 2010). The IS-IEC deludes itself about the prospects of finding such organisations in Iran and being accepted by them. The best it can achieve is to be given the run-around by one of many right centrist petty bourgeois outfits in exile.

Alan Woods’s two stage theory of revolution is definitely an outstanding theoretical contribution for a Marxist analysis of class forces in developing countries of the 21st century! It is a great achievement of his mendacity, hypocrisy, mediocrity and cowardice that Alan Woods does not say that he is now much closer to the Mensheviks than he has ever been to the Bolsheviks.
Organisational measures
In addition to this political regression we have seen what can only be described as a great organisational innovation that will surely make its author immortally infamous in the international working class movement.

While it has unleashed the whole full-time apparatus of the International on a small organisation that dared to differ with the self-appointed leader of Marxism, Alan Woods’s Clique has also taken a number of organisational measures against the IRMT, including trying to ‘parachute in members’ of Iranian origin from other national section of the IMT! How can someone be a member without paying subs or working under the discipline of our leadership?!

Then, when we foiled their ‘kind’ attempt to ‘recruit’ these two individuals for our group, they used the moniker of the IEC to pass two resolutions condemning Maziar Razi as “a vulgar police informer” for “exposing their [the two goons’] identity, thus opening them to identification by the Iranian authorities”, expelling him and disaffiliating our group. This is obviously the act of a clearly desperate bureaucracy that is boldly plumbing the depths of the sewers of capitalist society to come up with a filthy lie of this magnitude so as to buy itself some time and ‘authority’! (We will publish a set of documents about this affair in due course.)

Alan Woods’s Clique has also taken organisational measures against other sections and used the money and resources at its disposal to fight a factional battle against anyone who has political and theoretical differences with it. It has consistently employed a Stalinist interpretation of ‘democratic centralism’ to stifle internal debate and discussion. Its treatment of the China, world economy, democratic centralism and other debates clearly showed up its true nature and led to the formation of the International Bolshevik Faction, which the Clique has refused to recognise (as if the Tsar was supposed to recognise those who struggle against Tsarism!).

Yet Alan Woods’s Clique’s contradictions do not end there: while the Clique is keen to promote the idea that the Iranian ‘revolution’ has begun, it has not held a single picket in support of the street protests in Iran for the whole of the past eight months! The Clique is now trying to sabotage the activities of IWSN later this month under the pretext that the IRMT uses them to promote itself! This comes from a man who habitually ingratiates himself at receptions in Miraflores and uses his TV appearances in Venezuela in his vain and futile pursuit of becoming a great Marxist leader!

Alan Woods’s Clique has now completed a 180 degree turn: it is now looks back to the Menshevik concept of membership and the democratic revolution of 1903 as the way forward! This, at least, is logically consistent as you cannot have a Menshevik strategy without Menshevik membership criteria. We congratulate the Clique for resolving this contradiction between its strategy and its organisational concepts.
Theoretical and political bankruptcy
Alan Woods’s Clique’s hypocrisy and mendacity knows no limits. Absolutely anything can be used to ‘win’ in a discussion, including watering down the Marxist theory of the state to say that “the bourgeoisie has lost control of the state” in Venezuela; that the Israeli Labor Party, the party that built the Zionist state, had become a “classical social democratic” and that Marxists should enter it; falsifying history so that inconvenient facts like the soviets in Russia’s 1905 revolution disappear (!); and a whole host of theoretical triumphs. Half-truths and outright lies are routinely added to this poisonous mix so as to ‘raise the theoretical level’ of comrades.

Just as the 1978-79 revolution exposed the shortcomings of the United Secretariat of the Fourth International, and led to the Socialist Workers’ Party (HKS) disaffiliating from that organisation, the current economic crisis of world capitalism and the revolutionary situation in Iran have opened up many cracks within the IMT. Already the majority of two of its main sections, Spain and Venezuela, together with the minority in Mexico, have split away and formed a separate international tendency (Revolutionary Marxist Current). Alan Woods’s Clique’s betrayal of the international working class, and the most basic principles of revolutionary Marxism, however, has only just begun. There are bound to be more expulsions, disaffiliations and baseless accusations before all that is left in the organisation is Alan Woods’s fan club.

The non-debate about democratic centralism, where their pseudo-Stalinist interpretation of ‘democratic centralism’ was used to suppress and censor minority views; to not recognise the right of a minority to organise itself as a faction within the IMT; and to prevent any reflection of this difference not only in the wider labour movement but not even among the leadership and, especially, to the rank and file of all national sections, has become one of the unquestionable ‘traditions’ of the International. The 37 page reply that Alan Woods, the high priest of the bureaucracy, wrote to Forward to democratic centralism! is a document where a plethora of irrelevant quotes from Marx, Lenin and Trotsky are stitched together with his exceptionally delirious drivel. The comrade must have read somewhere that the first law of dialectics says that a quantitative change leads to a qualitative change. He has then drawn the wrong conclusion that if he were to pile more and more of this rubbish in his document then eventually this stuff would be transformed into a classic work of Marxism!

What now?
The IMT’s ranks contain many good and honest comrades who are not even aware of this crisis, let alone know about the recent split and various expulsions, because of the tight control that the ossified and politically bankrupt bureaucracy maintains on communication between sections and members. We appeal to all these comrades, for the sake of staying true to the principles for which they first joined the organisation, to look at the evidence of what has gone on in order to decide their own political future.

The International Bolshevik Faction intends to debate the rank-and-file of the IMT, by-passing the central bureaucracy and the minnows and petty bureaucrats who carry out its orders in the national sections. The IBF will continue its discussions on democratic centralism and other debates that are essential to building a revolutionary international.

For us, as Bolshevik-Leninists trying to build in Iran, the perspective is clear: the developing revolutionary situation will undoubtedly lead to a revolution (in the true Marxist sense) in Iran in the next few years. During that revolution the question of the seizure of state power by the proletariat will be posed. We base every aspect of our work on that perspective and do our best to prepare the workers to seize power and smash the bourgeois state when all the objective conditions have matured.

The expulsion of Maziar Razi and disaffiliation of the IRMT by Alan Woods’s Clique, therefore, are merely two steps in our long struggle against capitalism and its lackeys and agents within the workers’ and Marxist movements. It may appear as if we have lost the current battle. But, to us, being thrown out of a Bolshevik-Leninist international would have constituted a defeat and a great tragedy. Being disaffiliated by the IMT, however, frees us from being connected with Chavez’s support for rape and torture that has made our work inside Iran almost impossible. It will also unshackle us from the bureaucratic restrictions, censorship and suffocation of the Clique that has prevented us from condemning this foreign policy more effectively.

The might of the bureaucracy with all its full-timers, websites and other resources does not make Alan Woods’s Clique’s policies right. The petty bourgeois stall-holder cheating methods of the bureaucracy will not only be unhelpful in winning the best elements of workers and the youth, but will also demoralise many among the ranks and lead to the destruction of what was built over decades by the selfless dedication of hundreds of members. In the next period not only will the forces of revolutionary Marxism win the final battle against the bureaucrats, opportunists, sectarians, centrists and reformists but they will also overthrow capitalism.

For us the IMT is rapidly becoming a Menshevik international and therefore dead as a revolutionary organisation. So our struggle to build a Bolshevik-Leninist international continues outside the IMT!

Long live the Bolshevik-Leninist international!
Long live the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat!

Iranian Revolutionary Marxists’ Tendency
9 March 2010

found at karlmarx.net

[Benjamin Hill]

Thank you Voloshinov for sharing this. I think this is an excellent refutation of the slander and lies raised against the Iranian comrades. I do however think that the language in some parts is too hostile and won't do what it tries to do: aim at the IMT rank-and-file membership. For that too happen you be more at their "level" of understanding (which, due to misinformation and withholding information isn't that high) and appeal to them. But politically it is indeed superb.

[Rojo Rojito]

Interesting but not conclusive that this split means very much of anything in the long run and the loses are few.

On China all one has to do is look at Fordes list of Billioniares and see that China has 98 of them and tons of millioniares, oppresses its workers, breaks strikes and practices market capitalism under a one party-state capitalist system. And all one has to do is read Henry Kissinger op-ed last Jan. 20th, 2009 in most of the newspapers during Obama swearing in that he and Nixon helped China and made a deal with Mao on going capitalist and selling out the socialist world way back in the day when they went their.

On Venezuela from what I have read the IMT has written about the Venezuelan government support for the reactionary government in Iran and gave a historical analysis on how the US gave it support and has made many appeals to the government on how it is wrong to support Iran. The Venezuelan section, Brazilian, Bolivian section also have written about it and within Venezuela Alan Woods has brought it up along with the discussions inside the PSUV and trade unions their...So where is the cover-up?

Chavez is not a Marxist and Venezuela is still capitalist and on the very long path to socialism but most of the international policy is made in the corrupt and backward Foreign Ministry where the socialists can be counted on one hand.
:thumbup1:

[Benjamin Hill]

Rojo Rojito: Your posts so far have shown:
1. that you completely follow the IMT IS line every inch of the way. Your uncritical and unthinking defense borders the absurd.
2. that you're only interested in this debate and specifically joined Revleft for this.

Given also the specific call in the IEC document to "report" all discussions to the IS, so that "lies can be countered", your behaviour is suspicious for someone who claims to be a mere "supporter". I call you out on being an IMT leadership figure (or someone very close to its line) that specifically intervenes to "correct" the debate in the IS' favour. Pathetic.

Now that we've dealt with that, one question:

On China all one has to do is look at Fordes list of Billioniares and see that China has 98 of them and tons of millioniares, oppresses its workers, breaks strikes and practices market capitalism under a one party-state capitalist system. And all one has to do is read Henry Kissinger op-ed last Jan. 20th, 2009 in most of the newspapers during Obama swearing in that he and Nixon helped China and made a deal with Mao on going capitalist and selling out the socialist world way back in the day when they went their.
With those standards, would you also claim the USSR to have been capitalist? That would be a big turn in your international's historic analysis.

I won't go into this much, but it is obviously lacking any real analysis on what is going on in China. I'll just let Heiko Khoo speak on the matter (Speaker's Corner last Sunday):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbRC-2oRH-A

[MarkP]

Interesting but not conclusive that this split means very much of anything in the long run and the loses are few.

In the greater scheme of things this current struggle/split doesn't involve a huge number of people. The international faction is certainly under 100 people, counting the Swedes, Iranians, Poles, British minority and scattered other supporters. But 80 or 100 people isn't entirely insignificant in an organisation the size of the IMT - very few IMT sections have that many activists!

The reasons why it is meaningful are as follows:

1) It follows hard on the heels of two previous splits. The first of these took half of the section in Pakistan, which means more than a quarter of the entire IMT membership. The second of them took Spain, the second largest section, Venezuela, Colombia and much of the Mexican section. 80 or 100 out of 4,000 matters less than 80 or 100 out 2,000 or 2,500.

2) This also means that there is sense of ongoing crisis and demoralisation surrounding the IMT. Yet another split only deepens that sense.

3) Unlike the Spaniards, the international faction seem determined to try to bring their arguments to every rank and file member of every IMT section. They may or may not get an echo (or more precisely, they will certainly get support from individual members around the world, but may or may not get support from more organised chunks of the IMT), but either way they will have an impact. The ludicrous new rules about web communication are an example of that - the IMT damages itself by reacting against the factions arguments.

[MELT]

Ex-comrade Maziar Razi is directing his statements towards the sectarian left, because he knows that no IMT member will believe all these lies. Honestly, your hatred towards the IMT has blinded you to believe all the accusations thrown towards this organization, without even trying to get the full picture.

This "comrade" cries about the IMT being un-democratic. But the reality is that he boycotted the IEC where he was given the opportunity to defend his views and acted like a hysterical child. This hysteria led him towards regretable actions, such of playing the role of a police informant. Even if he thought that the elected representatives are "bureaucrats", he could at least passed his views through the Internal Bulletin and waited till the world congress, where there are delegates from each section.

I am really disgusted with this board. The thirst for gossip and ways to attack your enemies on the left, is greater than basic working class solidarity. You'd defend anyone that goes against the IMT, even if the actions of that person can result to the imprisonment or death of working class activists. You are truly pathetic.

So this is why this is my last post in this forum. Can an administrator please delete my account?

Thank you.

[Benjamin Hill]

Honestly, your hatred towards the IMT has blinded you to believe all the accusations thrown towards this organization, without even trying to get the full picture.
Odd, from the documents the IS is clearly drawing an incomplete picture, which the Iranian comrades have corrected on several points.


This hysteria led him towards regretable actions, such of playing the role of a police informant.
Another strange point, because:
1. The two said comrades are well known, have posted under their own names on marxist.com, etc. There was nothing revealed, you're talking bullshit.
2. The IEC document speaks of the Iranian section being a "small group". By this statement, you have directly aided the Iranian state forces in that they now know hat kind of resources they can allocate to this organisation. Thus, the IMT IEC was acting as a police informant! See, I can pull that line of argumentation too and on my account it actually has some more value because it generally wasn't known what kind of size the Iranian section was.


I am really disgusted with this board. The thirst for gossip and ways to attack your enemies on the left, is greater than basic working class solidarity. You'd defend anyone that goes against the IMT, even if the actions of that person can result to the imprisonment or death of working class activists. You are truly pathetic.
What gossip? All posted documents are facts. And if they are falsifications, the IS will no doubt grab any opportunity to point this out. The reason why so many people here are acting with hostility towards the IMT leadership (and their obedient pawns) is because the IMT's answer to their rebellion by the membership against the organisations' stifling centralism is... More centralism!

Besides, it is the IEC document which talks about "enemies" on the left. Your words, not ours.

Thirdly, you talk about the possibility of imprisonment and death of working class activists. Again, these activists and their politics are already well known. So, what could increase their chances on such a treatment? I'm still wondering.


So this is why this is my last post in this forum. Can an administrator please delete my account?

Thank you.
Why not stay and debate out the differences and defend your positions? Are you perhaps afraid you can't defend them before tens of thousands readers?

[A New Tradition]

More experienced left activists will see through the arguments used by the IMT's leadership against its Iranian section. The story about exposing two Iranians living abroad is just not logical. Once someone in exile starts to carry out solidarity work whether by writing an article, making comments on the web, picketing an embassy etc. they will inevitably come to the attention of the security forces of a country like Iran. As I understand it, these comrades had been quite open in their political work and were active on the IMT's public websites. Thus all this talk of the IMT's Iranian Section acting like a police informer is a complete smokescreen. And all these accusations about putting these comrades lives in danger is just plain ridiculous.

But why would the IMT's Iranian Section even refer to these two people who I understand were not members of their political group but just IMT members in the countries they live in? From what I have heard, the IMT leadership in preparing to pushing out the independent-minded Iranian section were trying to gather together any Iranians they could find so that they could claim that there was a split in the Iranian Section or at least that it was only a partial loss of comrades. This was exactly the same tactic applied in Spain. For months, the IMT leadership secretly conspired with a small group of Spanish comrades against the democratically elected leadership of the Spanish Section. Discovery of this was one of the main factors that accelerated the split with Spain and convinced them to leave the IMT. When the other Latin American comrades heard of this it opened their eyes to the undemocratic nature of the IMT leadership.

So you can see that the IMT leaders have been carrying out all kinds of manouvers behind the scenes. They are doing this because they are not willing to tolerate an international composed of equals. Their model of an international is based on the myth of the world party inherited from the Communist International. In such an organisation, the international centre has the right to intervene in any national section, suspend or expel people. The IMT make a big song and dance about not having expelled people in the last twenty years. The reason for this is that by treating comrades who question their rule or raise political differences as enemies, they have usually been able to make these comrades life so difficult that they leave of their own accord. Often this happens in such a way that comrades in the rest of the international only get to hear that so and so has dropped out. When people ask why, they are usually told that the comrade was tired, demoralised or some other bullshit excuse.

The significance of the current crisis in the IMT is that it is the first split to happen in the full glare of online communications. As we shall soon see, the IMT leaders will not be able to get away with the usual diet of false accusations. For the first time the victims of their actions will have the right of reply. Thus the democratic mask that the IMT leaders wear will be torn away to reveal the intolerant and authoritarian characters that they really are.

[Benjamin Hill]

The IMT make a big song and dance about not having expelled people in the last twenty years. The reason for this is that by treating comrades who question their rule or raise political differences as enemies, they have usually been able to make these comrades life so difficult that they leave of their own accord. Often this happens in such a way that comrades in the rest of the international only get to hear that so and so has dropped out. When people ask why, they are usually told that the comrade was tired, demoralised or some other bullshit excuse.

Here you make a very good point actually. Over the years in my experiences with bureaucrats of all sorts I find that they usually want to avoid any official expulsion at all costs, this of course for reasons that if they do expel you, you (and they!) are in full spotlight of every member. They don't like this, so they usually resort to a three-stage approach which is pretty universal:
1. They start to ignore you, you're no longer getting invites for meetings or activities. When you ask about what is going on they'll usually come up with all kinds of lame excuses like "oh, I forgot to add your email address" or "I guess there is some technical issue somewhere".
2. When you persist, you're being what I would call "actively engaged", from starting to spread gossip about you to bullying you (when they feel confident, but this is not very often) and everything in between. At this stage they also start to undermine your work, engage in small and larger provocations.
3. When you still persist at this point, they will find something on you that will "confirm" their gossip and use it as a reason to expel you. When they can, they'll use a level of the organisation in which you don't have a lot of influence. For example: When you're popular in your branch, they'll usually expel you via national party leadership.

The IMT leadership is certainly not unique here. "Stages" 1 and 2 have the big advantage for the bureaucrats that there isn't much direct proof. You can "prove" gossip for example. That is indeed why they can claim a record of not expelling anyone for 20 years. Heiko is just an annoying exception for them. After the expulsion is done, they count on the fact that they can effectively block someone from making an appeal (which is often a standard regulation in the labour movement), as other members won't care or buy the gossip of the leadership.

That this is now changing because of the internet of course makes the job of a bureaucrat that much harder :)

[germanicus]

Just broken up with the IMT and I'm surprised at the rapid implosion of their ranks, although it was somewhat predictable when in recent years, especially since the death of Ted, the organization had become an organization aiming to promote international figure Alan Woods. One reason for this split is of Woods megalomaniacal behavior that permit people to take the opposite and of course anyone can not support him in the shade, if so, prepare everything you need to kill their opponents. Also noteworthy is also someone who is defined as Marxist, which theoretically known historical materialism, turn to first explain the split with the CWI and then Spanish, Mexican, Venezuelan, etc.., Only on the personality of individuals who are at forefront of those organizations. That is not Marxism. The split is politically motivated and these are opportunistic drift of the IMT, not only reflected in its increasingly uncritical position with Chavez, but also the opportunistic position on the workers' parties can be seen in Italy, where Falce Martello has opportunistically adapted to the direction of RC and now in Venezuela, where followers of Woods opportunist position on applying the PSUV. Another example is his position to the Fifth International, only pretend to have a forum to present to Woods as a international figure and promote.
Moreover, in recent years is also visible the theoretical poverty of the IMT, how many articles have been published on the world economic crisis? How many articles have been published on major political events of these last two years? And to top it, for months used their website for In Defense of Marxism factional battles with endless articles of international disputes, which are for domestic consumption. They have also shown a significant ideological inconsistency, for example, Woods held a few years ago a bitter dispute with the Argentine PO by the issue of constituent assembly, and now its Brazilian section defends the constitutional assembly in Brazil. Their slogans are increasingly reformist.
And really shocking is the resolution against Maziar Razi, accuse him of having revealed the names of two young Iranians and that it can not return to Iran that its security is at risk .... but these two young Iranians have signed many articles with your name on In Defense of Marxism, so if someone has risked their safety first is the leadership of the IMT, "if their security was so important because they signed under false names ? It's just an excuse, but who it has endangered the safety of Razi is the IMT to charge him with "police informant" that's just gross Stalinism has nothing to do with revolutionary politics honestly.

[Crux]

For those leaving or about to leave the IMT I would like to restate this:

The only reason why the IMT has managed to maintain any kind of presence is because of the work of their members in Pakistan - in which Khalid Bhatti, now in the ranks of the CWI, played a decisive role in the earlier period - and in Spain, which was a product of the combined work of the CWI in the past. They have lost these bases and further splits and divisions are inevitable given the ossified character of this ‘International’. Unfortunately many, including good young people, can be put off by a split - which, moreover is conducted in ‘secret’ - without any real political explanation of the motives on either side. It is to be hoped that the best members of the IMT - who still remain in their ranks - as well as those who have separated themselves will re-examine their current and past policies, and open up a dialogue as a means of building the combined forces of Trotskyism on a world scale.
Yours comradely,
International Secretariat,
Committee for a Workers’ International


http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4137

[germanicus]

The IMT has maintained its presence over the years thanks to the successes in Pakistan and partly to the success of Spain and Latin America, especially Venezuela. But success in Spain is due to for more than thirty years have built a solid organization that has managed to intervene in the labor movement and youth, thanks to the Students Union as well as develop the Foundation Frederick Engels, today turned into a major publishing Marxists in Spanish language, in fact, Woods's international success comes from the publication of books in Spanish and distributed to Latin America. Today, the IMT has been tremendously weakened, it is unknown how many are in Pakistan, the reality is that your website The Struggle takes months without work, has lost most of Spain, were left with just 50 people, mostly inactive before in the organization and with two former executives who had to leave the IMT for stealing money. Besides losing a major source of income, because the Spanish section supplied almost 40% of the international budget.
The reality is that all this started when Woods thought he could escape without Spanish address problems that had become an impediment to their bureaucratic maneuvering, launched an offensive mind would get a majority in Spain simply because is Alan Woods, common in thought of a megalomaniac, but he found a strong organization with an leadership with much authority. The play went wrong and near the bottom is out internationally, that have much to say.
Today they have only 50 active in Britain, 1 in Ireland, 12 or 15 in Switzerland, about 60-80 in Austria, about 20 in Greece, say over 300 in Italy, but to be seen as the Italian organization is characterized by organizational anarchy, some 70 in France, because it expelled a group in Toulouse last year, now 47 in Spain. As Pakistan is not known how many are, but not more than 1,000, in Mexico with a group of 35 that are paying subs, and about 25 in Venezuela after about 40 in the U.S., since they lost two years ago groups in Portland and San Francisco, then have about 30 in Canada and the Brazilian group, which has become the dominant group now in the IMT, with Serge Goulart and Alan Woods disputing the leadership, will be an interesting duel,. The have 22 in Argentina, about 20 in Bolivia and 4 or 5 in Peru, and about 20 in El Salvador, in the last congress the El Salvador section of IMT were 11 persons. They have nothing else, the rest are supporters or isolated groups of 4 or 5 people that have website but that does not mean they are a section, even seeking the IMT, ie sell only smoke.
They have lost more than 700 who left with Manzoor in Pakistan, over 450 in Spain, over 60 in Mexico and more than 60 in Venezuela. Now they've lost Sweden, Poland and other Eastern countries.

[Rojo Rojito]

Well I am not in the IMT but have followed all tendencies and grouplets for a long time and why would they plant someone on this list it is absurd, seems like they have more important things going on than most on this list.

I do happen to think there analysis on many subjects are correct and they are far from dead and in fact they will recover from these little disagreements by the ego trippers.


Its sad this thread has not been more informative and is full of gossip mongers and the sour grapes crowd. A lynch mob waiting to happen.


"So the result was that the mountain shook, but only a mouse was born," citing a Russian proverb.And a very small mouse who is a coward with no base and after their fun and games they will fade away into the dustbin of history kind of like the CWI and the other clap traps on this list and the IMT will go on...

Rojo Rojito
:thumbup1:

[Benjamin Hill]

Today they have only 50 active in Britain, 1 in Ireland, 12 or 15 in Switzerland, about 60-80 in Austria, about 20 in Greece, say over 300 in Italy, but to be seen as the Italian organization is characterized by organizational anarchy, some 70 in France, because it expelled a group in Toulouse last year, now 47 in Spain. As Pakistan is not known how many are, but not more than 1,000, in Mexico with a group of 35 that are paying subs, and about 25 in Venezuela after about 40 in the U.S., since they lost two years ago groups in Portland and San Francisco, then have about 30 in Canada and the Brazilian group, which has become the dominant group now in the IMT, with Serge Goulart and Alan Woods disputing the leadership, will be an interesting duel,. The have 22 in Argentina, about 20 in Bolivia and 4 or 5 in Peru, and about 20 in El Salvador, in the last congress the El Salvador section of IMT were 11 persons. They have nothing else, the rest are supporters or isolated groups of 4 or 5 people that have website but that does not mean they are a section, even seeking the IMT, ie sell only smoke.
They have lost more than 700 who left with Manzoor in Pakistan, over 450 in Spain, over 60 in Mexico and more than 60 in Venezuela. Now they've lost Sweden, Poland and other Eastern countries.
Do you have any source for this perhaps? If true the IMT would have had around 3500 before the split (depending on how big the Spanish section was), but dwindled down to around 1750, with an absolute majority in Pakistan. My earlier sources told me that before the split they had around 4500 and, flowing from that, they would now be around 2500. But this is of course even worse. Even the CWI, according to my sources, has around 5500 to 6000 members.

[vyborg]

What a flow of comical comments...luckily so far from truth....

half of Pakistani section went away with Manzoor, in Italy we "adapted" to the bureaucracy of Rifondazione, Alan Woods is very sick of egocentrism, the rank of file of the IMT does not know what is going on etc etc.

While you guys go on building all this intricacy of laughable stories, I suggest the more down to earth among you to go and read the last article of the El Militante(Spain) about IU. This is the best article about IU they ever wrote. It is realy bad that they decided to go but for sure the discussion helped them a lot, they are improving..at least judging from the first result.

As for us, I can assure our fan club in here, we are very un-demoralized. quite the contrary. As for the "bolshevik" fraction, whatever they mean with that name, I hope they start to do something in the real world (with or without us), maybe facing planet earth they will go back to more helpful stances.

[vyborg]

say over 300 in Italy, but to be seen as the Italian organization is characterized by organizational anarchy,

I didnt note this one...maybe the most fantastic of all...it is evident from this comment that this comrade wrote the post after the tenth heavy drink or is simply completely unaware of what is talking about (maybe both).

But as we are generous and coming in Italy now is cheap thanx to low cost air companies, please comrade come here and you will check out for yourself how planet earth is doing this days.

[Crux]

"So the result was that the mountain shook, but only a mouse was born," citing a Russian proverb.And a very small mouse who is a coward with no base and after their fun and games they will fade away into the dustbin of history kind of like the CWI and the other clap traps on this list and the IMT will go on...

Rojo Rojito
:thumbup1:
:laugh: For someone not being in the IMT you sure seem to have an absurd concept about the CWI, usually only assosciated with IMT members. I am not claiming we are seeing the end of the IMT, although we might, but fundamentally you have an incorrect political orientation, we do not. Quite opposite to the IMT there is nothing that would say we're "fading into the dustbin history". I took the example of sweden before, of course you might claim that it has to do with the quality of the comrades, or that we would be rush recruiting people: but the fact is the IMT are 47, with 12 active, we are 488. This is a result of orientation.

[cmdrdeathguts]

Never have I read the ramblings of clone-trolls with such a feeling of pathos.

[nideaquinidealli]

I suggest the more down to earth among you to go and read the last article of the El Militante(Spain) about IU. This is the best article about IU they ever wrote. It is realy bad that they decided to go but for sure the discussion helped them a lot, they are improving..at least judging from the first result.

Thnaks for your suggestion. I've read carefully this article, but I cannot find anything new about El Militante position towards IU (United Left, a coalition of CP and other small groups).

Comparing this article with this other w w w .elmilitante.net/content/view/4583/65/, written in 2008 by one of the several IU branches that support El Militante program, I cannot find any difference.

By the way, the IU "refoundation" process is derailing in many regions, where a right turn is on the way.

[Antid Oto]

No, in fact I also think that Barbara Areal's article on the IU refundation is better than others that were published before. About the IU refundation (I'm a PCE/IU militant and I was long before joining the IMT) I don't know if it's going to be a serious thing or not, but anyway it's difficult to go more to the right than what Llamazares did...the thing is that EM never did any thing close to a serious job in IU, but maybe they will start now, when they do not belong to the IMT anymore, being that lack of serious work one of the things that was criticised by the IMT leadership...

[vyborg]

Well, sometimes in the labour movement history, a split comples you to re-assess what you are and what you stand for. So, even if painfully, the process could help all of us.

[Voloshinov]

Well, sometimes in the labour movement history, a split comples you to re-assess what you are and what you stand for. So, even if painfully, the process could help all of us.

Clearly not much was learned from the split two decades ago. A split either points to an unsurmountable political difference or the inability of the organization to solve political differences tout court.

[vyborg]

I think the splits do have something in common, but also a lot of differences.

I also think that, after all, a common tradition still can be seen in the CWI and IMT in terms of what they do towards workers' organization, at least in many countries.

Anyway, at the time, a clear political difference was at stake, as it was the case now. Does it mean the split was inevitable? Nobody can tell.

[nideaquinidealli]

A clear sign of the IMT's sectarian turn:

"Lotta come in Grecia (3 scioperi generali contro il governo socialista), vota come in Francia (Pcf e sinistra anticapitalista al 10%)." (Alessandro Giardiello, leader of the Italian section of the IMT).

¿Are Greek workers fighting only, or even mainly, the socialist government? ¿Does their fight have nothing to do with capitalism?

The Socialist Party have won French election ¿no relevance at all for French working class?
¿Are stalinists and mandelites the only left in France? ¿Is the French Socialist Party a bourgeois party?

Opportunism and sectarianism, twin brothers

[MarkP]

Google translate (all usual disclaimer apply) renders Giardiello's sentence as "Fight as in Greece (3 general strikes against the Socialist government), voting as in France (PCF and anti-capitalist left 10%)."

I'm not sure why this is supposed to be a sectarian turn. Was it a statement about Italy or about somewhere else?

[The Grey Blur]

I have come across to IMT perspectives recently from being a former CWI activist. I'm disappointed in the split but moreso amused by all the left-wing rubber necking.

[nideaquinidealli]

Google translate (all usual disclaimer apply) renders Giardiello's sentence as "Fight as in Greece (3 general strikes against the Socialist government), voting as in France (PCF and anti-capitalist left 10%)."

I'm not sure why this is supposed to be a sectarian turn. Was it a statement about Italy or about somewhere else?

The IMT's new strategy in South Europe is becoming the "official" left wing in the Communist Parties. They are trying to gain this position through unprincipled agreements with the CP bureaucracies, instead of patiently building a marxist tendency between CP rank and file.

In order of demonstrate their new "communist" flavour, they treated Socialist parties as bourgeois parties, just as sectarians do.

This was the ultimate reason for the split in Spain. The Sindicato de Estudiantes, the youth branch of the Spanish section, able to mobilize thousands of students, was an obstacle in the way of reaching agreements with IU leader Cayo Lara, who is promoting his own students group, the Red de Estudiantes en Movimiento.

Something similar happened in Venezuela. Alan Woods and the IMT avoided to give full support to the workers and Union leaders sacked from Mitsubishi factory in Venezuela. Why? Because the sackings were approved by the Labour Ministry, Maria Cristina Iglesias, suposedly a PSUV left winger...

Probably, the new IMT strategy will obtain short term successes, but in the long term it will be a mess. They will be diluted among the bureaucracy, wasting definitely Ted Grant's legacy.

[Crux]

In order of demonstrate their new "communist" flavour, they treated Socialist parties as bourgeois parties, just as sectarians do.
I'd imagine the socdem parties in france and spain are just as emptied as their counterparts in northern europe. However this shift of perspective, especially their reaons for the shift, ought to give th IMT some trouble.

[vyborg]

Useless Bla Bla as always. This doesnt help to discuss. Anyway SP and CP are both workers' party. This is a truism. You work were mnore opportunities are. Another truism. As for the unprincipled agreement with the stalinist bureaucracy, this exists only in some silly minds and It is pointless to argue against this silly people.
Our material speaks for itself

[Crux]

By what definition should the social democratic parties still be regarded as worker's parties? Being in control of a union bureaucracy clearly isn't enough.

[vyborg]

No it is not enough but neither is irrelevant. Anyway here the question is different. SOme smart guy pretends to state that IMT made an agreement with stalinist bureaocracy. This is a slander and nothing has been given to back up this silly idea.

[Benjamin Hill]

By what definition should the social democratic parties still be regarded as worker's parties? Being in control of a union bureaucracy clearly isn't enough.


No it is not enough but neither is irrelevant.
Please elaborate. How are bureaucratic ties relevant?

[MarkP]

The IMT's new strategy in South Europe is becoming the "official" left wing in the Communist Parties. They are trying to gain this position through unprincipled agreements with the CP bureaucracies, instead of patiently building a marxist tendency between CP rank and file.

In order of demonstrate their new "communist" flavour, they treated Socialist parties as bourgeois parties, just as sectarians do.


Far be it from me to defend the IMT, but precisely what "Socialist" party do you think that the IMT leader in Italy should be looking towards? Surely even the IMT couldn't find a "traditional" party to enter in Italy other than the rump of the PRC, no matter how long and how hard you have them look?

As for the broader issue of where to orient in a country with more than one mass workers party, surely that's a tactical matter? Even if you assume that, say the PSOE and the IU are mass parties there would be nothing at all wrong with a small force orienting all of its forces towards the area where they can best have an impact at a given time?

Now, of course, I tend instinctively to favour an orientation to the IU over the PSOE because I don't think that the PSOE is a workers party in any meaningful sense at this point, but even accepting your line on the issue for the sake of argument, there's nothing sectarian in principle about deciding at a particular point to orient to one party or the other.

Now, trying to build through an unprincipled arrangement with sections of the bureaucracy of a larger party is another matter. What do you base your assertion that this is the IMT's strategy in Europe on?

[vyborg]

Well, if we set aside the petty bla bla, we can concentrate on a very decisive question we are all interested in. what makes an organization a workers' party?
Its programme? Its social composition? Its ties with the class especially by means of the unions? Its political subjective perception by the society? the way it was built and it is managed? All of the above?

I also add a last element: the existence of other organizations that can substitute it

[Benjamin Hill]

Well, if we set aside the petty bla bla, we can concentrate on a very decisive question we are all interested in. what makes an organization a workers' party?
Its programme? Its social composition? Its ties with the class especially by means of the unions? Its political subjective perception by the society? the way it was built and it is managed? All of the above?

I also add a last element: the existence of other organizations that can substitute it
Many questions, lacking answers. Do you even know yourself?

[Rojo Rojito]

I find it ironic that at the same time the attack dogs on this site go after the IMT, the opposition esqualidos in Venezuela does also. Do not see them attacking the holier than thou CWI or any other tendencies

As if either know whats going on, the IMT must be doing something correct if y'all are wasting so much time on something as trivial as some egos splitting from them...Splits in organizations have happen from the when time began.

Keep up the no organizing and the nonsense.
:thumbup1:

[Benjamin Hill]

I find it ironic that at the same time the attack dogs on this site go after the IMT, the opposition esqualidos in Venezuela does also. Do not see them attacking the holier than thou CWI or any other tendencies

As if either know whats going on, the IMT must be doing something correct if y'all are wasting so much time on something as trivial as some egos splitting from them...Splits in organizations have happen from the when time began.

Keep up the no organizing and the nonsense.
:thumbup1:

Please, the only reason why the IMT gets the 15 minutes of fame is because it is in the middle of a meltdown. The CWI deserves much of the same critique, being an organisational carbon copy of the IMT after all. And for the CWI members this is indeed the elephant in the room here and a reason why they insist on some non-relevant points such as who did what 20 years ago and the position of Erik de Bruyn.

[vyborg]

Many questions, lacking answers. Do you even know yourself?

Yes I do.

But in order to start a debate it is not very wise to give questions and answers at the same time. At least among us common people. Maybe you out there on the surface of Planet Mars debate differently. This is not much relevant anyway.

So, let's go back on the core of the issue

[Benjamin Hill]

Yes I do.

But in order to start a debate it is not very wise to give questions and answers at the same time. At least among us common people. Maybe you out there on the surface of Planet Mars debate differently. This is not much relevant anyway.

So, let's go back on the core of the issue
The questions were already being asked, by myself included. You have merely restated them. You have yet to give answers. How is having bureaucratic ties making a socialdemocratic party a "workers party"?

[vyborg]

If the problem is bureacracy, the last workers party on earth died in 1924. someone has this position. I consider it frankly useless. maybe we can find one more fruitfull in real life

[Voloshinov]

By what definition should the social democratic parties still be regarded as worker's parties? Being in control of a union bureaucracy clearly isn't enough.

When taking a snapshot of the social composition and political program of almost all social democratic parties it becomes clear that they, empirically are neither parties for workers, nor of workers. Yet, as Marxists, we should not substitute a temporal phase for the whole historical process. Analyzing the "nature" of a phenomenon means perceiving it in its totality, back and forth. Why should the nineties, the neoliberal onslaught, and the fall of communism represent a "qualitative" jump in the degeneration of the socialist mass parties? They are already degenerating since the last 100 years.

There is, however, the recurrent phenomenon of workers having illusions in these degenerated structures in (pre-)revolutionary circumstances. They move through these parties, trying to reorient them towards revolutionary change. Of course, classical socialist parties are not instruments for social change any more, they have since long become formidable obstacles for socialism. The crucial element is that the main bulk of the workers do not understand this before they really experience it. The working class has to move through the experience of bureaucracy and reformism before it will grasp in practice what we understand theoretically. From this point of view, every Marxist should have an "orientation" towards the classic mass parties of the working class, even if they are completely degenerated, not because of what they are now, but because of what they can become under the right circumstances.

That's all nice and well, but this orientation does not tell us anything about tactics and the building of Marxist cadre organization. Entryism is but a tactic to gain influence in the workers' movement and/or build your own organization. It should never be confused with the orientation towards the mass organizations. Marxists who enter an "empty" party and spend all their time and energy to fight the party bureaucracy without an audience of activists are stupid. Marxists who enter a party in crisis, like the PRC, are, however, potentially smart, because they can cannibalize its membership for their own party building process. Marxists who enter a bureaucratic party with a mass base, such as the PSUV, are doing that which is necessary, and therefore correct.

[Jolly Red Giant]

The CWI deserves much of the same critique, being an organisational carbon copy of the IMT after all.
This is nonsense - I suspect the CWI would have similar organisational structures (as would most groups on the far left) - but, from the evidence already published, it would have very different operational methods.


And for the CWI members this is indeed the elephant in the room here and a reason why they insist on some non-relevant points such as who did what 20 years ago and the position of Erik de Bruyn.
The meltdown in the IMT is directly as a result of mistaken orientation to the working class - mistakes that originate in the walkout of the IMT from the CWI in 1991. Any critique of the reasons for the difficulties in the IMT have to take into account the political and tactical errors of the IMT leadership and the attempts of the IMT to accomodate themselves to ths SD's bureaucracy in order to continue a mistaken orientation. To suggest that these points are 'non-revelent' is to demonstrate a complete lack of political understanding of how a revolutionary organisation should operate.

[vyborg]

I agree with V. The point I always insist on is: entrism is not and cannot be a substitute for party building. If you fail to build the revolutionary organization, even if you grow strong inside an SP or a CP, your efforts will fade away.

[Crux]

I find it ironic that at the same time the attack dogs on this site go after the IMT, the opposition esqualidos in Venezuela does also. Do not see them attacking the holier than thou CWI or any other tendencies

As if either know whats going on, the IMT must be doing something correct if y'all are wasting so much time on something as trivial as some egos splitting from them...Splits in organizations have happen from the when time began.

Keep up the no organizing and the nonsense.
:thumbup1:
You are pretty pathetic.
If you knew anything you would know that our members in venezuela have been under continuous attack from the bureaucracy, to the point of being undemocratically excluded from the PSUV.

The loss of the spanish section, colombian section and large part of venezuela and mexico, as well as the iranian section and those other who departed later, is hardly just "some egos".

[Crux]

When taking a snapshot of the social composition and political program of almost all social democratic parties it becomes clear that they, empirically are neither parties for workers, nor of workers. Yet, as Marxists, we should not substitute a temporal phase for the whole historical process. Analyzing the "nature" of a phenomenon means perceiving it in its totality, back and forth. Why should the nineties, the neoliberal onslaught, and the fall of communism represent a "qualitative" jump in the degeneration of the socialist mass parties? They are already degenerating since the last 100 years.

There is, however, the recurrent phenomenon of workers having illusions in these degenerated structures in (pre-)revolutionary circumstances. They move through these parties, trying to reorient them towards revolutionary change. Of course, classical socialist parties are not instruments for social change any more, they have since long become formidable obstacles for socialism. The crucial element is that the main bulk of the workers do not understand this before they really experience it. The working class has to move through the experience of bureaucracy and reformism before it will grasp in practice what we understand theoretically. From this point of view, every Marxist should have an "orientation" towards the classic mass parties of the working class, even if they are completely degenerated, not because of what they are now, but because of what they can become under the right circumstances.

That's all nice and well, but this orientation does not tell us anything about tactics and the building of Marxist cadre organization. Entryism is but a tactic to gain influence in the workers' movement and/or build your own organization. It should never be confused with the orientation towards the mass organizations. Marxists who enter an "empty" party and spend all their time and energy to fight the party bureaucracy without an audience of activists are stupid. Marxists who enter a party in crisis, like the PRC, are, however, potentially smart, because they can cannibalize its membership for their own party building process. Marxists who enter a bureaucratic party with a mass base, such as the PSUV, are doing that which is necessary, and therefore correct.
But in the case of venezuela and italy, of course I would agree. As it is said it is a question of in what direction a party is moving and what actual base it has.

Let me use sweden as an example, although this is generally applicable on the social democracy worldwide. The average age of a swedish socialdemocrat member is 60 years, and they keep losing members, according to a newspaper if they keep losing members like this the party will be literally empty in 25 years. This is not mentioning their continuous right wing policies. The party is not even reformist any more, the main political struggle is without a doubt to build an independent worker's party, it's not an easy task, but it is a necessary task. The idea that the working class would always, no matter how cut-off from it's base and right wing that party is, move through their "traditional organizations" is false. You must be blind to be unable to recognize a qualitative difference between social democracy in the 70's and today.

[Voloshinov]

The idea that the working class would always, no matter how cut-off from it's base and right wing that party is, move through their "traditional organizations" is false.

I wouldn't state it as an iron law. It is, however, a historical tendency with numerous examples in the past, and a logical one as well. The mass of workers do not know the CWI or IMT or any other revolutionary Marxist group, nevermind the correctness of the political program. You cannot use as an instrument that which you do not know. Even if social democracy is a blunt sword, the working class will try to wield it first before looking for other and more efficient weapons.


You must be blind to be unable to recognize a qualitative difference between social democracy in the 70's and today.

What have been the concrete processes then, transcending the mere empirical level, which have irreversibly transformed the nature of the "traditional" socialist parties?

[vyborg]

I agree and I add: when we say that the SD leaders are completely degenerated and no mopre "reformist" of course this is true. But this is far from a novely.
In 1914 the SD leaders pushed the world into the WW1, the biggest slaughter of proletarians of any time at that time. Was the SPD in 1914 a workers party? Of course it was.

And when in 1919 they butchered Rosa Luxemburg and others communist, were they a workers party? Of course, did this characteristic meant they were not a reactionary leadership? of course not.

When someone laments that "nowadays" SD leaders are so right wing he is right but he also forgets the past. He who exagerates how much areSD leaders degenerated now normally exagerates also how much on the left they were years ago.

Left or right leaning, SD leaders are always enemies

[Voloshinov]

I agree and I add: when we say that the SD leaders are completely degenerated and no mopre "reformist" of course this is true. But this is far from a novely.
In 1914 the SD leaders pushed the world into the WW1, the biggest slaughter of proletarians of any time at that time. Was the SPD in 1914 a workers party? Of course it was.

And when in 1919 they butchered Rosa Luxemburg and others communist, were they a workers party? Of course, did this characteristic meant they were not a reactionary leadership? of course not.

When someone laments that "nowadays" SD leaders are so right wing he is right but he also forgets the past. He who exagerates how much areSD leaders degenerated now normally exagerates also how much on the left they were years ago.

Left or right leaning, SD leaders are always enemies

However, Mayakovsky's main argument is that the social base of social-democracy has fundamentally changed since the seventies, not the politics of the leadership, right?

[vyborg]

Well it is comprehensible that workers are not so keen to militate in SD parties...unfortunately they are not active anywhere else...at least on a mass basis

[Crux]

However, Mayakovsky's main argument is that the social base of social-democracy has fundamentally changed since the seventies, not the politics of the leadership, right?
Well, yeah precisely. Hence my example of falling membership rates and so on. Of course a shift in base and a shift in politics goes hand in hand. So then the question is what does that make our task? To try and turn the tide in the socdem parties? Or to fight for a break with said parties and the establishment of socialist mass parties with a genuine base? Again this is not the "easier" choice, but I'd say it is the only choice.

[Yehuda Stern]

A small note about the split: when my groups was expelled from the IMT, its leadership attacked us for allegedly picking a fight with one of the leaders of the "Iranian section" (nonsense, of course - a comrade of ours correctly characterized his position as being pro-imperialist, which he turned into a personal issue). We were surprised by the wording, because up to then the Iranians were not considered a section, due to their position that in case an imperialist state attacks Iran they would remain neutral. Neither side has explained how this debate was finally settled; one would have to assume it never was.

On the following congress, the Iranians were accepted as a section, at which point more slander was hurled at us in an internal document prepared by them (which we have replied to since on our website).

Now, it seems the Iranians have joined the other rebels, due to the IMT being soft on Chavez regarding his support for Ahmadinejad.
Such is the fate of wretched opportunists.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Well it is comprehensible that workers are not so keen to militate in SD parties...unfortunately they are not active anywhere else...at least on a mass basis
The key point here is that when workers do move into political struggle (as they have in some countries) it will not be through the SD's. The IMT is wasting it's time sucking up to the SD's bureaucracy in order to not get expelled, as they await the influx of militant workers that will not happen .

[Kassad]

Source: http://www.marxist.com/for-the-fifth-international.htm

Alan Woods released an article discussing the Internationals of the past and Hugo Chavez's call for a Fifth International. In the article, he and the IMT declare support for the Fifth Internationa.


Today the so-called Fourth International does not exist as an organisation. Those who speak in its name (and there are a few of them) have neither the masses, nor the correct ideas, nor even a clean banner. All talk of resurrecting the IV International on this basis is absolutely excluded.


At a meeting of the International Executive Committee in the first week of March, with the presence of more than 40 comrades representing more than 30 different countries in Asia, Europe and America (including Canada and the USA), the IMT voted unanimously in favour of participating in the building of the Fifth International.

[Quote=Alan Woods]
For a worldwide anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist united front!
For the international socialist revolution!
For a Marxist programme!
Long live the Fifth International!
Workers of the world unite!

All emphasis is mine. Thoughts?

[vyborg]

Frankly I cannot see the point of this thread..please enlighten me

[vyborg]

The idea that the IMT sucks up someone is a slander and I reject it completely. The problem, on the contrary, is that marxists are expelled all the time everywhere...even if now the situation is a bit better than before due to the collpase of authority of the leadership.

as for the channels by which the workers will expresse themselves history will say who is right. Anyway, so far, the idea to build "new workers party" from outside the real movement is ot going very well. even the SSP is no more...

[The Grey Blur]

The key point here is that when workers do move into political struggle (as they have in some countries) it will not be through the SD's. The IMT is wasting it's time sucking up to the SD's bureaucracy in order to not get expelled, as they await the influx of militant workers that will not happen .
If you mean SYRIZA or Die Linke these groups are not new mass parties like what the CWI hope to build in England, rather they are splits from much larger traditional groups.

I also think the anti-IMT posters do themselves no favours in this thread. Accusations that the IMT "sucks up to" reformists or that they are soft on Chavez' pro-Iran outlook are slander and refuted by just a quick browse of their site.

I'm not a partisan of either side, I work with both CWI/IMT comrades, but I don't think it's fair to wage a debate based on strawmen/slander.

[Zeus the Moose]

It makes sense from the IMT's pro-Chavez stance, though I was curious how the loss of their Venezuelan section might affect their stance on the "Fifth International." I guess this answers that question.

[Benjamin Hill]

If you mean SYRIZA or Die Linke these groups are not new mass parties like what the CWI hope to build in England, rather they are splits from much larger traditional groups.

This has been a featured argument lately. But where has the CWI ever said that new formations would appear out of the blue, with no connections at all to activists in the old social-democracy? This would indeed be completely undialectical. As far as I know the argument has merely been that the old social-democracy is no longer the vessel in many cases, no longer the "traditional" instrument of the masses. Instead, new instruments are created, of which Die Linke and SYRIZA are examples.

I would like quotations, if possible.

[el_chavista]

Alan Woods and his IMT's stance is clear. Although the IMT itself is supposed to be an International Party for the World Revolution, he doesn't loose the chance to participate in a really world-broad anti-imperialist front.
And as a byproduct of the CMR's split in Venezuela, there remains an IMT supporting fraction that is at least half the size of the original Venezuelan section.

[Benjamin Hill]

Alan Woods and his IMT's stance is clear. Although the IMT itself is supposed to be an International Party for the World Revolution, he doesn't loose the chance to participate in a really world-broad anti-imperialist front.
That does remain to be seen. The international hasn't even been founded yet.


And as a byproduct of the CMR's split in Venezuela, there remains an IMT supporting fraction that is at least half the size of the original Venezuelan section.
That doesn't say a terrible lot. Based on the estimates of people who are close to the IMT, I can say that the pro-IMT split is around 25 to 30 people strong. Not amazingly relevant.

[Voloshinov]

sucking up to the SD's bureaucracy in order to not get expelled,

Concrete examples?

[Jolly Red Giant]

I work with both CWI/IMT comrades,
The IMT in Belfast - I am sure that will be news to them.

[el_chavista]

.. The international hasn't even been founded yet.But the meeting of left parties in Caracas was promising.



.. Based on the estimates of people who are close to the IMT, I can say that the pro-IMT split is around 25 to 30 people strong. Not amazingly relevant.Let alone the 4th International supporters in Venezuela. I have not met one in person yet (only on web pages).
Besides, IMT supporters' tiny vanguard is present in almost every taken factory, something that even the 50.000-voted CP of Venezuela can't emulate.

[Faceless]

Benjamin Hill, you wrote:


This has been a featured argument lately. But where has the CWI ever said that new formations would appear out of the blue, with no connections at all to activists in the old social-democracy? This would indeed be completely undialectical. As far as I know the argument has merely been that the old social-democracy is no longer the vessel in many cases, no longer the "traditional" instrument of the masses. Instead, new instruments are created, of which Die Linke and SYRIZA are examples.

I would like quotations, if possible.

What eirigi was responding to was this post which demonstrates a total lack of understanding of working in the mass parties of the working class (whether or not Jolly Red Giant speaks for the CWI):


The key point here is that when workers do move into political struggle (as they have in some countries) it will not be through the SD's. The IMT is wasting it's time sucking up to the SD's bureaucracy in order to not get expelled, as they await the influx of militant workers that will not happen .

However, precisely in Die Linke we have a party which was formed by workers who either moved first through the social democracy (in the case of the WASG lead by Lafontaine) and the ex-Stalinist CP.

In Synaspismos this was equally true. In fact Synaspismos does not have its roots in a particularly left-wing split in the Communist Party. The euro-communist split was essencially a move in away from Stalinism and in the direction of traditional Western reformism. It is one of history's many peculiar transformations that Synaspismos has a much freer internal regime and that the KKE has moved towards a more fossilised Stalinism. But even in the KKE the warm breeze of the class struggle will have its effect in a similar way that the Communist Parties of France and Italy are now. As usual there is nothing new under the sun though - in France in the 1930s the remains of the Socialist Party became a beacon for revolutionary workers because of the stalinised nature of the CP.

So here we have two instances of new workers' parties arising once workers have moved through and tested their traditional parties. This perspective is compeltely at odds with the perspective that the CWI hold in Britain - that the working class will move towards their petition campaign before they test their old organisations.

Voloshinov is also right to ask for specific examples from the Jolly Red Giant of the IMT sucking up to the bureaucracy in order not to get expelled. It demonstrates an ignorance of the real conditions in many social democratic organisations - and it seems to me that it is based purely upon the received wisdom of comrades who last participated in the parties at the height of 80's witch hunts. I can speak from the point of view of the Labour Party in Britain - the witch hunts are over. I can and have gone to Party meetings and have not minced words about the need for socialism - and I have been welcomed by party members purely because I am young. The leadership are bankrupt. That said, the Labour Party is a shell right now and most cadres will be won by open work in the youth field and trade union work at the moment.

As for this whole business about a split, you might as well lap it up because we have recovered from much worse splits and if we demonstrated anything it's that rebuilding and building where we previously had nothing are where we are strongest. :thumbup1:

[Yehuda Stern]

It's clearly Woods' capitulation to Chavez's reformist international. The IMT had no such slogans before.

[Benjamin Hill]

Besides, IMT supporters' tiny vanguard is present in almost every taken factory, something that even the 50.000-voted CP of Venezuela can't emulate.

There are only 30 or so taken factories?

[pranabjyoti]

I am curious about Alan Woods and IMT's stand on the revolutionary processes going on in Asia, to be more specific South Asia.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Your organization is doing entry work in the French CP, not the French Socialists. :p

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's clearly Woods' capitulation to Chavez's reformist international. The IMT had no such slogans before.

Back with more sectarian drivel, are we? :rolleyes:

This question isn't an endorsement of IMT opportunism, but one for an International as a long-term unity project and more. :cool:

http://www.marxist.com/for-the-fifth-international.htm


The task we are confronted with is roughly analogous to that which confronted Marx and Engels at the time of the founding of the First International. As we explained above, that organization was not homogeneous but composed of many different tendencies. However, Marx and Engels were not deterred by this. They joined the general movement for a working class International and worked patiently to provide it with a scientific ideology and programme.

http://links.org.au/node/1491


Today, because of objective and subjective reasons – laid out over the years in these pages, and which will not be developed in this article – an international organisation cannot hope to have the ideological homogeneity that the Second, Third and Fourth internationals had. On the contrary, its heterogeneous nature will far surpass that of the First International, apart from the fact that it will not result from the conscious and organised impetus of a workers’ vanguard with backing from the masses.

What will determine support for such a heterogeneous organisation will be an explicit decision to struggle against imperialism and for socialism of the 21st century, and its starting point will be the unknown elements and ambiguities that this definition implies.

This ideological heterogeneity will be matched by an organisational criterion that, although binding in terms of general strategy on each member party or organisation, will allow the participation of several organisations in the same country and will not give rise to unanimous criteria for political activity.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Since when does "the general movement of the working class" include parties that administer the capitalist state?

[Voloshinov]

If the call for a 5th international becomes a pole of attraction for (layers of) the workers movement, then it would be stupid not to engage with it, whatever the nature of the initiator. Engagement does not necessarily mean complete and uncritical endorsement, of course.

[nideaquinidealli]

I used to be very critic with the IMT leadership, but in this case their position is ok.
Chavez's call for a Fifth International has raised great expectations. For first time in many years the need of a worlwide revolutionary organization has been discussed by hundreds of thousands of workers. How can someone think this is not positive for the workers movement?
What I doubt is the IMT capability of addressing this opportunity. Their opportunist turn in Spain, Venezuela, etc, their bureaucratic way of dealing with their internal affairs, and their lack of a revolutionary program for socialism, will sterilize their approach to the V International. They will reproduce towards the V International the same unprincipled approach they are applying in Italy towards RC bureaucracy.

[black magick hustla]

The first three internationales were formed by revolutionary organizations, many of them hellbent in destroying the state as we know it. I don't see how a congress where capitalist states lay groundwork for "poor country" geopolitics has anything to do with an international

[vyborg]

They will reproduce towards the V International the same unprincipled approach they are applying in Italy towards RC bureaucracy.

A classical slander with no connection with reality.
Anyway, at least this guy understood the main point. going on with the V Int

[Voloshinov]

The first three internationales were formed by revolutionary organizations, many of them hellbent in destroying the state as we know it. I don't see how a congress where capitalist states lay groundwork for "poor country" geopolitics has anything to do with an international

Reformism was a strong force in the first two Internationals, maybe not in theory, but at least in practice. In the end, it's not a question of what this international is (nothing at this point), but what it can become. Just as the Second International moved to reformism due to the objective conditions of the economic boom at the beginning of the 20th century, the 5th may swing to the left, depending on the dynamics of capitalism and, not unimportant, the participation of Marxist groups in the movement.

[vyborg]

Your organization is doing entry work in the French CP, not the French Socialists. :p

And with marvelous results...

[Q]

And with marvelous results...
Which are?

[vyborg]

Which are? dnt be lazy, look at their website (I hope you speak french)

[Q]

dnt be lazy, look at their website (I hope you speak french)
I don't. So if you don't mind...

[vyborg]

ok start with this http://www.marxist.com/france/

[Yehuda Stern]

Voloshinov, your approach has nothing to do with a Marxist analysis that an international can "go either way". The Bolsheviks learned from the experience of the Second International to detach themselves organizationally from reformism exactly because of its betrayal; the third and fourth Internationals never collaborated with the reformists. That is because the Bolsheviks were revolutionaries. The IMT happily collaborates with bourgeois parties in a sham international because it is a centrist group, and its ongoing crisis only seems to make it move further to the right.

[Yehuda Stern]

A meeting of a 120 people launching a network with an obscure cause inside a reformist party. Marvellous, indeed...

[Q]

ok start with this http://www.marxist.com/france/
So I read there was a 120 strong meeting last January. That would probably mean about 70 non-IMT members. That's not too bad. But what other "marvelous results" are there (if we count this meeting as one)?

[vyborg]

Voloshinov, your approach has nothing to do with a Marxist analysis that an international can "go either way". The Bolsheviks learned from the experience of the Second International to detach themselves organizationally from reformism exactly because of its betrayal; the third and fourth Internationals never collaborated with the reformists. That is because the Bolsheviks were revolutionaries. The IMT happily collaborates with bourgeois parties in a sham international because it is a centrist group, and its ongoing crisis only seems to make it move further to the right.

Good, smart guy, go on with your terrific work and leave to us the V Int.

[vyborg]

A meeting of a 120 people launching a network with an obscure cause inside a reformist party. Marvellous, indeed...

The obscurity here is only the rancourous comment you made. But we can leave it to the uselessness it belongs.

As for serious business: it is the first time in the history of the PCF, at least for decades and decades, that a marxist wing has been created inside it. It is a fundamental break with the past.

[manic expression]

The idea that no "good" international worked within capitalist politics is ridiculous. The Spanish section of the Third International was essentially running the Spanish government without a completed working-class revolution. And before anyone launches attacks on this, bear in mind that the Bolsheviks were instrumental in the defense of Kerensky's government during the Kornilov Affair. Revolutionary periods demand the utmost flexibility, and I would encourage those who take swipes at Chavez to remember this.

[vyborg]

they have best things to do...they must built their mass workers international we all are waiting to appear sometime in the future

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

If the call for a 5th international becomes a pole of attraction for (layers of) the workers movement, then it would be stupid not to engage with it, whatever the nature of the initiator. Engagement does not necessarily mean complete and uncritical endorsement, of course.

I wasn't referring only to "the initiator" but to the fact that he seems to have been courting everyone from the Communist Party of China to Mugabe's nationalists to Peronists to outright neoliberals that still try to pass themselves off as "social democrats." A revolutionary Marxist party joining an international including such parties would only give credence to their claims of being progressive.

[Voloshinov]

Voloshinov, your approach has nothing to do with a Marxist analysis that an international can "go either way". The Bolsheviks learned from the experience of the Second International to detach themselves organizationally from reformism exactly because of its betrayal; the third and fourth Internationals never collaborated with the reformists. That is because the Bolsheviks were revolutionaries. The IMT happily collaborates with bourgeois parties in a sham international because it is a centrist group, and its ongoing crisis only seems to make it move further to the right.

I try to have a materialist understanding of history, you obviously not. The bolsheviks did not break with the Second International because they were essentially revolutionaries, but because the Second World War and the subsequent revolutionary upheaval made a clear break with the reformist parties both possible and necessary in their view. This was the material base on which the 21 conditions of the Comintern were formulated. Let's not forget that only a few years after the split of the Communist parties from social democracy, the revolutionary tide faltered and the CPs sought united fronts with social-democratic parties. Was the Lenin of "left wing communism", who criticized at this juncture the political sectarianism of the rrrrevolutionary bolsheviks, a centrist in your view?

[Voloshinov]

I wasn't referring only to "the initiator" but to the fact that he seems to have been courting everyone from the Communist Party of China to Mugabe's nationalists to Peronists to outright neoliberals that still try to pass themselves off as "social democrats." A revolutionary Marxist party joining an international including such parties would only give credence to their claims of being progressive.

The first International had also its backwards elements, but Marxism became the dominant tendency through political struggle and debate. If we should leave every organization because this or that current "taints" the movement we'd be very sectarian indeed. If those corrupt forces join an international which establishes itself clearly as anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, and socialist, then THEY will have a problem defending their rightwing views. Don't leave a political fight before even the first shot has been fired.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

The first International had also its backwards elements, but Marxism became the dominant tendency through political struggle and debate. If we should leave every organization because this or that current "taints" the movement we'd be very sectarian indeed. If those corrupt forces join an international which establishes itself clearly as anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, and socialist, then THEY will have a problem defending their rightwing views. Don't leave a political fight before even the first shot has been fired.

The first international also existed at a time when these backward elements could actually be considered progressive in relation to the development of the working class movement which was just getting on its feet, whereas now these types of parties are one of the main obstacles to the development of working class consciousness.

[Voloshinov]

The first international also existed at a time when these backward elements could actually be considered progressive in relation to the development of the working class movement which was just getting on its feet, whereas these parties are one of the main obstacles to the development of working class consciousness.

That's a good point, but debatable. I'm sure Marx and Engels saw bakunism, mutuellism, and utopian socialism with its pre-capitalist and feudal roots as obstacles for both the development of the productive forces and a proletarian class consciousness.

[Faceless]

Your organization is doing entry work in the French CP, not the French Socialists.

Good god Jacob, read my post before making your sniping remarks if you don't want to look like a fool. I said that in the 1930's the French Socialist Party became a beacon for revolutionary workers. I also said "even in the KKE the warm breeze of the class struggle will have its effect in a similar way that the Communist Parties of France and Italy are now" - forgive the bad grammer but it's clear that what I'm referring to is the fact that the class struggle will force the KKE to open up - in a similar way to the PCF and Rifondazione where our comrades are getting magnificent results!http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_tongue.gif

[Yehuda Stern]

It's not a break with anything; it's an eclectic mix of various groups, all of which claim to be Marxist, and of which one can assume - we know at least regarding the IMT group - none actually are.

[Yehuda Stern]

Voloshinov, your condescending tone is not helping you here. Yes, the Bolsheviks did their best to recruit members of the Second International before leaving its parties. But they never had any intention of burying themselves in those parties for decades like the IMT. The genuine Trotskyist International - which the IMT's founder refused to join when he had the chance - never did so either.

[Voloshinov]

Voloshinov, your condescending tone is not helping you here. Yes, the Bolsheviks did their best to recruit members of the Second International before leaving its parties. But they never had any intention of burying themselves in those parties for decades like the IMT. The genuine Trotskyist International - which the IMT's founder refused to join when he had the chance - never did so either.

Nowhere did I argue for any kind of deep or long-term entryism concerning the - yet to be founded - 5th international. I only advocated an active engagement with it, contrary to the attitude of some others here who don't want to make their hands dirty with imperfect politics. Trotsky didn't care for any centrism when he advocated the French turn. What do you mean by the "genuine" Trotskyist International, btw?

[Barry Lyndon]

Basically, the ultra-left '4th International' fetishists want to hit the hash pipe and wait for Lenin to be reborn, rather then work to help create one of the most positive steps forward for the international working class in decades. If a real Fifth International, however imperfect, were to be launched, they might have to actually do something besides endlessly bicker with each other.

[zimmerwald1915]

The idea that no "good" international worked within capitalist politics is ridiculous. The Spanish section of the Third International was essentially running the Spanish government without a completed working-class revolution. And before anyone launches attacks on this, bear in mind that the Bolsheviks were instrumental in the defense of Kerensky's government during the Kornilov Affair. Revolutionary periods demand the utmost flexibility, and I would encourage those who take swipes at Chavez to remember this.
The actions of the Bolsheviks during the Kornilov Affair and the actions of the PCE during the Spanish Civil War are not comparable. First off, the historical period (something that must be reckoned globally; individual countries do not have historical periods on their own) was entirely different. The Bolsheviks were operating in a period of growing working class resistance toward the war. This was occuring not only in Russia, though that country saw its most dramatic and most successful expression, but worldwide: forgive me my lax chronology, but this was the period that witnessed the mutiny of the French army, the repression of the war-resisting Socialists in the USA, the development of war resistance in the Italian SP, and the beginning of working-class resistence in Germany. This resistence, the Bolsheviks saw, would ultimately pose the question of power, as only the struggle of the working class could put an end to the war. Their thesis was proved correct in Russia, and then in Germany, where the massive and autonomous struggle of the working class destroyed these countries' abilities to continue fighting. Their practice during the Kornilov Affair was not support for the Kerensky government, but rather taking advantage of that government's desperation in order to arm the workers, cement their independence from the government, and carry forward the revolution.

The PCE, on the other hand, was acting in a period of counter-revolution worldwide. It was part of an International that had become little more than an instrument for Russian policy, as opposed to the world party of revolution that it had been before that revolution was defeated. By the period we are considering, any resistance to this development had long been purged out of the International. It is thus of no surprise that the PCE fought against the autonomous action of the working class, pressed it into the service of the Republican government, and denounced bitterly and hounded with force those militants who dared to raise the slogan of workers' struggle on both sides of the military front, against the Republicans and the Nationalists. To this it opposed the alternative of workers serving on one side of the military front, dying on both sides of the military front. In other words, it acted as a recruiter for imperialism, playing its part in ending what were revolutionary actions by the workers in Spain.

Today is not a revolutionary period. It is a period of crisis for capitalism, it is a period where the state and the bosses are mobilizing to make the workers pay for the crisis. It is a period where workers, unprepared by struggles in better times, are finding it very difficult to fight back, and are moving forward slowly, haltingly, and in isolation. It is a period in which posers like Chavez seem to offer hope for the working class, and in which many workers and many self-identified revolutionaries buy what they're selling because the workers themselves are, now, weak. It is a period where actual revolutionaries must devote their attention to disproving the lies of Chavez, rather than surrender to him politically.


Basically, the ultra-left '4th International' fetishists want to hit the hash pipe and wait for Lenin to be reborn, rather then work to help create one of the most positive steps forward for the international working class in decades. If a real Fifth International, however imperfect, were to be launched, they might have to actually do something besides endlessly bicker with each other.
Have a look at the parties invited to found the "Fifth International". Their heterogeny is not a criticism: their wholly bourgeois politics are. Many are actively involved in helping the capitalist state manage the crisis by attacking the livelihoods of working class people. All that have governed countries in the past, or are governing now, have set the police on strikers, have been responsible for the death of workers trying to defend themselves and their families. If that's the Fifth International, then revolutionaries will have to build the Sixth.

[vyborg]

It is not eclectic, it is not normal either. The PCF has a long story of purges of internal left tendencies. A marxist area inside the PCF is an enormous step forward. Something any revolutionary in the world should be proud of. Of course if this revolutionary has any sense left. And I see this is not the case with you.

[vyborg]

Voloshinov, your condescending tone is not helping you here. Yes, the Bolsheviks did their best to recruit members of the Second International before leaving its parties. But they never had any intention of burying themselves in those parties for decades like ....

As anyone should know, actually the bolsheviks succeded in winning some parties to the III International (for example, in France) not only to create a split.

Anyway the least these geniuses from the "genuine" International will disturb the serious aim to build a marxist tendency inside a mass International, provided Chavez will do what he said, something that often he does not, the better.

[Benghazi]

Faceless, #85, made a noteworthy point:

"the Labour Party is a shell right now and most cadres will be won by open work in the youth field and trade union work at the moment."

If "open work" is the current position of the IMT, and it is in the draft document their British comrades will shortly discuss at their forthcoming conference, then the question is posed: what was the 1991/92 split about?

At that time the main political issue was not the class characterisation of the Labour Party but the "Open Turn" which was condemned by the IMT's founders.

If now IMT comrades say that the question in 1991 was that founding an "open" organisation jeopardised rejoining the Labour Party then Alan Woods himself has done this for "Socialist Appeal" comrades in his recent article on the "Fifth International". Towards the end of this article Woods wrote:

"At a meeting of the International Executive Committee in the first week of March, with the presence of more than 40 comrades representing more than 30 different countries in Asia, Europe and America (including Canada and the USA), the IMT voted unanimously in favour of participating in the building of the Fifth International."

Surely Woods has not forgottened that the Labour Party rules expressly forbid membership of international organisations other than the Second International?

What is difference between what the IMT are doing now in Britain with what was proposed by the CWI majority in 1991?

On a different note Faceless also wrote:

"precisely in Die Linke we have a party which was formed by workers who either moved first through the social democracy (in the case of the WASG lead by Lafontaine) and the ex-Stalinist CP."

It is worthwhile noting that the tiny IMT group in Germany, unlike the CWI, did not participate at all in the WASG. At that time they had already left the SPD and joined the tiny PDS organisation in the west German state of Hesse.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The first three internationales were formed by revolutionary organizations, many of them hellbent in destroying the state as we know it. I don't see how a congress where capitalist states lay groundwork for "poor country" geopolitics has anything to do with an international

The International Workingmen's Association wasn't all that r-r-revolutionary:

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/history-of-the-marxist-internationals-part-1-the-iwa/


To start with, it is important to realize that the IWA was not initiated by Karl Marx. As it turns out the British trade union movement played a key role in getting it off the ground and, as might be expected, had very little interest in revolutionary socialism.

The not-so-revolutionary-period-with-not-even-an-upswing that we have today demands a model based on the International Workingmen's Association and the International Working Union of Socialist Parties.

[Yehuda Stern]

vyborg, this sort of talk may be very impressive inside your local branch, but it's meaningless here. No one cares for your self important rubbish; your tendencies failures have become quite clear during the recent split and your rump in France, if it ever takes off, will suffer the same fate.

[Yehuda Stern]

Voloshinov,
Obviously the IMT is for long term entrism. That has been its strategy for decades everywhere. Let's not play dumb; it is obviously what the IMT is going to try and do with a fifth international if it is ever created.

vyborg,
I already addressed the issue of entrism in the reformist parties - the difference between the IMT and the Bolsheviks is that the former bury themselves in reformist parties for decades while the Bolsheviks used entrism as a temporary tactic that lasted at most a couple of years. Like I mentioned elsewhere, your condescending tone is only impressive in your branch meetings. No one else cares/

[Voloshinov]

Today is not a revolutionary period. It is a period of crisis for capitalism, it is a period where the state and the bosses are mobilizing to make the workers pay for the crisis. It is a period where workers, unprepared by struggles in better times, are finding it very difficult to fight back, and are moving forward slowly, haltingly, and in isolation. It is a period in which posers like Chavez seem to offer hope for the working class, and in which many workers and many self-identified revolutionaries buy what they're selling because the workers themselves are, now, weak. It is a period where actual revolutionaries must devote their attention to disproving the lies of Chavez, rather than surrender to him politically.

I agree wholeheartedly, but the best place to criticize Chavez and convince the workers and youth who'll join the international, expecting the best from it, is not from the fringes, but from the inside. Only by participating in the movement you gain enough political authority to convince people of your politics.

[Voloshinov]

Voloshinov,
Obviously the IMT is for long term entrism. That has been its strategy for decades everywhere. Let's not play dumb; it is obviously what the IMT is going to try and do with a fifth international if it is ever created.

That is more than probable. But I wasn't really targetting the specific tactic of the IMT, but the criticisms raised against engagement with the 5th in general.

[Voloshinov]

vyborg, this sort of talk may be very impressive inside your local branch, but it's meaningless here. No one cares for your self important rubbish; your tendencies failures have become quite clear during the recent split and your rump in France, if it ever takes off, will suffer the same fate.

I've read about your tendency's bitter experience with the IMT, but do you think this condescending tone really helps convincing the rank-and-file of the rottenness of their leadership? ;-)

[Voloshinov]

Faceless, #85, made a noteworthy point:

"the Labour Party is a shell right now and most cadres will be won by open work in the youth field and trade union work at the moment."

If "open work" is the current position of the IMT, and it is in the draft document their British comrades will shortly discuss at their forthcoming conference, then the question is posed: what was the 1991/92 split about?

At that time the main political issue was not the class characterisation of the Labour Party but the "Open Turn" which was condemned by the IMT's founders.

If now IMT comrades say that the question in 1991 was that founding an "open" organisation jeopardised rejoining the Labour Party then Alan Woods himself has done this for "Socialist Appeal" comrades in his recent article on the "Fifth International". Towards the end of this article Woods wrote:

"At a meeting of the International Executive Committee in the first week of March, with the presence of more than 40 comrades representing more than 30 different countries in Asia, Europe and America (including Canada and the USA), the IMT voted unanimously in favour of participating in the building of the Fifth International."

Surely Woods has not forgottened that the Labour Party rules expressly forbid membership of international organisations other than the Second International?

What is difference between what the IMT are doing now in Britain with what was proposed by the CWI majority in 1991?

I think this is a really good question. As I argued before, the discussion was not really about tactics, but about an appreciation of the period which lay ahead. Grant & Woods saw the coming period as one of crisis for the workers movement, while Taaffe saw it as one of new opportunities, in Britain due to the poll tax campaign which showed both the strengths of independent work and the limits of entryism, and in general due to the fall of stalinism. Grant & Woods saw the nineties as a period of defensive struggle, digging in their acquired positions within the Labor party, etc. Taaffe advocated an offensive, open tactic to deal with the new opportunities. In retrospect, I think while Grant & Woods correctly analyzed the nature of the period, ironically Taaffe had the best tactic to deal with it. The split made the Woodites during the first years suspicious of any serious open work or entryism of a new type outside of the social-democratic parties; hence their late arrival in the Italian PRC.

Taaffe's tactic and analysis of the nature of the nineties, however, lead him only afterwards to a complete break with the Woodite orientation to the traditional mass organizations. Nowhere in the documents concerning the split you read something about the necessity to found a new workers' party outside the dynamics of social-democracy. This is an idea which was only consolidated after some years of independent work. I'm sure the CWI comrades will agree with this. In conclusion, the real difference between CWI and IMT is not about entryism or not, but about the nature of social-democracy and the tasks of revolutionary party building in the post-stalinist era.


On a different note Faceless also wrote:

"precisely in Die Linke we have a party which was formed by workers who either moved first through the social democracy (in the case of the WASG lead by Lafontaine) and the ex-Stalinist CP."

It is worthwhile noting that the tiny IMT group in Germany, unlike the CWI, did not participate at all in the WASG. At that time they had already left the SPD and joined the tiny PDS organisation in the west German state of Hesse.

This is self-explanatory. If you are a tiny or even medium-sized group, you cannot focus your attention on two parties/movements at the same time. They probably thought they'd have more of an impact on the PDS at the time.

[vyborg]

Voloshinov,
Obviously the IMT is for long term entrism. That has been its strategy for decades everywhere. Let's not play dumb; it is obviously what the IMT is going to try and do with a fifth international if it is ever created.

vyborg,
I already addressed the issue of entrism in the reformist parties - the difference between the IMT and the Bolsheviks is that the former bury themselves in reformist parties for decades while the Bolsheviks used entrism as a temporary tactic that lasted at most a couple of years. Like I mentioned elsewhere, your condescending tone is only impressive in your branch meetings. No one else cares/

The Bolsheviks as a national tendency did a very long term entry work in a party, it was called the SDP. On an international scale, bolshevism only existed for 5-7 years and yet they always tried to win the best element from the SD.
There is no way to know beforehands how many years you have to work inside a party. At least in the real world, a place, I guess, is nothing of your business.

[vyborg]

vyborg, this sort of talk may be very impressive inside your local branch, but it's meaningless here. No one cares for your self important rubbish; your tendencies failures have become quite clear during the recent split and your rump in France, if it ever takes off, will suffer the same fate.

The only impressive thing here is your organic impossibility to address the topic. But it is comprehensible.

Anyway coming back to the real problem, no one can create a workers party out from nowhere. Many SD and CP party are quite empty, but as I said, you cannot find mass moving in other organization. when it happens, for example in anti-war movements etc., it is obvious you have to participate in this movements. this is not a danger for your entry work, quite the contrary.

[Q]

The Bolsheviks as a national tendency did a very long term entry work in a party, it was called the SDP. On an international scale, bolshevism only existed for 5-7 years and yet they always tried to win the best element from the SD.
There is no way to know beforehands how many years you have to work inside a party. At least in the real world, a place, I guess, is nothing of your business.
1. The Bolsheviks were never actually a membership organisation. They were a faction inside a broader workers party. To talk about "entry work" is therefore nonsense (not to mention this specific tactic was only conceived in the 1930's). Please do look up Lenin's notes on this if you don't believe me. He talks about paper circulation, the amount of votes they get on congresses, etc, but never about membership figures.
2. This broader workers party wasn't called the SDP, but the RSDLP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Social_Democratic_Labour_Party). This party actually didn't split, as is often said, before 1917. At least not on the ground, in the branches. The splits of 1903 and 1912 were merely a reality at the top of the leadership.

[vyborg]

1. The Bolsheviks were never actually a membership organisation. They were a faction inside a broader workers party. To talk about "entry work" is therefore nonsense (not to mention this specific tactic was only conceived in the 1930's). Please do look up Lenin's notes on this if you don't believe me. He talks about paper circulation, the amount of votes they get on congresses, etc, but never about membership figures.
2. This broader workers party wasn't called the SDP, but the RSDLP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Social_Democratic_Labour_Party). This party actually didn't split, as is often said, before 1917. At least not on the ground, in the branches. The splits of 1903 and 1912 were merely a reality at the top of the leadership.


The entrism was conceived long before 1930....as anyone who ever reads Jack London knows well. The bolshevik was an established part of the SDP (the RSLDP of course) because they were very strong...when you are weaker you cannot pretend to be yet such a tendency. But you fight for it.

[Yehuda Stern]

Voloshinov,
I have no intention of being condescending. Just the opposite, I'm brushing aside the snide, condescending tone of the IMT that I know so well, having once been a member of that tendency, because I know that behind it stand sterility, ignorance and an inability to honestly debate political issues. Just look at vyborg's post (which I'm not going to address; more of the same nonsense).

[Yehuda Stern]

Voloshinov,
An international created by a ruling party of a bourgeois state can be nothing but a sham. Maybe there is room to be involved in it in some way; I cannot really say, as I do not live in Venezuela. But for some people, the need to do so is automatic, when in fact nothing makes it automatic other than their own optimism.

vyborg, I will say it again: no one is impressed by your condescending tone. Your tendency has just suffered major crises which made it lose its biggest sections and disappear from a few countries. In others it is practically invisible as far as demonstrations go. "The real world" is in fact the world which you mindless supporters of the IMT fantasize about, where your tendency is constantly growing and is bound to become the leadership of the working class one day.

Your one-liner does not account for the fact that the Bolsheviks never did any long term entryism in the reformist parties (by SPD you mean the Russian party? allow me to ignore this embarrassing argument; consider it a gesture of my good will to you). But why should I be surprised? The ignorant always look for unimportant distractions.

[Faceless]

Faceless, #85, made a noteworthy point:

"the Labour Party is a shell right now and most cadres will be won by open work in the youth field and trade union work at the moment."

If "open work" is the current position of the IMT, and it is in the draft document their British comrades will shortly discuss at their forthcoming conference, then the question is posed: what was the 1991/92 split about?Thank you, and you will find nothing new in my post. "Open work" or "entry work" is a question of tactics. But our tactics are based upon a definite perspective and this is where the CWI had an incorrect perspective in the early part of the 90's. They believed, like you said, that there would be massive opportunities that would open up in the decade and that by declaring themselves as a new party workers would come to there banner. That was a mistaken characterisationof the period that was opening up and you agree that the past 20/25 years has been a period of low ebb in the class struggle. This mistake has been justified by the Taafites in terms of the class character of the Labour Party which they now flippantly declare is bourgeois.

However, it is possible to do open work without working under the illusiory and mistaken perspective that by running your own party against Labour we can become the focal point of a "new workers party". Whilst we were right to deny the perspective of the CWI, when did we ever exaggerate the possibilities in the Labour Party either? We did not - or at least if we did show us where we did. However, we did maintain and continue to maintain that the class struggle will transform that Party in the future and bring workers back into the Party. Our comrades participated fully in the anti-poll tax campaign and this was absolutely right, but we were under no illusion about the general characterisation of the period that we were entering either. You see, it was never simply about tactics which we are flexible on - but on differing perspectives.


Surely Woods has not forgottened that the Labour Party rules expressly forbid membership of international organisations other than the Second International?You seem to be under the same spell as the Jolly Red Giant! Firstly, there has been a respite in the witch hunts since the 80s you know!
I refer comrades to Trotsky:
The policy of the Opposition in the Labour Party is unspeakably bad. But this only means that it is necessary to counterpose to it inside the Labour Party another, a correct Marxist policy. That isn’t so easy? Of course not! But one must know how to hide one’s activities from the police vigilance of Sir Walter Citrine and his agents, until the proper time. But isn’t it a fact that a Marxist faction would not succeed in changing the structure and policy of the Labour Party? With this we are entirely in accord: the bureaucracy will not surrender. But the revolutionists, functioning outside and inside (!!!!!!!), can and must succeed in winning over tens and hundreds of thousands of workers.
Secondly, participating in the V International does not imply working against the Labour Party or declaring an open party as you imply. We can take our solidarity campaigning to the youth, the unions and the Party and raise the need for a new international here.


"precisely in Die Linke we have a party which was formed by workers who either moved first through the social democracy (in the case of the WASG lead by Lafontaine) and the ex-Stalinist CP."

It is worthwhile noting that the tiny IMT group in Germany, unlike the CWI, did not participate at all in the WASG. At that time they had already left the SPD and joined the tiny PDS organisation in the west German state of Hesse.Comrade, I do not know the full details of the work of our comrades in Germany - when there are several workers' organisations (be they political parties or unions) it is a complex question of tactics and available forces as to where we concentrate our energies. However, that does not alter our comprehension of events one iota. Workers moved through both the SPD and WASG, and also the PDS before Die Linke was formed - that was all I said.

[Jolly Red Giant]

But our tactics are based upon a definite perspective and this is where the CWI had an incorrect perspective in the early part of the 90's. They believed, like you said, that there would be massive opportunities that would open up in the decade and that by declaring themselves as a new party workers would come to there banner.
Utter claptrap - The CWI were only too well aware of the difficulties of operating as an open organisation - the reality was that the LP was being emptied of workers faster than an unplugged sink. There was no point in remaining in the LP. And that is even more the case now.

Speaking in relation to Ireland - I do not know a single worker who is a member of the LP - I know quite a few business people, professionals, TU bureaucrats and retired party and union hacks, but not a single worker who is a member of the half dozen or so branches in the general area where I live.


That was a mistaken characterisationof the period that was opening up and you agree that the past 20/25 years has been a period of low ebb in the class struggle.
It was not a mistaken characterisation of the period - it was an unexpected expansion of 1. the impact of the collapse of Stalinism (coupled with a bourgeois onslaught on the ideas of Marxism) followed by 2. a significant (and to a degree artifical) boom in the world economy. These two factors were primarily the reason for the low ebb in the class struggle. Being buried in the LP would not have altered that situation.



However, it is possible to do open work without working under the illusiory and mistaken perspective that by running your own party against Labour we can become the focal point of a "new workers party".
Again a complete mis-representation of the CWI's position. Sections of the CWI are not attempting to become the focal point of a new workers party (although potentially in Ireland we could become so) - the CWI recognises that inevitable the class struggle will shift from the industrial to the political plane and this move will not take place through the LP.


Whilst we were right to deny the perspective of the CWI, when did we ever exaggerate the possibilities in the Labour Party either?
By simply suggesting that it has the potential to shift back to the left you are exaggerating the possibilities in the LP.


However, we did maintain and continue to maintain that the class struggle will transform that Party in the future and bring workers back into the Party.
And 'in the future' you will come to the realisation that your perspectives will have been completely incorrect.


Firstly, there has been a respite in the witch hunts since the 80s you know!
Precisely for the reason that the IMT do not pose even the minutest threat to the leadership of the LP. The LP leadership are far more aware of the nonsense of the IMT's position than the IMT are. They know that they have fundementally transformed the LP and that there is no going back.


Secondly, participating in the V International does not imply working against the Labour Party or declaring an open party as you imply.
I would agree here - it is purely an opportunist turn to keep the IMT onside with Chavez.


Comrade, I do not know the full details of the work of our comrades in Germany - when there are several workers' organisations (be they political parties or unions) it is a complex question of tactics and available forces as to where we concentrate our energies. However, that does not alter our comprehension of events one iota. Workers moved through both the SPD and WASG, and also the PDS before Die Linke was formed - that was all I said.
No workers moved through the PDS - it was on its last legs before they were invited into Die Linke. The soft left that split from the SPD (and that is at best how they could be described) viewed them as a bulwark against the activists in the WASG and the apparatus of the PDS, which in effect has become the apparatus of Die Linke, has been the key component in facilitating the PDS in assuming a large element of control within Die Linke (and in case we forget - it was into the PDS that the IMT went in Germany).

However, there is another point that the IMT appear to be unable to grasp - while there may have been some soft left elements that split from the SPD - there are most definitely none of these left elements within the bulk of the SD's that remain. Most certainly in Ireland there isn't a single member, never mind a prominent individual, that could be classed as left-wing. The same could be said for Scandanavia, the Anglo-Saxon countries (for want of a better description), including Britain and much of the ex-colonial world. Indeed it is pretty much confined to some of the Mediterranean countries. To suggest that because a small section of the SPD split off to help form Die Linke or a similar situation in Greece - that somehow that has to be the process in every country (and to use that as justification for remaining in the SD's) is to fly in the face of reality.


Nowhere in the documents concerning the split you read something about the necessity to found a new workers' party outside the dynamics of social-democracy. This is an idea which was only consolidated after some years of independent work. I'm sure the CWI comrades will agree with this.
I can't recall the situation in Britain - but most definitely in Ireland there was discussion about the necessity to form a new workers party. At no time did the CWI in Ireland think/believe that workers were going to flock to the banner of Marxism simply because we left the LP or that the CWI would be the focal point of such a party (and I would be surprised if it was any different in Britain - but I neither have the time nor inclination to go back through the documents again). It was an issue that I was actually hesitant about as, at the time, I would have regarded it as a possibility that workers might move back into the LP at some future period (and I haven't held that view for over a decade and a half). The key component in it becoming a concrete demand was not that the CWI didn't regard it as necessary - but the objective situation did not make the demand feasible until quite recently.

[zimmerwald1915]

I agree wholeheartedly, but the best place to criticize Chavez and convince the workers and youth who'll join the international, expecting the best from it, is not from the fringes, but from the inside. Only by participating in the movement you gain enough political authority to convince people of your politics.
And I'll bet you support "boring from within" too. The trade-off you're making is political clarity for potential audience; the snag is that the potential audience would already be listening to the liars in the dominant parties in the International. To reach them, you'd need to carry on a constant, open fight against those parties, both to maintain your own voice at all, and to be heard. The problem is, that doing so inside the International exposes one's group to all sorts of attacks by the dominant, wholly bourgeois parties. The energy of one's group is therefore taken up resisting "factional" expulsions, winning votes on committees, and other such measures; time spent doing this is time not intervening with respect to the masses. Indeed, it gives the dominant bourgeois parties ammunition to attack one's group: "they're wreckers trying to destroy the International," "they have nothing to offer but opposition," etc. And in this non-revolutionary period, the workers will believe them.

Far better not to get caught up in destructive organizational battles against bourgeois parties if one can do just as good a job attacking them outside their sham International, and building one's alternative in the meantime among those workers who aren't convinced by the bourgeoisie's shams.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Despite what I said above, my main critique is that this new International doesn't seem to have the spine to organize the workers into a class for itself, replace bourgeois hegemony with proletarian hegemony, and enable the workers to conquer ruling-class "politico-political" power in policy-making, legislation, execution, administration, and other areas.

[zimmerwald1915]

Despite what I said above, my main critique is that this new International doesn't seem to have the spine to organize the workers into a class for itself, replace bourgeois hegemony with proletarian hegemony, and enable the workers to conquer ruling-class "politico-political" power in policy-making, legislation, execution, administration, and other areas.
I don't think it's a matter of will, or spine, or whatever synonym you like. Rather, it's that the parties involved have a history, however long it may be in each case, of actively pursuing the atomization of workers, the buttressing of bourgeois hegemony, and weakening the workers movement wherever and however they can, and that their congress in a new International is not going to change that one jot.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Is that intentional or unintentional (probably due to vacillating)?

If the former, then there's a problem with this definitely bourgeois worker organization. If the latter, then the "entryism" debate is again one of tactics.

The International Working Union of Socialist Parties was an example of the latter, no matter how much its caution didn't square up with its dislike of bourgeois hegemony.

[vyborg]

At least the topic now is centred on real issues that is how to allow marxism to become a dominant tendency inside the labour movement.

In the last 2 decades we have witnessed many interesting development as far as workers party are concerned. for example the birth of PSUV as a consequence of a decade-long revolutionary movement, or the birth of Die Linke etc.

Of course, we cannot see the birth of a party from dimensionally insignificant groups even when, as in UK, the official SD party is so empty and corrupt and governing for more than a decade. the Respect tentative ended in tears as the SSP in Scotland. the SPEW sponsored no2EU that had a platform not helpful, to say the least.

The situation now is very differentiated among countries. In some country is obvious where to work (Venezuela, Italy, France, Germany) in other the situation is a lot more complicated (Greece, etc.). At any rate, a flexible tactic is useful but only if connected to a serious attitude towards theory, as in the last 2 decades, the political level of the youth went dramatically down.

theory is paramount.

[vyborg]

Voloshinov,
An international created by a ruling party of a bourgeois state can be nothing but a sham. Maybe there is room to be involved in it in some way; I cannot really say, as I do not live in Venezuela. But for some people, the need to do so is automatic, when in fact nothing makes it automatic other than their own optimism.

vyborg, I will say it again: no one is impressed by your condescending tone. Your tendency has just suffered major crises which made it lose its biggest sections and disappear from a few countries. In others it is practically invisible as far as demonstrations go. "The real world" is in fact the world which you mindless supporters of the IMT fantasize about, where your tendency is constantly growing and is bound to become the leadership of the working class one day.

Your one-liner does not account for the fact that the Bolsheviks never did any long term entryism in the reformist parties (by SPD you mean the Russian party? allow me to ignore this embarrassing argument; consider it a gesture of my good will to you). But why should I be surprised? The ignorant always look for unimportant distractions.

Good, these guys will stay out from the V International. what a good news...good luck and do not bother with the development of the real world. I know you have better things to do.

As for the bolsheviks, they were in the same party and International with reformists for decades and for very good reasons. Even after the revolution, when they were a bit more powerful and well known on the world scale than you and me are, they strongly advised communist to work with reformists (Lenin wrote a book about it, maybe you came across it).

But never mind, do not waste your time with all this reformist milieu. Go on where you are. We will both be very happy.

[lipmeister]

It is funny to see the sectarians repeat the line again and again :"The Labour Party is empty of workers". This is absolutely true. But they forget to say that the workers are certainly not in the sects either. The reality is that when the workers enter the scene, they do so through their mass organizations, their unions and subsequently the party that is organically linked to their unions, transforming them in the process.

Workers tend to ignore sects. And why wouldn't they? That is easy to understand unless you are deluded and you want to make yourself believe that workers will enter en masse the CNWP or the SWP or whatever sectarian grouping of a few remnants of the 80s and a bunch of pimple faced university students.

[Jolly Red Giant]

The reality is that when the workers enter the scene, they do so through their mass organizations, their unions and subsequently the party that is organically linked to their unions, transforming them in the process.
That is a seriously mechanical approach to understanding the nature and composition of the former Social Democracies.

To suggest that just because workers have moved through the SD's in the past (and SD's that were a different political animal at that) does not automatically mean that they will do so in the future. The only prospect that the IMT could hold out in the case of Britain would be if the Tories win the election and then the IMT could argue that workers engaging in struggle could move into the LP. This however ignores the most recent example in Britain - during the Miners Strike, miners and other workers did not move in any numbers into the LP (except for those that actually joined the Militant).

However, what happens if the LP in Britain manage to retain power either on their own or as part of a coalition - can the IMT members here seriously argue that workers engaging in struggle will flood into the very political party they are fighting in order to 'transform' it?

Not only that - but it is a very anglo-centric position. If you only move a little to the west - there is no prospect of it happening in Ireland - after the next election the LP will be a minor party in right-wing coalition making massive cutbacks in jobs and services. There isn't a hope in hell of any workers in Ireland joining the LP - indeed anyone even mentioning the LP after the election is liable to be lynched.


Workers tend to ignore sects. And why wouldn't they?
Of course they ignore the 'sects' (incluing for the IMT - the CWI) - but then again in Ireland this sect recently managed to win a seat in the European Parliament defeating two outgoing MEP's and two government candidates in a Dublin constituency that was reduced from 4 to 3 seats. On the same day this sect topped the poll in 3 out of 5 wards in Fingal Council (gaining 15%+ of the vote in the election to Fingal Council) and topped the poll in another ward in Cork. On a good day this sect could win 3 parliamentary seats in the next general election. And not alone this - but in practically every incidence where workers go one strike the first people they call for advice and support is this very same sect.

But then the IMT believe that the 'sects' are incapable of connecting to workers in struggle and instead sit back and wait for the workers to come flooding into a shell of a bourgeois party that has an 'organic' link to the TUs.


That is easy to understand unless you are deluded
Do you believe that the 50,000+ people who voted for this sect in Dublin are deluded as well?


and you want to make yourself believe that workers will enter en masse the CNWP or the SWP
Don't know about the SWP - but the CWI have never claimed that workers would enter the CNWP en masse - the Campaign for a New Workers Party is just that - a CAMPAIGN for a new workers party - it is not a new workers party.


whatever sectarian grouping of a few remnants of the 80s and a bunch of pimple faced university students.
The IMT slagging people off about being the remnants of the 80s :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[MarkP]

It is funny to see the sectarians repeat the line again and again :"The Labour Party is empty of workers". This is absolutely true. But they forget to say that the workers are certainly not in the sects either.

It is worth noting, of course, that Socialist Appeal and the IMT more generally are amongst the smallest sects, and the most devoid of working class (or any other!) membership, support or influence. Which is one of the things that makes the moronic arrogance of IMT supporters so amusing.


The reality is that when the workers enter the scene, they do so through their mass organizations, their unions and subsequently the party that is organically linked to their unions, transforming them in the process.

This is a statement of religious faith.


Workers tend to ignore sects.

Which would certainly explain the lack of interest they have in the IMT.

[vyborg]

We must not confuse electoral results with real social strenght.
Some years ago, in some elections in France, trotskist together took 11% of the votes. This was a great result but does it means a french in ten voted for revolution and socialism? unfortunately not. Nevertheless it was an important signal of the then situation.

It is not unusual that even small organization won seats especially when the official SD parties are so right wing. but building a bolshevik party is not the same that winning an MP or some city councilors.
It is especially negative when a group put aside its socialist programme to win more votes as SWP did with Respect, SPEW did with No2E and NPA is doing now

[MarkP]

It is especially negative when a group put aside its socialist programme to win more votes

I would think that a better example would be the IMT in Pakistan prostituting itself to the Bhutto family in return for being given PPP parliamentary candidacies - four of them in the last election, all in the gift of the Bhuttos and their cronies.

Beyond the parliamentary arena, every significant office any IMT member has held in the PPP or in the PPP's associated fronts was similarly given to them as patronage.

It's hardly any wonder that half of the local section didn't see anything wrong with the IMT's public face in Pakistan becoming Zardari's right hand man in the union movement. It's perfectly in keeping after all with the way in which the only substantial section of the IMT had been built. Those are the methods the IMT educated the militant workers and youth who came around them in.

Never mind though. I'm sure Lal Khan can add some more fictitious members to your lists to make up for the split.

[zimmerwald1915]

Good, these guys will stay out from the V International. what a good news...good luck and do not bother with the development of the real world. I know you have better things to do.
The real movement of the working class is not to be found in the parties that may or may not form the Fifth International. Indeed, just the opposite is the case: the real movement of the working class develops only in opposition to these parties, as workers fight their way free of their ideological tentacles.


As for the bolsheviks, they were in the same party and International with reformists for decades and for very good reasons. Even after the revolution, when they were a bit more powerful and well known on the world scale than you and me are, they strongly advised communist to work with reformists (Lenin wrote a book about it, maybe you came across it).
As has been pointed out in this thread, the period and experiences of the Bolsheviks and of today are dissimilar enough that comparisons like these do not really apply. The Bolsheviks developed, as a tendency, within the Second International. They developed as a tendency that fought against reformism in that International, and in the national party to which they belonged. The proletariat and proletarian revolutionaries had not yet been forced by historical experience to realize that the gulf between revolutionary and reformist organizations, between revolutionary and reformist programs, is deep, wide, and unbridgable. The Bolsheviks eventually detached themselves from the Second International precisely because they realized, for the first time in history, that that was so, though they were later to retreat from that conclusion for various reasons (a different thread might be necessary to explore those). Similarly, the attempts to win over "centrists" and the United Front are different. The first attempts, wisely or unwisely, to make vacillating elements into communist revolutionaries by integrating them into communist organizations, and letting them marinate in a bath of communist consciousness. The second is a political capitulation to reformism, to bourgeois ideology.

You are proposing, after a century of betrayals by the reformists despite repeated attempts by self-proclaimed revolutionaries to "work with them" to make the same mistake again. The Bolsheviks developed out of the Second International, as the result of the growth beyond reformism of the workers' movement. You are proposing the sacrifice of that development, of all the theoretical and practical developments of the twentieth century, because you want to feel part of something bigger than yourself. That is a purely emotional, dare I say infantile, response. In any case, real revolutionaries know they are part of the working class, and for us, that suffices. We don't need sham Internationals to give us self-worth.

[vyborg]

In Venezuela the Psuv is the party of the working class now. Millions of workers are members of PSUV. Not to work in it is simply criminal as it means to leave PSUV in reformist hands.

That's exactly what bolsheviks did decades ago: to win workers to revolutionary ideas where they were.

[vyborg]

These slanders are laughable. It is interestint that this guy cannot answer about No2EU, a horrible compromise, and he is forced to speak about Pakistan, hoping that who reads take his ridicolous invented histories for facts.

It is also interesting he is not able to speak about what CWI did in Pakistan. A real comic story, for sure.

On the contrary The Struggle is working as always doing a very hard and difficult revolutionary work against bosses, fundamentalists and the PPP bureacracy. Luckily, this kind of inventions cannot harm them. they had real comrades...quite the contrary some others pseudo-trot international pretending to have thousands of people in Pakistan but very well hidden, as anyone has never saw them

[zimmerwald1915]

In Venezuela the Psuv is the party of the working class now. Millions of workers are members of PSUV. Not to work in it is simply criminal as it means to leave PSUV in reformist hands.

That's exactly what bolsheviks did decades ago: to win workers to revolutionary ideas where they were.
In Venezuela the PSUV is the ruling party in the country. It is the manager of a national capitalism facing crisis like every other national capitalism, like world capitalism. The fact that it is able to successfully lie to the workers that it does so in their interests does not mean that revolutionaries should join the PSUV. Being subject to the discipline of the PSUV, which, as tiny minorities revolutionaries would have no hope of conquering, or even acting independently within, is not an advantage, but a disadvantage.

As a parting note, the method of the Bolsheviks was not only to engage the workers and to intervene in their struggles, but also to uphold the most stringent theoretical and organizational clarity, the better to engage and intervene. I believe the quote goes: "We want the masses to be freed by experience from their mistakes. Don’t be afraid to remain in the minority! Not for ever, but for a time. The hour of Bolshevism will strike. Our line will prove right...All the oppressed will come to us...They have no other way out."

[Jolly Red Giant]

We must not confuse electoral results with real social strenght.
Who's confusing anything? (with the exception of the IMT people here) - your fellow IMT'er claimed that the 'sects' (meaning the CWI) did not have any base among the working class and were deluded to think they might. I pointed out that 1. the CWI in Ireland scored some significant successes in recent elections (in reality going back to the mid-1990's) based on long and consistant work in working class communities and workplaces and 2. currently because of the profile of the CWI in Ireland (derived from this work) and because of the standing achieved by CWI members, workers engaging in struggle are contacting the CWI for advice and support (in many cases before they contact their own union officials and often against the direct instructions of said same union offoicials). I would suggest to you that in a country with a population that is about 7% that of Britain - the CWI in Ireland has considerably greater presence among the working class than the IMT does even combining the entire IMT European organisation - so much for working in the 'traditional organisations' of the working class.


Some years ago, in some elections in France, trotskist together took 11% of the votes. This was a great result but does it means a french in ten voted for revolution and socialism? unfortunately not. Nevertheless it was an important signal of the then situation.
Yes it was an important signal that the LO and the LCR between them made a mess of. Just out of interest - who do the IMT in France orientate towards?


It is not unusual that even small organization won seats especially when the official SD parties are so right wing.
True - but what is unusual (particularly in the current political situation) is to win, hold and then increase its electoral base.


but building a bolshevik party is not the same that winning an MP or some city councilors.
Of course it is not - but it does demonstrate the nonsense from your comrade in arms. By the way - do the IMT have any councillors in Britain these days (or anywhere else for that matter) - surely all that work in the LP's must have produced some results electorally?


It is especially negative when a group put aside its socialist programme to win more votes as SPEW did with No2E
It looks like lipmeister isn't the only one spouting nonsense now - please demonstrate from any piece of literature produced by the SPEW from the last election where our socialist programme was 'put aside' - actually include Ireland and any other country you can find as well.

At the same time please demonstrate how any IMT candidate has maintained their scoialist programme while standing as a candidate for the LP in Britain or any of the other SD's.



It is also interesting he is not able to speak about what CWI did in Pakistan. A real comic story, for sure.
Please enlighten us as to the humerous side of the CWI in Pakistan - and we will be happy to enlighten you to the humerous (and not so humerous) side of the IMT there.


On the contrary The Struggle is working as always doing a very hard and difficult revolutionary work against bosses, fundamentalists and the PPP bureacracy.
You really need to be very careful about using the word 'always' in a sentence. The IMT has undoubtedly done some good work at different times in Pakistan - however it has also had some serious f*ck-ups - something which the IMT seem determined to sweep under the carpet.


quite the contrary some others pseudo-trot international pretending to have thousands of people in Pakistan but very well hidden, as anyone has never saw them
Maybe you could enlighten us as to who this 'pseudo-trot international' is - it most definitely couldn't be the CWI, we have never had thousands of people in Pakistan.

[MarkP]

These slanders are laughable.

You shouldn't believe everything Woods and Khan tell you.

Let's go through this carefully. What "slanders" have I levelled at the IMT in Pakistan?

1) I said that four of their members stood as PPP candidates in the last general election.

2) PPP candidacies are not chosen by hustings and votes in constituency parties or local organisations. Instead they are decided by the party leadership.

3) The PPP leadership consists of the Bhutto family and their henchmen.

4) Therefore the PPP candidacies were given to the IMT members by the Bhuttos and their henchmen.

5) The IMT in Pakistan have also held a number of other relatively important positions in the PPP and in the PPP's affiliated fronts.

6) These positions were also in the gift of the party leadership.

7) The IMT's main public face took a job, in the gift of the leadership as all such jobs are, as Zardari's man in the union movement.

8) A large section of the IMT in Pakistan saw nothing wrong with this and indeed saw it as being perfectly in keeping with the strategy of the organisation.

9) This led to a major split.

Which of these points precisely are you claiming is a "slander"?

I'm sorry to be the mean kid telling the more naive children that there's no Santa Clause, but the PPP is the private property of the Bhutto family. It is not a party in which candidates for the national parliament can be chosen without the agreement of the central leadership. Posts within it are distributed as patronage.

The funniest thing about this argument is that you almost certainly know little or nothing about the PPP beyond the triumphalist, dishonest and occasionally borderline insane reports coming from the IMT section there.

If you have anything remotely sensible to say or ask about No2EU, I'm more than willing to discuss it with you. However, I think you'd find better use for your time in looking into the PPP and the reality underlying the fantasy-land reports the leadership of your organisation give you.

[Antid Oto]

A meeting of a 120 people launching a network with an obscure cause inside a reformist party. Marvellous, indeed... That was only the launching in Paris of the "renforcer le PCF, renouer avec le marxisme" network. And yes, there were "only" 120 communist militants there, but this network is actually based on the document with the same title (Renforcer le PCF, renouer avec le marxisme) that was presented at the 34th PCF Congress, (and was published together with the other two documents in L'Humanité) getting 15% of the vote in the rank and file of the PCF, that was over 5,000 members.
I would recommend you to read this document (then you'd see that the cause is not obscure at all!), but of course if you don't read french...I translated the full document from french into spanish, but that won't probably help you either...

[Edith Lemsipberg]

The IMT response to the V appears to be a combination of:
[a] An extension of their approach to Chavez. Reading through much of the material available, I must agree with those who see the positioning of Wood's as opportunist. Although there are certainly some valuable elements of Marxist analysis mixed in with the opportunism
[b] An extension of the IMTs original opportunist stance on the 'traditional organisations' - a mis-applied traditional analysis, which was originally mis-applied to justify Wood's 'differences' with what became the CWI. However, history is not kind to those who work in this way. The concept has become a badge of dogma (usually, but not always mis-applied) and works to further corrupt the theory of this organisation. Hence the lastest V International stance. The logic (from the mis-applied theory) is that Chavez's lot are the mass organisation in Ven therefore the proposed V International must be the place to work.
The probelm with this is that the concept of 'mass organisation' is taken as an element in isolation, politics like much else is a totality and cannot be compartmentalised

[Tower of Bebel]

Internationalism should be all about supporting the working class accross borders, not the support for this or that "international". It's class solidarity, some sort of a more symbolic unity, that gave way to the first three Internationals, even though they were not set up 'spontaniously'. The Fourth however was of a different character: it had no real roots in the working class from the beginning.

I have no doubt that the massive support given to the IMT by various national working classes will turn the 5th into a big success.

[vyborg]

It goes without saying that you cannot work in the PSUV: a) without building your organization, b) acritically.

This is abc.

But if you stay outside, you are simply out of where workers are. Period.

[vyborg]

You shouldn't believe everything Woods and Khan tell you.

Let's go through this carefully. What "slanders" have I levelled at the IMT in Pakistan?

1) I said that four of their members stood as PPP candidates in the last general election.

2) PPP candidacies are not chosen by hustings and votes in constituency parties or local organisations. Instead they are decided by the party leadership.

3) The PPP leadership consists of the Bhutto family and their henchmen.

4) Therefore the PPP candidacies were given to the IMT members by the Bhuttos and their henchmen.

5) The IMT in Pakistan have also held a number of other relatively important positions in the PPP and in the PPP's affiliated fronts.

6) These positions were also in the gift of the party leadership.

7) The IMT's main public face took a job, in the gift of the leadership as all such jobs are, as Zardari's man in the union movement.

8) A large section of the IMT in Pakistan saw nothing wrong with this and indeed saw it as being perfectly in keeping with the strategy of the organisation.

9) This led to a major split.

Which of these points precisely are you claiming is a "slander"?

I'm sorry to be the mean kid telling the more naive children that there's no Santa Clause, but the PPP is the private property of the Bhutto family. It is not a party in which candidates for the national parliament can be chosen without the agreement of the central leadership. Posts within it are distributed as patronage.

The funniest thing about this argument is that you almost certainly know little or nothing about the PPP beyond the triumphalist, dishonest and occasionally borderline insane reports coming from the IMT section there.

If you have anything remotely sensible to say or ask about No2EU, I'm more than willing to discuss it with you. However, I think you'd find better use for your time in looking into the PPP and the reality underlying the fantasy-land reports the leadership of your organisation give you.


The electoral programme of No2UE was so far away from aything radical that in the 70s it could be used by burgeois parties. It ended in a mess, exactly like Respect, the SSP and so on. Good work comrades! Go on like this building useless electoral nationalist fronts.

Going back to the PPP. When Benazir came back in Pakistan they were millions and millions of workers and youngster on the streets. So reducing the PPP to the Butto family is completely laughable. The struggle won positions in the PPP because the marxist ideas have an enormous echo among the masses. so the corrupt and inept leadership of the party is forced to concede something to the marxist tendency.

During the election, the PPP and other parties made an agreement not to have marxists elected. and this of course was a setback, but it was better than to bow to PPP bureaucracy as some comrades decided to do. The split was unfortunate but this was also good. It showed the organization is healty and preferred to loose old friends instead of our principles.
It is recovering rapidly as the situation in Pakistan is heathing.

The work of The Struggle is absolutely exceptional, in terrible circumstances. They are the only one to do mass work in the whole of Pakistan. Therefore I can understand your envy but it is not commendable for a Trot. On the contrary, a real revolutionary defends gains made by marxists even if not of his/her organization.

[vyborg]

It is interesting, so to speak, as in this topic only intervenes people already well connected to a group, to look at the question of having candidates.

History shows that for a marxist tendency (or at least pretending to be one) it is not always correct to run candidates. For example in 2006 political election in Italy, Mandelites (sinistra critica) and semi-Mandelites (Ferrando and Ricci, now PCL and PDAC), tried to have candidates in Rifondazione. It ended in tears. Sinistra critica MP (Turigliato, a good guy after all) was forced to vote for Prodi many times and when decided to vote against he was expelled. Ferrando and Ricci, then in the same organization, splitted over the candidate and then didnt succeded to have one anyway...We predicted it beforehands and decided not to accept to have an MP at that time.

You can allow yourself to have a candidate only when your weight in the rank and file of the party is such that your autonomy from the bureaucracy will be understood and welcomed by at least the advanced workers. Such was the situation of the Militant in the 80s or of The Struggle now in Pakistan.

[MarkP]

Going back to the PPP. When Benazir came back in Pakistan they were millions and millions of workers and youngster on the streets. So reducing the PPP to the Butto family is completely laughable. The struggle won positions in the PPP because the marxist ideas have an enormous echo among the masses. so the corrupt and inept leadership of the party is forced to concede something to the marxist tendency.

This is hilarious. Really hilarious, in a tragi-comic sort of way. If Woods and Khan told you that the moon was made of cheese, and that the IMT had a unique understanding of its delicious cheesy goodness you would report that here with all your usual idiotic arrogance.

Look at the example you give. Just consider it for a moment. Huge numbers of workers came out to welcome Benazir Bhutto and this somehow makes the position of the Bhutto family weaker in the PPP? Large numbers mourn her death and this somehow expresses the weakness of the Bhuttos and their hangers on amongst the PPP? Up is down and black is white in your dogmatist's world, it appears.

The Struggle, at its pre-split peak, was an organisation which claimed (rather dubiously) to have 2,500 members. Do you have any idea how small that is in the context of a country the size of Pakistan? It was not a mass force or even a semi-mass force. It certainly wasn't a force that posed any threat whatsoever to the Bhutto family and the rest of the landlords and capitalists who own the PPP and still less did it pose a threat to them since the return of the Bhuttos to Pakistan. These are the demented delusions of grandeur of the true sectarian.

The vast majority of workers in Pakistan have never so much as heard of "The Struggle". The Bhuttos and their henchmen were not "forced to concede" anything to them. Nothing. They gave them a few candidacies and a few bureaucratic positions within the PPP and its associated fronts as part of the normal operation of their patronage machine.

The chief public face of The Struggle and the leader of its PPP work was a trusted lackey of the Bhuttos! They made him head of the central secretariat of the party and head of their trade union division, not because they were forced to by the incredible mass support of "The Struggle" but because he was a useful and reliable henchman. And the way in which they did this was no different from the way in which they made him and other Struggle members into PPP candidate or awarded them bureaucratic positions.

That's how the PPP works. That's how the Struggle has worked in the PPP.


During the election, the PPP and other parties made an agreement not to have marxists elected. and this of course was a setback, but it was better than to bow to PPP bureaucracy as some comrades decided to do.

Paranoid ramblings. You think that the PPP were so terrified of the Struggle's sitting MP that they conspired to defraud themselves of a seat... and then immediately made this fire-breathing Bolshevik into the head of their union department and of their internal organisation? They must have really been trembling in their boots!

As for the rest of the Struggle's candidates, this may come as a shock to someone whose knowledge of Pakistan comes from the dishonest reports of Khan filtered through the delusional fantasies of Woods but they were never expected to win by anyone outside your organisation. They were standing in areas where the PPP is not the dominant party and, despite the claims of the IMT, the Struggle has no additional or independent base in those areas.


The split was unfortunate but this was also good. It showed the organization is healty and preferred to loose old friends instead of our principles.
It is recovering rapidly as the situation in Pakistan is heathing.

It's worth pointing out the concessions you have gradually made here. Not very long ago, IMT supporters used to deny that there had been a split! They they moved to claiming that it was a tiny split which had no effect on the organisation. Now it seems that it was a split which did damage which has to be "recovered" from, but at some level it was a good thing.

I note also that you didn't actually dispute the point that all of the candidacies and bureaucratic posts occupied by the Struggle were appointed by the PPP leadership rather than elected.


The work of The Struggle is absolutely exceptional, in terrible circumstances. They are the only one to do mass work in the whole of Pakistan. Therefore I can understand your envy but it is not commendable for a Trot. On the contrary, a real revolutionary defends gains made by marxists even if not of his/her organization.

This is the funniest part of your whole post.

1) The Struggle are not, outside of the aforementioned dishonest and delusional IMT reports, the only socialist organisation to do mass work in Pakistan. Mass work is a question of orientation and quite a few socialist organisations in Pakistan have such an orientation. It is less a question of size, but even then the Struggle, even before it split in half, wasn't the largest self-professedly "Marxist" organisation in the country.

2) You don't think that anyone outside of your organisation is a "marxist", and yet you chide others for not "defending the gains" of fellow Marxists. The hypocrisy would be startling if it wasn't only what we've come to expect from the IMT.

3) As it happens, I do think that there are many Marxists in the IMT and I would "defend" the very small gains they have made in some countries. I have no interest in defending the Struggle however, as they are a corrupt organisation which has made its own small gains through adapting to the bureaucracy of a party dominated by feudal landlords and capitalists. They are probably the single most opportunist allegedly "Trotskyist" organisation in the world. Actually, that's wrong. They are the second most opportunist behind their former comrades in the split group, who also recieved their political education at the feet of Woods and Khan.

[vyborg]

So millions of workers hurried to see Benazir when she came back in Pakistan. So PPP is a mass party isnt it? It is not a family affair...it has a real link with the pakistani proletariat. It has a revolutionary wing, that is The struggle, and a right wing bureacracy, as everywhere else parties like this. The leaders are strong but not onnipotent. They must concede something to their radical past and to the masses. Hence they are forced to give something to marxists. If they are "henchmen" the Militant in the 80s was formed by henchmen. The fact that Militant MPs were selected democratically is irrelevant as in many counties you can easily manipulate elections.

It is not easy to work there, and yet The Struggle succeded in building a strong base inside the workers movement and the youth. No one succeded in doing something even close to that. The bla bla bla is free, but the real situation in Pakistan is that the workers' vanguard knows very well The Struggle and no other groups.

The situation is difficult, and it is easy to predict that in a situation of extreme poverty and political reaction the PPP leaders will succed in buying some comrades. It happens all the time in Europe, we can understand why it happens there. The struggle lost some good comrades. But as they are strong and principled, they are back. The split was negligible in terms of strengh, it was not in terms of "names" of course.

As for the success of "marxist" organization. If, for example, in Iran, or in Afganistan, or in other countries of the area, a trot international succeded in building a strong and skillful group, I think we should analyse the situation to understand how they managed to build in a such difficult environment not to scream they are henchmen bla bla bla.

Of course if someone is interested in the class struggle and not in his/her small world. Luckily, the topic is not read by "normal" people.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Internationalism should be all about supporting the working class accross borders, not the support for this or that "international". It's class solidarity, some sort of a more symbolic unity, that gave way to the first three Internationals, even though they were not set up 'spontaniously'. The Fourth however was of a different character: it had no real roots in the working class from the beginning.

I have no doubt that the massive support given to the IMT by various national working classes will turn the 5th into a big success.

Don't you mean "Massive support given by the IMT to the various national working classes"? :confused:

Besides, even if the IMT folds completely into the new International, I'm certain that there will be at least one other Marxist current subsumed completely into the new organization, not to mention other, more entryist, currents. Alan Woods' control freakery will be more obvious for all to see, in stark contrast to the dominant symbolic unity / "brotherhood of the peoples."

[vyborg]

Unfortunately I agree...the V international, if it comes to life, will be full of strange people...as was the case in rifondazione at the beginning...but this could be good also, as the ideological and political debate inside a mass movement is essential to build and educate your cadres

[Die Neue Zeit]

I just don't want this to become a World Social Forum Mark II. If Chavez is too opportunist by including the likes of the CPC or PRI ( :rolleyes: ), then this disorganization is inevitable.

[vyborg]

Ca va sans dire...if it becomes a social forum it is as useless as you can get...

[Crux]

If they are "henchmen" the Militant in the 80s was formed by henchmen. The fact that Militant MPs were selected democratically is irrelevant as in many counties you can easily manipulate elections.
You can't be serious.


The situation is difficult, and it is easy to predict that in a situation of extreme poverty and political reaction the PPP leaders will succed in buying some comrades. It happens all the time in Europe, we can understand why it happens there.
Your members get bought out all the time in europe?



As for the success of "marxist" organization. If, for example, in Iran, or in Afganistan, or in other countries of the area, a trot international succeded in building a strong and skillful group, I think we should analyse the situation to understand how they managed to build in a such difficult environment not to scream they are henchmen bla bla bla. Maybe you ought to try and read MarkP's post again.



Of course if someone is interested in the class struggle and not in his/her small world. Luckily, the topic is not read by "normal" people.
Lucky for whom? For you?

[vyborg]

This topic is now a discussion between very few people, so is not very useful.
Anyway, going back to the problem.

In the PPP, as in other similar parties, the selection of MP candidates is different from what happens in UK or in continental Europe. But desuming from it that if in the PPP you have a candidate this is a corrupt henchman and if you have a candidate in Europe he is an expression of healthy left wing trend in that party would be SCI-FI, and even a bit racist.
The PPP leaders are forced to let some marxist to be candidate because of the weight of the ideas of marxism among the vanguard of workers in Pakistan. You can deny it with some bla bla bla and slandersthis, but this is what happens there.

As for being bought. It happens...and it always had. Lionel Jospin used to be a lambertist, a minister of Lula a mandelite, etc etc. If this is the case in Europe, where the material conditions are relatively good, we can imagine what is the pressures in a country like Pakistan. Besides any polemics everyone can understand it.

The sell-off can be going to the right wing (as Ramsay Macdonald did) or to pretend to be still on the left to confuse and defuse. It is easy, anyway to detect both of them.
When it happens, it is a pity but a revolutionary organization has to do its duty and defend the ideas of marxism. That is was always The Struggle did.

[Benghazi]

Just a few comments in relation to election programmes.

Obviously it is true that the programme of the No2EU coalition that stood in Britain in the 2009 Euro elections was limited. The coalition developed as a united front style formation, albeit not with mass organisations, and not as a political party. Its importance was that it marked an important step by the largest rail workers union in Britain, the RMT, as it supported, for the first time, candidates to the left of the Labour Party. The CWI did not draft the original No2EU proposals, but worked to improve them at the same time as putting forward, in a united front manner, its own programme. It is not clear which aspect Vyborg is criticising, the No2EU programme, the CWI programme in the 2009 Euro election or both.

But last year there was an example of an IMT supporter putting forward a very opportunist programme. In last September's regional elections in the western Austrian state of Vorarlberg, a supporter of the Funke, the Austrian IMT, stood on the list of the SPÖ, the Austrian Social Democratic Party.

In article announcing this candidature on the Funke website ("Vorarlberg ist zu bunt um schwarz zu sein - Wir kandidieren!", August 12, 2009) the IMT comrades made anti-cuts statements like "We will not pay for your crisis" ("Eure Krise zahlen wir nicht!"), that they stood for the interests of workers and youth, put forward a number of general immediate demands, said they stood in solidarity with workers facing redundancy and would not, if elected, follow the policies of the establishment parties.

However nowhere did they in this article put forward any general socialist programme or the idea of opposing capitalism itself.

The Funke's general programmatic alternative was limited to simply saying "We stand for new ideas in the SPÖ" ("Wir stehen für neue Ideen in der SPÖ"). Specifically which "new ideas" was unclear, they could have been left-reformist, centrist or Marxism, but the reader would not be able to judge.

It is true that in later material the IMT comrades, after criticism from Austrian CWI comrades and others, did put forward more of a general programme. But this initial approach cannot have been accidental.

[Wanted Man]

It is true that in later material the IMT comrades, after criticism from Austrian CWI comrades and others, did put forward more of a general programme. But this initial approach cannot have been accidental.

Hmm, I thought that they did not listen to "the sects" and their criticism. Strange. :rolleyes:

[vyborg]

A last thing about Pakistan...I think it is always good to learn from others but not to copy...The Struggler created PTDUC, CWI in Pakistan created TURCP that is the same thing, on the paper, only a lot smaller. This is frankly ridicolous.

As for Der Funke, if the critic is that they didnt published a general programme, it is baseless. The problem is: did someone confused them with the SPO right wing leadership? This is the problem, if any

[Rojo Rojito]

And now you are in a Party of 2 mem and a dog...

[vyborg]

No, the dog was expelled.

[Rojo Rojito]

That old Dog did nothing anyway, good they got rid of it...

[lipmeister]

For the past few months, rumors were circulating leftist gossip sites and message forums. Supposedly "The Struggle" (IMT in Pakistan) had split and Manzoor left with a sizable minority. Then the sizable majority was transformed to claims of half of the section. The Struggle was in crisis according to the sectarians and others.

The reality is that The Struggle is and will continue to be the most serious Marxist organization in Pakistan and the most threatening to the Pakistani regime and world capitalism. This is why the state (successfully) tried to bribe Manzoor with a position unacceptable for a Marxist to hold. The IMT though does not tolerate reformists within its ranks. When Manzoor was called to justify this position he did not. A meeting of the Executive was set up where the comrades voted his expulsion.

Contrary to the claims of the sectarians, Manzoor did not take with him...half the section, but a tiny minority which was confined to a few close associates. The "split", or rather the expulsion of an opportunist, did not damage at all the organization. On the contrary, it strengthened it, because there remain only Marxist revolutionaries within its ranks. Parties get stronger by purging themselves as Engels said.

Now sectarians will of course want proof. Well the proof is the biggest congress of the history of the struggle, with 2,183 people. You can understand how big this number is, if you realize that Pakistan is a big country, but a poor country nontheless. This makes it difficult for comrades, who are overwhelmingly working class and peasants to go to Lahore for the meeting. Contrary to meetings of NGOs and other organizations, the delegates pay to go to the congress, rather than getting payed to go to it. Therefore not all comrades could make it, not even the majority.

The truth is. as as I wrote before, that The Struggle got stronger after purging Manzoor. There has been remarkable growth in the past year and this is why this congress was the largest ever.

For pictures and the full article go on marxist(dot)com

[Martin Blank]

Merged the IMT/Fifth International, "Lesson No. 1" and "Definite Splits" threads into a glamorous Grantite globule.

[vyborg]

That old Dog did nothing anyway, good they got rid of it...

he was not so old....

[vyborg]

Parties get stronger by purging themselves as Engels said.

He was Lassalle if I remember correctely, anyway I agree, The Struggle is doing a great congress

[vyborg]

Merged the IMT/Fifth International, "Lesson No. 1" and "Definite Splits" threads into a glamorous Grantite globule.

Well...let's see if the V International comes to existence first of all...then let's see what it is actually...

[bolchevique]

This is an answer to all those IMT gravediggers,
http://www.marxist.com/templates/imt/images/logo.png (http://www.marxist.com/)
http://www.marxist.com/templates/imt/images/imt_flag.png
International Marxist Tendency


Ab (http://www.marxist.com/about-us.htm)



Pakistan: 29th Congress of The Struggle – an historic gathering (http://www.marxist.com/pakistan-29-congress-of-the-struggle.htm)

Written by Our Correspondent in Lahore Monday, 22 March 2010
http://www.marxist.com/templates/imt/images/printButton.png (http://www.marxist.com/pakistan-29-congress-of-the-struggle/print.htm)http://www.marxist.com/templates/imt/images/emailButton.png (http://www.marxist.com/component/option,com_mailto/link,aHR0cDovL3d3dy5tYXJ4aXN0LmNvbS9wYWtpc3Rhbi0yO S1jb25ncmVzcy1vZi10aGUtc3RydWdnbGUuaHRt/tmpl,component/)
http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif (http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20)
On Saturday, March 20, the 29th Congress of The Struggle opened with sessions on the world crisis of capitalism, followed by a discussion on the impact of this crisis on Pakistan, as the country is ravaged by war, rising unemployment, power cuts, and terrorist attacks. Economic collapse is causing widespread misery among the masses, leading to growing social protest. In these conditions, over the two days the total figure attending was 2,183 people.
http://www.marxist.com/images/thumbs/250x166-images-stories-pakistan-congress2010-29th_congress_of_the_struggle_1.jpg (http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/pakistan/congress2010/29th_congress_of_the_struggle_1.jpg)The Awan-e-Iqbal Hall full of delegatesThe 29th Congress of The Struggle has been meeting in an economic, social and political crisis without parallel in the history of Pakistan. The economic collapse is causing widespread misery among the masses. 20,000 people are falling into poverty every day. To the scourge of unemployment is added the constant increase in prices of basic necessities and the daily electricity cuts that plunge cities, towns and villages into darkness sometimes for ten hours or more.
One well-known journalist wrote recently that we should be prepared to put up with power cuts because we have democracy. How hollow such words sound to millions of Pakistanis who are struggling to survive! The election of the PPP government has made little or no difference as far as the masses are concerned. Under the right-wing leadership of Zardari the government has carried out a policy of cuts and privatization and subordinated the country to US imperialism, participating in the criminal war in Afghanistan that has brought further death, devastation and misery.
The setting of the Congress was the impressive Awan-e-Iqbal Hall in Lahore. One week before the Congress Lahore was shaken by three violent bomb blasts that killed dozens of innocent people as well as police and military personnel. There are now many more terrorist acts in Pakistan than in Iraq and the situation is getting worse all the time. Therefore security was very high, with a large number of comrades acting as stewards.
There has been a steady increase in attendance in recent years, but this year has broken all previous records. Over the two days the total figure of those attending was 2,183 people. On the first day every seat was occupied both upstairs and down, and a number of delegates had to stand or sit in the aisles. This is particularly impressive because of the big increases in train fares that have made travelling costs far more expensive than in the past.
This undoubtedly limited the numbers attending, as did the serious security threat posed by the bombings. Whereas other political organizations and NGOs in Pakistan actually pay people to attend their meetings and conferences, the comrades of The Struggle have to find the money to get to Lahore and actually pay to attend the Congress. In addition many students were affected by exams. Without these problems there would have been an even greater number, which would have been too big even for the present hall to contain.
There is some assistance in finding food, however. In the days before the Congress, sacks of rice, flour and cans of ghee (vegetable oil) began arriving from the villages where sympathizers donate whatever they can to provide food for the delegates and visitors. Just to find food and accommodation for such a large number of people would be a huge feat even for comrades in a developed country. In a place like Pakistan it is little short of a miracle.
The congress opens

At half past nine in the morning the delegates began to file into the hall, having passed through stringent security checks. The atmosphere is enthusiastic. There are comrades from every region and province of Pakistan: Karachi, Sind, Baluchistan, Punjab (North, South and Central), Kashmir, Pukhtoonhua (formerly the North West Frontier), and even the Tribal Areas (Waziristan, D.I. Khan) where war is raging between the Taliban and the Pakistan army.
http://www.marxist.com/images/thumbs/250x166-images-stories-pakistan-congress2010-29th_congress_of_the_struggle_2.jpg (http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/pakistan/congress2010/29th_congress_of_the_struggle_2.jpg)Comrade Rehana from Kashmir opens the congress.As in previous years there is a good mix of youth and trade unionists. There are comrades from Karachi Steel and Karachi Electricity Supply, hardened in the struggle against the fascist MQM. These workers are used to facing terrorist attacks, contract killings organized by the bosses and the Mafia, sectarian strife between different religious and national groups, and many other problems. But Karachi remains the key to the socialist revolution in Pakistan. It occupies the same strategic position as did Petrograd in the Russian Revolution.
The varied costumes bear witness to the presence of different nationalities. The women (there were 95 female comrades present) in particular wear a variety of colourful clothes. Some have the oriental features of the Hazara people who came to Afghanistan with the Mongols of Genghis Khan. There are revolutionary youth from Kashmir, peasants from Sind, Baluchis, Punjabis, Pukhtoons and people from the Tribal lands of the North.
But instead of national rivalry there is a spirit of comradely unity and revolutionary solidarity. There is excitement, singing, chanting. As usual, before the formal sessions start a series of comrades come to the rostrum to sing revolutionary songs and recite revolutionary poems. At 10.30 the congress was formally opened by Comrade Rehana from Kashmir who is now in charge of work among women.
Before the start of the first session, delegates watched video messages of support and solidarity to the Congress from leading Marxists of different countries: the USA, Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil (comrade Serge Goulart), Bolivia, France, Denmark and Britain. The warm approval given by the delegates showed the firm commitment of the Pakistan Marxists to proletarian internationalism and the IMT.
World perspectives

http://www.marxist.com/images/thumbs/250x166-images-stories-pakistan-congress2010-29th_congress_of_the_struggle_3.jpg (http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/pakistan/congress2010/29th_congress_of_the_struggle_3.jpg)Alan Woods introduces World PerspectivesThe first session was on world perspectives and was introduced by comrade Alan Woods of the IMT. In his speech, comrade Alan explained that this was the most serious crisis of capitalism, not just since the Second World War, but probably in the whole of its history. The so-called free market economy stands condemned because it only survives on the basis of state handouts. Billions of dollars had been handed to the rich, whilst the governments tell the poor there is no money for schools, houses, hospitals or pensions.
The grotesque parasitism of capitalism was shown by the recent publication of the Forbes Rich List, which indicated that the process that Karl Marx described as the concentration of capital had reached obscene levels. It is untrue that the real division is between rich and poor countries. The richest man in the world is not Bill Gates but Carlos Slim, a Mexican, who has a personal fortune of $53.5 billion, which he increased by $18.5 billion last year. Bill Gates has slightly less – “only” $53 billion.
But there are quite a few multi-billionaires from poor countries, like Mukesh Abani, an Indian with a personal fortune of $29 billion, or another Indian, Lakshmi Mittai, with $28.7 billion. They have made these obscene profits from oil and steel, while millions of poor Indians do not have enough to eat and no access to clean water, education or health facilities. And there is no shortage of wealthy parasites in Pakistan either, said the British Marxist, pointing to the presence of at least one Pakistani on this Rich List.
Alan explained that the capitalists had only got out of the crisis by pumping huge amounts of money into the private banks and industries. But this only creates new and insurmountable problems. The unprecedented levels of state debt had to be paid, and would be paid not by the rich but the poor. The crisis of Greece capitalism was only the tip of the iceberg. The attempts to make the Greek workers pay for the crisis had already led to several general strikes and massive demonstrations. He said that other countries would follow the same path, leading to a general increase of the class struggle.
Passing on to world relations Alan pointed out that US imperialism was involved in an unwinnable war in Afghanistan. They would have to get out of Iraq and all they have achieved was to destabilize the Middle East. Obama was a picture of impotence, and Netanyahu could afford to defy him openly over the Palestine question. The Afghan war had destabilized Pakistan and had a similar effect in Central Asia.
Despite everything, the revolutionary potential was maturing. This was shown by the dramatic events in Iran, where millions had come onto the streets to defy the reactionary regime of the mullahs.
Alan pointed out that the governments are trying to place all the burden of the crisis on the shoulders of the masses. They gave billions to the bankers and now pass the bill to the poor. That is happening in Pakistan also. Fifty percent of all the wealth created by the sweat and toil of the workers and peasants of Pakistan is handed over to the foreign bankers in so-called debt repayment, while a further 28% is handed to the army, he said. “That leaves just 12% for health, education and infrastructure. And now they want to reduce even that!”
Comrade Woods spoke ironically of those journalists who write in the press that we must put up with power cuts ‘because we have democracy’. “These are not power cuts, but democratic power cuts,” said Alan, to loud laughter. “These are not price hikes, but democratic price hikes. And when the people protest on the streets of Islamabad, they are met by the police, firing democratic rubber bullets; they are blinded by democratic tear gas and wounded by democratic bullets.”
For those who ride around Islamabad in big limousines, that is democracy. But for the workers and peasants struggling to survive with 20-hour power cuts, democracy, if it means anything at all, must mean: Roti, kupra, aur maqan, (bread, clothing and shelter), Alan said, to enthusiastic applause.
Debate and reply

There was a session of questions and contributions, during which the Congress listened with great interest to a speech by Emanuel Tomaselli, of the Austrian Marxists of Der Funke and contributions by comrade Hameed Khan (Quetta) and Muazzam Kazmi of the German section of the IMT. Hamid Khan said that the revolution in Iran is moving forward and will have a big effect on Pakistan.
Comrade Emanuel explained that capitalism is a failed system, as it not only exploits working men and women, but also needs their financial contributions to pay back the huge amounts of money which were thrown at the banks in order to save them from collapse. Societies that destroy the wealth of the nations in order to save their productive systems are doomed and should be thrown into the dustbin of history.
Even human disasters like the earthquake in Haiti are misused for strategic military purposes to counter the influence of the Venezuelan and Cuban revolutions in Latin America, where the revolutionary process had gone further than anywhere else. He pointed out what effects the crisis has on the living conditions of the working class and the effects that this will have on the mass organizations of the class, which will be shaken from top to bottom.
He explained that Marxists in Europe are witnessing the dawn of big economic and political struggles of the working class in the imperialist countries. Politically this will be expressed in the rise of communist and left-wing parties, and in mass left currents in the social democratic parties. He ended by stating: “All political concepts are in crisis, except for revolutionary Marxism, and we are all optimistic. We must do everything to get prepared for the battles ahead.”
In his reply, comrade Alan answered some of the many questions that were passed to him. Asked about the PPP, Alan said that there are two PPPs: the PPP of the bureaucrats and corrupt careerists and the PPP of the millions of oppressed workers and peasants who voted for the PPP seeking to change society: “We are on the side of the latter and we are implacably opposed to the former. We will participate in all the protests and struggles to defend living standards, and strive to give them a revolutionary socialist content.”
Finally, Alan reported the historic decision taken by the International Executive Committee of the IMT to support the creation of the V International. This was put to the vote and approved by a unanimous vote, with a standing ovation that concluded the first session.
The second session

After the lunch break came the second session on Pakistan Perspectives, before which, the famous singer Jawad Ahmed sang the Internationale in an Urdu translation that he has made himself. The whole congress rose to its feet to sing the final verse with tremendous revolutionary spirit. It was an emotional moment, followed by loud chants of Inqlab, Inqlab, Socialist Inqlab! (Revolution, Revolution, Socialist Revolution!)
http://www.marxist.com/images/thumbs/200x300-images-stories-pakistan-congress2010-29th_congress_of_the_struggle_4.jpg (http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/pakistan/congress2010/29th_congress_of_the_struggle_4.jpg)Comrade Paras Jan introducing Pakistan PerspectivesThe second session, on Pakistan Perspectives, was introduced by comrade Paras Jan, who began by stressing the effects of the crisis of world capitalism in Pakistan. The government is using the excuse of the “war on terror” to justify its attacks on living standards. Comrade Paras denounced the reactionary Moslem League of Nawaz Sharif, but also pointed to the thorough degeneration of the leadership of the PPP, which had completely capitulated to capitalism and imperialism.
Comrade Paras pointed out the deep contradictions within the Pakistan bourgeois state, the conflicts between sections of the armed forces and intelligence services. He emphasized the revolutionary role of the youth and particularly the workers. He pointed to a number of strikes and demonstrations in the last year despite the difficult conditions. Even in Bannu, in the middle of war-torn Pukhtoonhua, the workers have gone on strike. The PTUDC has done marvellous work and is getting a good echo. Everywhere there is a ferment of discontent, even in areas where war is raging, like Baloochistan and Pukhtoonhua, people are open to revolutionary ideas.
During the discussion there were interventions of comrades from Baloochistan, Kashmir, Puhktoonhua (former NWFP) and Sind. Congress gave a particularly warm welcome to comrade Amjad Shahsawar, the President of the JKSNF, the biggest youth organization in Kashmir, which is led by the Marxist tendency. He emphasized that the only solution for the Kashmir problem was a socialist revolution in Kashmir, India and Pakistan: “And the only force capable of bringing about such a revolution is in this hall!”
Comrade Fazal-e-Qadir, the leader of the railway workers from Peshawar, spoke against the Stalinist theory of two stages, which led to the defeat of the Revolution of 1968-9, and directly to the dictatorship of Zia-al-Huq. The workers have been paying the price ever since.
Replying to the discussion, Lal Khan, the leader of the Pakistan section of the IMT, said that not only the economy of Pakistan was in crisis but the very ideological basis upon which Partition was based. All the artificial divisions that cut across whole nations are reactionary, including the Durand Line, which is rejected by the Pukhtoon people. The way forward was shown by the Russian Revolution that united the oppressed peoples of different nationalities on the programme of the socialist revolution.

“What has Pakistan given the people since Partition? Only 15-20% of the people are working in the official ‘white’ economy. The official wage is not enough to live on – it is barely enough to exist. Now conditions are even worse with loadshedding, gas shedding and all the rest. The conditions of life are intolerable. Yet the PPP leaders talk of national reconciliation!
“More than half the industrial investment in Pakistan is in the hands of the generals. The country is being de-industrialised. At the same time the country is being controlled by US imperialism. The disastrous policy of so-called defence in depth has sucked us into the war in Afghanistan. It has led to an explosion of the drug trade and terrorism, a flourishing of the black economy and the disintegration of the state and society.
“The kind of democracy we are fighting for is not the fake bourgeois democracy but a real soviet democracy, based on the rule of the working class. The only way to force the PPP to change course is to subject Zardari and his policies to a merciless criticism and lead the struggle of the masses against privatization and in defence of jobs and living standards.
“We reject the Stalinist theory of two stages: ‘first fight for democracy, then socialism’. In fact, the Pakistani Stalinists no longer have the two stage theory but only a ONE stage theory –having forgotten all about socialism! (laughter)
“Pakistan is depicted as a religious Islamic society, but in fact most Pakistanis hate the fundamentalists. We are fighting against the fundamentalists and the imperialists. Comrade Ali Wazir is here in this hall, but 25 five other comrades from the [tribal areas] of Waziristan could not get there because the army blocked the bridge and stopped them [they arrived on the following day].”
http://www.marxist.com/images/thumbs/200x300-images-stories-pakistan-congress2010-29th_congress_of_the_struggle_5.jpg (http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/pakistan/congress2010/29th_congress_of_the_struggle_5.jpg)Lal Khan summing up the discussion on Pakistan.In closing, comrade Lal Khan poured scorn on the attempts of the enemies of the Marxist movement to belittle the achievements of The Struggle and spread lies about this congress. Pointing to the massive attendance, which filled every seat in this vast hall, with people standing and sitting in the aisles, Lal Khan threw out a challenge to the renegades and enemies of Marxism:

“I say to these people: come and see for yourself! [laughter and applause] Come here and take a good look! Count the people present! Count every one! And then tell us that this is not a real workers’ congress! Come here and ask people what they think, and they will answer with one voice: the voice of revolutionary Marxism!”
These last remarks of Lal Khan were greeted by a standing ovation and the chanting of revolutionary slogans. The delegates then broke into three groups for commissions on trade union work, youth and women.
[A report on the second day of the congress will be published tomorrow...]
Photo gallery (of both days)



The IMT (http://www.marxist.com/the-imt/) » National congresses (http://www.marxist.com/congresses-of-national-sections/)
Related articles




Marxist Conference in Canada a Big Success (http://www.marxist.com/conference-canada-2009.htm)
Pakistan: The Struggle congress 2009 – Day two (http://www.marxist.com/pakistan-congress-2009-2.htm)
The Struggle congress 2009 - Pakistan Marxists on the move! (http://www.marxist.com/pakistan-congress-2009.htm)

[ZombieGrits]

Awesome. South Asia is ground zero these days!

And silly me thought it was going to be Greece :laugh: all those anarchists make a bunch of noise, but they aren't really prepared to do anything with their power

[Martin Blank]

Merged another IMT press release into this thread.

Note to IMT Spam-Bots: Keep your press-release posts in here or I'll start condemning you to the Events and Propaganda forum in the bowels of RevLeft.

[Jolly Red Giant]

This is an answer to all those IMT gravediggers,

In all honesty, was it necessary to post the entire article - I doubt if many of the people here are computer illiterate.

As for the Congress - impressive stuff - I doubt the numbers (about 700 in the photo - so probably 1000 in the hall) - as well as the previous claim that the IMT was well over 4,000. Given the nature of Pakistani society it is important to outline the basis of where these numbers came from.

Whether the IMT survives or not has yet to be determined. The IMT entry work into the PPP will undoubtedly cause tensions in the future. Woods may have better luck in imposing his anti-internet rules in countries that have poorer access to that type of technology, like Pakistan, but at the end of the day, as long as the IMT remain the PPP tensions will regularly erupt. Remember the IMT in its existance in Pakistan (and prior to the CWI split) has undergone a series of splits in Pakistan. The future is likely to be more of the same as long as the IMT tries to remain within the confines of PPP dictats.

[Crux]

No, the dog was expelled.
I didn't know the IMT split was that severe...;)

[Q]

On the Pakistan article, a small comment:

In these conditions, over the two days the total figure attending was 2,183 people.

The congress was in the Aiwan-e-Iqbal complex in Lahore.


One Conference Centre having a capacity of 1050 persons, fitted with latest audio facilities;

I note some disparity here.

[zimmerwald1915]

I note some disparity here.
Not necessarily. The total figure given was over the entire length of the "two-day" conference, and not all those people were in the Conference Center all at once. Perhaps many came and went, or many stood out in the hall?

[Q]

Not necessarily. The total figure given was over the entire length of the "two-day" conference, and not all those people were in the Conference Center all at once.
That would mean that pretty much everyone on day 1 would have to leave to make room for the visitors of day 2. Effectively you'd have two separate congresses. This sounds somewhat far fetched to me.


Perhaps many came and went, or many stood out in the hall?
While the room looks "tightly packed", I don't see a few hundred or so standing in hall ways (for example in this photo (http://lh6.ggpht.com/_VO0hIwKRCQE/S6dI6ukA8zI/AAAAAAAAGOU/2jKhHwLZVMg/s720/Women%20Delegates.JPG), more photo's (http://picasaweb.google.com/international.marxist.tendency/CongressOfTheStruggle2010#)).

[Jolly Red Giant]

That would mean that pretty much everyone on day 1 would have to leave to make room for the visitors of day 2.
I got the distinct impression from the article that the total number passing into the hall over the two days was 2,100+ people i.e. 1000 each day. Knowing Woods, he does like playing with words in this fashion. Irrespective of that, it is an impressive showing - but again does raise the question - on what basis were these people recruited/attended? Prior to the LPP's expusion from the CWI they could get several hundred at a conference yet still had only 100 or so activists. The rest were recruited on the basis of nepotism, because of what they individually could get out of it or simply because they claimed to be 'revolutionary'. There is a mistaken assumption among Western Marxists that people in places like Pakistan are recruited in the same way as in the West - this is not the case - far more care has to be taken in recruitment and a lot of discussion, negotiation and compromise goes on, particularly in relation to the leading people. This is partly the reason why Marxist organisations in places like Pakistan can go off the rails very easily.

Despite the impressive turnout for the IMT in Lahore it does not detract from the fact that it has suffered a major setback over the past few weeks - particularly with the loss of the Spanish IMT section (the financial pockets for the IMT). There is no doubt that Woods would have been determined to put on a major show of strength in Pakistan both for public consumption and for consumption within the IMT. This in my mind would raise some questions over the bona-fides of the claims for the Pakistan Congress. Woods has been known for decades for manipulating/taking short-cuts etc in situations like this. The final fall-out from everything still has to be determined and, notwithstanding the report from Pakistan, it has not been a good six months for the IMT.

[Saorsa]

The reality is that The Struggle is and will continue to be the most serious Marxist organization in Pakistan and the most threatening to the Pakistani regime and world capitalism.


ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

No, seriously?

[bolchevique]

[QUOTE=Jolly Red Giant;1700433]In all honesty, was it necessary to post the entire
I put it in a different thread because, although some people here are IMT hater, to me it's really funny, I thought this would be good news for all honest revolutionary that in a country like Pakistan a marxist organization is growing but a dark hand put it here

Whether the IMT survives or not has yet to be determined

Despite our problems here in Spain , because Heikoo and his friend are not seriuos people and nobody pays any attention , except IMT hater here of course, we are the only marxist organization take into account by the bourgoisie, they are attacking us in the most important papers in Venezuela and Brazil by the most intelligent element of the estatblishment, and in Venezuela there is a revolution, it`'s not a children game do you think that the bourgoisie spent a second of their time with CWI or Taff, other groups, they don`t care, although, I must admit that we have a long way to walk to become a factor, but in comparison with with other groups, we are giants

[lipmeister]

On the Pakistan article, a small comment:


The congress was in the Aiwan-e-Iqbal complex in Lahore.


Originally Posted by Wikipedia on Aiwan-e-Iqbal
One Conference Centre having a capacity of 1050 persons, fitted with latest audio facilities; I note some disparity here.

Actually, i just checked (never trust wikipedia), and the seating capacity of
the hall can be extended up to 1384, and i guess you can also rent the allied
facilities (banquet hall, 4 committee rooms, etc..). And quoting the report:
"Over the two days the total figure of those attending was 2,183 people. On the
first day every seat was occupied both upstairs and down, and a number of
delegates had to stand or sit in the aisles".

In Spain for our International Congress, which I attended, we had multiple simultaneous sessions in different rooms for example.

“I say to these people: come and see for yourself! Come here and take a good look! Count the people present! Count every one! And then tell us that this is not a real workers’ congress! Come here and ask people what they think, and they will answer with one voice: the voice of revolutionary Marxism!” ... Dr Laal Khan - Annual Congress 2010 The Struggle , Pakistan


ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

No, seriously?

I don't expect a maoist to understand the internationalist character of socialist revolution.

[MarkP]

Silly, silly Woodsites.

I mean I can almost understand their desperate urge to find something to cling to as their international disintegrates around them, but this really takes the biscuit.

Every year they claim to have had 2,000 at their Congress in Pakistan. And every year it is a lie. And every year the same desperate fools in the same little Woods cult groups around the world swallow it hook line and sinker. Even though the hall they meet in has a capacity of 1,000!

Oh, marvel at the counting ability of Lal Khan, ye sectarians! For just as Christ managed to turn five loaves and two fishes into food for a multitude, so too can Khan turn the 700 people in his photographs into 2,100 people in the minds of his own religious cultists abroad.

Now 700 people isn't a bad showing in its own way. It might even be a few more, allowing for people coming and going. Although on the other hand, the fact that the Struggle's main rallies and conferences are open to every Tom, Dick and Harry they can round up and not just to members is also worth noting.

As for the Manzoor split, I've seen their conference reports. They claim to have had more than 1,100 at their conference. Like the IMT, the photographs show less people than they claim but still a substantial number. It seems to be a chronic problem with the left in Pakistan - the LPP makes even more insane and unreliable claims about its membership.

[MarkP]

Actually, i just checked (never trust wikipedia), and the seating capacity of
the hall can be extended up to 1384, and i guess you can also rent the allied
facilities (banquet hall, 4 committee rooms, etc..).

Clutching at straws, my little Woods cultist. Desperate, desperate clutching at straws.

Have a look at the photographs from last year, when the hall was less full. The seating has not been extended from then. Have a look at the report, there is no mention of simultaneous sessions going on anywhere else and given the compulsive boasting which the IMT engages in, it surely would have made such mentions. And finally, have a look at the photographs. There are no more than 700 people visible.

Perhaps, like the extra rooms and extended invisible seating, you can insert some more of your own fantasies into the report to keep the lies of Khan and Woods congruent with reality - maybe the conference went on 24 hours a day in three shifts! Khan had his followers marched in for a shift, and then marched out and replaced by an entirely new set, because that's the only way that three times as many people could have been present as the photographs show!

[BOZG]

Clutching at straws, my little Woods cultist. Desperate, desperate clutching at straws.

Have a look at the photographs from last year, when the hall was less full. The seating has not been extended from then. Have a look at the report, there is no mention of simultaneous sessions going on anywhere else and given the compulsive boasting which the IMT engages in, it surely would have made such mentions. And finally, have a look at the photographs. There are no more than 700 people visible.

Perhaps, like the extra rooms and extended invisible seating, you can insert some more of your own fantasies into the report to keep the lies of Khan and Woods congruent with reality - maybe the conference went on 24 hours a day in three shifts! Khan had his followers marched in for a shift, and then marched out and replaced by an entirely new set, because that's the only way that three times as many people could have been present as the photographs show!

You've all the subtlely of a sledgehammer!

What's remarkable is that you could potentially just claim that you have 2,500 members and say that they didn't all turn up for the conference. In a country like Pakistan, I wouldn't be all too surprised if there were difficulties in getting every single member of the organisation to come to the conference. Yet the Wooden tops seem to want to claim that every single member was there, hiding in the shadows, underneath desks, in hallways, from the chandeliers and whatever other pocket they could find.

[MarkP]

"The reality is that The Struggle is and will continue to be the most serious Marxist organization in Pakistan and the most threatening to the Pakistani regime and world capitalism."

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

No, seriously?

Try not to look too harshly on him/her. Compulsive boasting and lying is part of the Woodsite pathology.

[Benjamin Hill]

The former Iranian IMT section, the IRMT, has issued a response to the allegations made by the IMT's IS. A very interesting read. One of the highlights is that it puts an explicit link between the pro-Chavez stance of the IMT that the IRMT has argued against, the expulsion and the fact that the IMT now has announced full support for Chavez's latest project, the 5th international. This puts resolution 14 back in line again with the other 13 adopted at the latest IEC meeting (http://sites.google.com/a/karlmarx.net/open/topics/democratic-centralism-1/degenerationoftheimtleadershipattheiec). Enjoy the read:


On Maziar Razi's expulsion and the IRMT's disaffiliation

To the rank and file of the IMT
Dear comrades

Taking into consideration the behaviour of the IS over the past nine months, and the IEC's consistent indifference or endorsement of this behaviour pattern, we came to realise - even before our expulsion - that it is impossible to contact you through the internal communication channels of the IMT, the so-called `democratic structures'. When we were the IMT's official Iranian section we even found it difficult to contact all IEC, national EC and CC members – let alone the rank and file of the sections.
Throughout the past nine months the IS has consistently blocked the distribution of any of our material that disagreed with its own position. The IS has censored our dissenting view using the excuse that ours is a minority view. Since hardly anyone has heard our point of view, however, how can anyone estimate whether our position is a minority or a majority view?
Since we are now outside the IMT anyway, we have no choice but to adopt this direct method of communication.

The process that led to our expulsion was very simple:
1- We had a long-standing disagreement about the necessity of condemning unequivocally and robustly Chavez's support for the Iranian regime.
2- Following the disputed `election' result in June 2009 and the ensuing street protests, we disagreed with the contradictory position of the IS: while the IS simply took the protests to mean that the "Iranian revolution had begun", it still refused to condemn Chavez for his unstinting support for his `brother' Ahmadinejad and, in effect, approval for the killing of Iranian youth in the streets as well as raping and torturing them in the regime's jails. Chavez even reiterated his support at a recent PSUV congress.
3- We tried to bring this disagreement to the attention of the IEC and the wider membership of the IMT. This was blocked by the IS for two months. We were forced to go public with this disagreement.
4- Organisational measures, particularly the `parachuting in' of two members, who although member of two other IMT national sections, are not members of the IRMT, were taken against us. This was an attempt to engineer a fictitious `split' in the IRMT.
5- When caught out, the IS invented a story about our compromising the security of these two non-IRMT members of the IMT, in order to justify the expulsion of Maziar Razi and the whole Iranian section.

The allegations against Maziar Razi

The IEC justified the expulsion of Maziar Razi and the disaffiliation of the IRMT because he had allegedly committed "A criminal act"! They claim that "MR had publicly attacked the positions of the International on several occasions" and that "In spite of being offered all the internal channels to express his disagreement, he decided to boycott the IEC, considering it to be a bureaucratic rubber stamp for the IS".

The fact is that the source of this disagreement, Maziar Razi's Open letter to the workers of Venezuela on Hugo Chavez's support for Ahmadinejad, has still not been circulated to all national ECs and CCs, let alone the general membership of the IMT. It took three reminders and two months for the correspondence to even reach all other IEC members! Once they did receive the material, unfortunately, the IEC members were mostly totally silent or indifferent on this very important issue: Chavez's `revolutionary' support for torture and murder by the Iranian bourgeois state against a movement that the IMT itself calls a `revolution'!

We are not sure why Maziar Razi's attempts to publish the position of the Iranian section is called a "slanderous campaign against" the International. That, together with "His deliberate boycotting of the democratically elected leadership of the International" (is there such a thing as accidental boycotting?), "were sufficient reasons for disciplinary action – suspension from the IEC at the very least." Where in the 1994 Statutes of the International does it stipulate that boycotting a politically indifferent IEC (or other body) should "at the very least" lead to suspension from it?

Then the IEC moves on to give details of the `crime': "But what he did subsequently can only be described as a crime. In his latest tirade of insults against the International, sent out to undisclosed recipients, he deliberately leaked personal information on two young Iranian comrades who support the line of the International."

The IEC's deliberations on Maziar Razi's actions continue in the same vein and they conclude by saying that the IMT is better off without him (and the IRMT) and that they will now go on to build in Iran - unhindered by our "sectarian approach". On this false basis the IEC unanimously passed two resolutions (the text of the IEC's deliberations and the two resolutions are included in the appendix).

Let us examine the IEC's `evidence' for Maziar Razi's "crime".

IEC resolution No 1

IEC resolution No 1 condemned Maziar Razi for boycotting the IEC meeting and accused him of "threats, ultimatums and blackmails", rejected the fact that material written by Comrade Razi had been censored, and that publishing positions contrary to those of the IS constituted an attack on the "positions of the International and the International itself constitute a blatant and unacceptable violation of revolutionary discipline".

First, the reason that Maziar Razi boycotted the IEC was that his Open letter was not published and the IEC was totally silent about this matter. In order to protest against this lack of political responsibility by the leadership of the IMT he boycotted the meeting, as instructed by the EC of the IRMT.

Second, we are unaware of any "threats, ultimatums and blackmails" made by Comrade Razi and would like the IEC to reiterate them so that everyone, the IRMT and all rank and file members of the national sections of the IMT, are clear about them. We also disagree with "threats, ultimatums and blackmails" and believe that they should be fully exposed for the benefit of the whole working class movement - especially when they are serious enough to warrant the expulsion of an well-known Trotskyist.

Third, we would like to know how the IS explains the process through which our position, the position of the official Iranian section as recognised by the 2008 World Congress, on Chavez's support for the Iranian regime gunning down people on the streets, as well as raping and torturing detainees, has not appeared on Marxist.com, or any other IMT website or paper. How can the IS be both overjoyed about the beginning of the Iranian revolution and also turn a blind eye to Chavez's support for the butchers of the very same `revolution'? Furthermore, why did it take two months - and three reminders! - for the opinion of an IEC member (Maziar Razi) to reach other IEC members? Subsequent correspondence by Comrade Razi has also been subject to many delays and bundling with `explanatory' material written by the IS.

Fourth, in the middle of this `revolution', with all internal and public IMT channels blocked, how else can our position be voiced? If publishing a position contrary to that of the leadership is to "attacking the positions of the International and the International itself constitute a blatant and unacceptable violation of revolutionary discipline", then Lenin was guilty of the same thing at least 10 times during his political career, particularly in April 1917, as explained by Comrade Alan Woods:

"When Lenin's April Theses were published in the pages of Pravda, on April 7, they appeared over a single signature—Lenin's own. Not one of the other leaders was prepared to associate their name with Lenin's position. The very next day, Pravda published an article by Kamenev entitled Our Disagreements, which disassociated the Bolshevik leadership from Lenin's position, stating that it represented his own private views which were shared neither by the editorial board of Pravda nor by the Bureau of the Central Committee." (Alan Woods, Bolshevism - the road to revolution, p 534).

IEC resolution No 2

IEC resolution No 2 claims that "Following the deliberate and scandalous boycott of the IEC, MR has launched a vicious attack on the International which has been sent to an undisclosed list of recipients." The IEC therefore claims that "MR saw fit to publish detailed information about them , from which their identities can be easily determined by the Iranian state forces" and that by "publishing information that compromises these two comrades, MR has made it impossible for them to return to Iran to build the International without putting their lives in danger" and that "It was an attempt to strike back at his critics by exposing their identity, thus opening them to identification by the Iranian authorities. This was the action, not of a Marxist revolutionary, but of a vulgar police informer. This is a crime against the International, against the working class, and against all the democratic and progressive forces in Iran."

As a consequence of this "crime", the IEC declared that "that MR is expelled with ignominy from the International with immediate effect." It further alleges this "criminal conduct was carried out with the active participation of both the internal and external ECs of the Iranian section" which justifies the disaffiliation of the Iranian section of the International.
First, the "vicious attack on the International" was a three page letter that was sent out before and not "Following the … boycott of the IEC".

Second, even though it was addressed to the IEC and the rank-and-file members of the IMT it was sent to the IEC members only (plus a few other members of IMT who have been involved in the discussion or from Iranian origin like BK and HA). Given the consistent behaviour of the IS regarding our correspondence - i.e., either not distributing our material to IEC members or doing so after long delays (and repeated requests) - and as the IEC meeting was about to begin, the letter was emailed to the IEC members directly. This letter was not published or distributed anywhere! As it was sent to the IEC and a few IMT members only then we do not think that it likely that it has been leaked to any police agency!

Third, the letter in question was written by the EC of the IRMT, and not Maziar Razi. It appears that the IEC was in a great hurry to get rid of Maziar Razi, a thorn in their side, and did not take time to consider any of the basic relevant facts, including who wrote the letter!

Fourth, how could the identities of these two individuals have been exposed if we merely used the initials of their pseudonyms?! The European country in which HA lives has 20-25,000 Iranian political refugees and immigrants living in it. As, to BK, he lives in Canada where, according to the 2006 census, 121,505 Iranian live! These individuals, particularly BK, have no qualms about using their real names on Facebook and having IMT members among their friends on this social networking site. BK has many IMT and WCPI Facebook friends and his profile clearly describes him as a communist. Both BK and HA have used their real names to express their solidarity with trade unionists in other countries in campaigns and on the internet. BK, using his real name, has even been interviewed about the situation in Iran!

When it suits them they are totally at ease about using their real names, yet when they are caught red handed as part of a botched coup against the elected leadership and whole membership of the IRMT they become very sensitive about even using the initials of their pseudonyms!

Fifth, according to the IMT constitution there are certain procedures that must be followed in expulsions and there are clear guidelines about the appeals process! We have waited a week now and we still have not been offered any of these! We have therefore begun the appeals process ourselves and are waiting for the World Congress to clear the name of Maziar Razi and the IRMT.

The issue of BK and HA's membership

Ever since the split between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks took place in 1903, the issue of membership of a Marxist organisation has been a very serious one that has been set out in every group's constitution, statutes or rules. The way an organisation has treated this vital issue has, justifiably, been taken to indicate which side of this historical divide it stands.
In January this year, when the Spanish section withheld its quarterly financial contribution to the International, i.e., its subs as a national section, the IS was fully within its rights to declare that this had formally placed the section "outside" the IMT. (Of course, this was merely one aspect of a long-running dispute which is outside the scope of this letter.)

We were therefore astonished to learn that when BK and HA wrote a letter to us raising some concerns about our position regarding the recent street protests that suddenly, in late February, they refer to themselves as two members of the Iranian section. Yet at no point has either of these comrades paid a penny in subs or been given responsibilities for any work carried out under the discipline and guidance of the leadership of the IRMT in relation to building the group inside Iran!

HA later retracted this baseless claim about his membership in a short letter to the IS. He then reiterated this correct position during one of the Iranian section's weekly meetings (on 27 February, to which he had been invited as a guest), and he finally wrote a letter, which although was mainly a long tirade against us, nevertheless stated categorically that he is not a member.

We would like to state categorically that BK and HA are not, nor have ever been, "members in the work of IMT's Iran section". Indeed, during our meeting Saturday February 27, in reply to our question about the claim of membership in this letter, HA stated that he is not a member. He also said that "2-3 days ago I sent a personal letter to the IS and the letter begins with this: "Although my main personal responsibilities in the international has not been within the Iranian section I have, because I am an Iranian, been in more or less regular contact with comrade Razi and at times also participated in the weekly meetings of the IRMT. Besides this I have also been following the situation in Iran regularly, at least since the begginning of the revolution last summer." Comrade HA then went on to say: "In summary, I'll agree to whatever you want to write. In my opinion the question of my membership was not really raised in that letter, it was mostly the political problems and debates. […] I sent a letter so that the inside [core] of the debate becomes clarified […] I will write a long letter and I will apologise, but it is the political points that are important that no one has answered."

On 2 March Comrade HA's wrote a letter which included: "But for the record and to ease the Iranian comrades of their worries of being undermined by the first sentence of our letter let me personally state here that [B]I am not a "member" of the Iranian section. This means that I do not pay subs and do not have any formal responsibilities in the section."
HA's clear statement about his status as a non-member of the IRMT stands in clear contrast against what three IS members claimed during the IEC session on Iran.

BK and the WCPI

This leaves us with the matter of BK of Canada's fictitious membership in the IRMT. BK is in fact a member of the Worker-Communist Party of Iran. The WCPI is a semi-Maoist right centrist organisation that is based on the petty bourgeoisie. Whenever it intervenes in any struggle it always tries to pretend that it was the organiser and leader of that action and wants to take it over by any trick possible - and it is therefore utterly despised by the workers.

The theoretical `gems' that Mansour Hekmat, the late leader of the WCPI wrote, are legendary within the Iranian left. We, the only Iranian Trotskyist group, have written hundreds of pages criticising various aspects of the WCPI's policies. These include: a two stage theory of revolution; underestimating the importance of the national question; trying to impose their `leadership' on the workers' and other movements; their appalling and moralistic position on abortion; and so on. One of Hekmat's biggest contributions to `Marxist theory' is the concept of the `black scenario', where the main danger to humanity is seen as civil war, the collapse of civilisation and the seizure of power by reactionary forces like Islamic fundamentalists. In order to prevent this he advocates cross-class alliances!

Following Hekmat's death in 2002 there have been two splits: resulting in three WCPI's competing for his legacy. The `main' WCPI, the one that BK belongs to, recently published a `Manifesto of the Iranian Revolution'. This manifesto makes no mention of the dictatorship of the proletariat, communism or even the necessity of a general strike! The only time it mentions socialism is when it is quoting "Socialism or barbarism", the slogan taken up by some student.

For many years the WCPI received money from Saddam's Baathist regime. Once Saddam was overthrown, they then found some other unspecified state that provides them with money for 24-hour TV stations, radio stations, a plethora of websites and journals (most of which are given away for free!) and so on.

The WCPI is a force that is hostile to Trotskyism. It not only competes against the real Marxists, using the enormous resources at its disposal to make itself look bigger, but it ruins the reputation of the whole left when it tries to impose its leadership on any movement it intervenes in! It is the comrades in Iran who are particularly concerned about BK's sudden `membership' of the IRMT.

Three IS positions on BK's `membership'

Despite BK's membership of the WCPI, a group hostile to Trotskyism, Comrade Alan Woods still dealt with this vital issue during the IEC session on Iran in the following way: "Organisational methods have been taken against you? What organisational methods? What organisational methods? You've been expelled? You've been threatened with expulsion? We've been threatened constantly with a split. That's what we've been threatened constantly with a split, by Razi. We haven't expelled anybody, we haven't taken organisational measures. But you are taking organisational measures against two young Iranian comrades that you want to expel from the group. Yes, oh yes! Or exclude from the group, it comes to the same thing. Exclude from the group. Let's not quibble over words. Not for security reasons, that's completely wrong what you said … not for security reasons at all. It's because these very excellent young comrades have got a different position in relation to Iran than you have. Nothing to do with security, it's a bureaucratic attempt to expel or exclude two young Iranian comrades who support the position of the International. … Oh, incidentally, one of these comrades he says, oh, what's the big crime of Babak, he's a member of the Iranian Communist Workers' Party [sic], what a crime, what a crime, I say `well done Babak, well done, very well done', yes, and it's the same sectarian, why can't he work in the Iranian Communist Party [sic], why can't he? Amin gave the reasons, because they've got a bad programme. Good heavens above! If you were to accept that analysis you'd never work in any organisation in the world, trade unions as well by the way, … they've all got a bad programme. What is this? What is this nonsense? What is this nonsense? It's complete sectarianism, and I'm sorry to say, I'm very sorry to be as hard as this, I try not to be hard, but you'll never build with this, and I think we have to seriously discuss … the position of the Iranian section. I'll put it on the table that we have to discuss the position of the Iranian group in relation to the IMT. We'd hoped the comrades would shape up, would improve, would adopt the correct policies. They've clearly not done so. They're going from bad to worse. We cannot afford the IMT, and you can tell Razi what I said. We cannot afford the name of the IMT, in the middle of a revolution, to be associated in the eyes of the youth with the sectarian policy and this question must be resolved."

So Comrade Alan Woods thinks that these two individuals are members of the IRMT - by virtue of membership of the IMT – and we want to expel them because of political differences. First, we have already seen that HA has categorically said that he is not a member of the IRMT. Second, BK belongs to an organisation that is even more hostile to Trotskyism (of any variety) than the Taaffeites are to the IMT! Can any IMT section accept a Taaffeite as a member?

The second IS position was taken by FDA: "Just to clarify, the two comrades that have been referred to, who are not official members of the IRMT, are members of the IMT. Is this a federation of national sections, or is it an international? The reason why it became such an important issue was that these comrades do not agree with Razi, that's why the big fuss. This is a way of avoiding discussing the real political issues."

So Comrade FDA talks about these two individuals as not being "official members of the IRMT"! We are not sure what is meant by official and unofficial members? Does the comrade believe in the 1903 formulation by Lenin, a formulation that has been handed down through the Third and Fourth Internationals, and is the formulation in the IMT's 1994 statutes and those of all national sections? If so, then what is this attempt to obscure the important issue of membership? Using the same `logic', we would like to ask whether now that we have been disaffiliated by the IEC, is this an official disaffiliation or an unofficial disaffiliation?

In addition, using the IMT membership of an individual as something similar to osmosis, where the membership of the International can easily ooze into membership of one or more national sections when it suits the IS, is definitely yet another organisational innovation of the IS. Using the `osmosis method', and, ironically, under the guise of internationalism, all Bolshevik-Leninist concepts of membership are totally obliterated. We ask Comrade FDA this: could Kautsky have forced the Bolsheviks to accept Mensheviks as their members merely because they were all members of the Second International? Or even because they were all members of the RSDLP? This `osmosis method' of organisation is preposterous beyond belief!

The third IS position was expressed by Comrade JM. It is the most `interesting' position, as it starts with a categorical statement that these two individuals are not members of the IRMT but then somehow lurches towards the so-called `anti-federalist' position of FDA! Comrade JM says: "The comrades seem to be very worried to establish whether Babak and Hamid are members of the IRMT. I don't see what's the fundamental importance of this. … They are not members of the IRMT. They are not members of the IRMT and now you can write it down and we can put it in writing if you want and you can take it back to whoever you want." After singing the praises of Babak comrade JM then began to become confused about his position (which was originally that they were categorically not members) with that of Comrade FDA. Towards the end of his summary he said: "We're a world organisation, we're not a federation of national sections." So Comrade JM wants to call heads and tails in the IS gamble that not only did not "shape up" the Iranian section but deepened the ongoing crisis of the IMT!

So there we have it: having been caught red handed in engineering a fictitious `split', let us not quibble about words, effectively a coup against the democratically elected leadership of the IRMT, as elected unanimously at our founding conference in September 2008, the IS-IEC is in total disarray about the membership status of these two hapless comrades from two other national sections of the IMT! The IS comrades could not even get their story straight! For an organisation that is brimming with full-timers there are an awful lot of amateur antics and tactics coming out of the International Centre. At least, on a positive note, all three different positions from the same leadership body had the right to express themselves freely! That must be a first and, dare we hope, set a precedent for other differing views in the future!



* * *


Following the IEC session on Iran we made one final attempt at reconciliation. On 6 March, AK wrote a letter to JM on behalf of the IRMT EC in exile, which included the following:
"The recent `parachuting in' of … and … [HA] as `members' was a provocation that really incensed all comrades inside Iran. This came straight after he [BK] abused us in our own meeting! The comrades inside Iran are really very angry with … [BK] and how the IS is backing his attacks and is now claiming that he is a member.

"I therefore propose that you take the following goodwill gesture to allow us to turn the clock back by a week or so:

"We need an official letter from the IS stating clearly and categorically that … [BK] and … [HA] are not and have never been members of Iranian Revolutionary Marxists' Tendency.

"This will cool things down inside the IRMT in Iran. Then we can continue comradely discussions and take further step to resolve our political differences and organisational problems."
Not only did the IS and IEC not take up this offer, which considering HA's two letters basically meant that the situation of BK - the member of a right centrist organisation - had to be clarified. But, instead of that, they escalated matters by an over the top retaliation - expulsion –based on total lies about our "crime". The IS-IEC's `goodwill gesture' came in the form of the two resolutions!

Who is Maziar Razi?

For Maziar Razi it was no surprise that he was accused of being a "vulgar police informer" by the IEC. This, of course, is not because the IS-IEC is correct in its accusation, but because, as the very first Iranian Trotskyist, he has been accused of such `crimes' by the Iranian bourgeois state and various types of Iranian Stalinists before. In order to clarify for the IMT membership the character and political biography of Maziar Razi, the person against whom the IS-IEC have made this baseless accusation, we would like to clarify that:

Maziar Razi was born into a left-wing (albeit Stalinist) family and he has been surrounded by political debate, discussion and protest all his life. From the age of 3 or 4 years he was taking part in protests and was first arrested at the age of 6. He took part in anti-Shah protests from when he was 15-16 years old. His family, to prevent him from "getting into trouble", sent him abroad to continue his education. From the age of 16-17, however, Maziar became active with the International Marxist Group (IMG), the British section of the United Secretariat of the Fourth International (USFI). Since then he has been consistently involved in various anti-war (beginning with anti-Vietnam War protests in London, in 1968), anti-capitalist and anti-dictatorship struggles.

As the [B]first Iranian Trotskyist, Maziar Razi was instrumental in recruiting other Iranians into the USFI. In subsequent years, together with other Iranian Trotskyists, he formed an Iranian Commission of the USFI and was one of the principle leaders of the Socialist Workers' Party (Hezb-e Kargaran-e Socialist), the Iranian section of the USFI in 1978. During the past 40 years Maziar Razi has been a revolutionary Marxist and contributed a great deal, organisationally and theoretically, to the Iranian working class movement.

In addition to being the editor of many journals during this time it is the experience of the comrade during the 1978-83 period that is the most important indicator of his real revolutionary credentials. During the period of the Iranian revolution Maziar Razi was responsible in developing the sections of the HKS in the provinces, including Kurdistan and work among the oil workers of Khuzestan. It was because of his intervention within the oil workers' organisations that Comrade Razi became one of the first political prisoners of the Islamic Republic! During this period the comrade stood as a candidate of the HKS in an election, was in contact with many shoras (workers' councils) and helped develop the work of the party. The balance sheet of the HKS, a party with paper sales exceeding 50,000, is unmatched within the Iranian left.

It is therefore no wonder that the accusation of being a "vulgar police informer" has not been made against him even by some of his worst political adversaries during the past 20-25 years! This has been made by the two dictatorial bourgeois regimes in Iran, first the Shah's monarchy, and then the Islamic Republic of Iran. The other time was by the staunch Stalinists active in the Confederation of Iranian Students (before the revolution), who then promptly expelled him.

We are concerned that this method has now been repeated by the leadership of the IMT – an organisation that has proudly been identifying itself as Trotskyist (even as the only true Trotskyists!).

Now let us contrast this with Maziar Razi's attitude towards the comrades of the IS, even after their repeated blocking of our access to the International's members about our disagreement on the issue of Chavez's support for Ahmadinejad. When we had to launch the International Bolshevik Faction (together with the Swedish and Polish sections) to defend our democratic rights, MR said in Towards formation of the Faction: A principled path to unity and internal democracy in IMT:

"... Our aim is not to have a vendetta against any individual comrade. We are not the enemies of the IS or the IEC comrades. They all have worked hard and some of them for long years to keep the organization together. ... We have to respect all comrades, in particular comrade Alan Woods, who has been one of our founders and contributed a great deal to the movement. The issue with the IS is not one of a personal problem with an individual comrade within it ..." (27 January 2010).

Even at this stage Maziar Razi was fully appreciative of the work of the IS and AW in the (internal debate with IBF comrades). His conduct throughout this dispute clearly speaks for itself.

Covering the IS's political tracks

Since we totally and categorically say that the IS's position that Maziar Razi is a "police informer" is a false and baseless accusation, and we have shown how these two individuals are not IRMT members (and HA, the more honest one, has openly admitted this), and we have also demonstrated that we have not only not divulged the real names of BK and HA (which they themselves use on Facebook and other sites), then the following questions arise: why did the IEC pass these resolutions? Why did they expel MR and disaffiliate the IRMT "in the middle of a revolution" in Iran?

Despite the three different interpretations of the IS on the membership status of BK and HA during the IEC session they (and later t he whole of the IEC) agreed on one point: that we have allegedly exposed the identities of these two Iranian members of the IMT individuals. According to position of one IS member we definitely did this despicable act to our own members merely because of a difference of opinion! The other two IS members were not so sure: one liked the `osmosis' approach to organisational issues and the other, having agreed and categorically stated that they are not members, then had a change of heart when the logical conclusion of his unequivocal position dawned on him! So later he took the other one's lead and also began defending the `osmosis method'. It seems that the three members of the IS cannot quite agree on this basic organisational point! One thing is certain though: the issue Maziar Razi and the IRMT exposing their identities is a total lie!

If we therefore see this expulsion and disaffiliation as a mere smokescreen, then we have to ask: what is the real reason for this accusation? The real reason is that Chavez, the same man who fully endorses the Iranian regime's killing and raping of hundreds of young people, has proposed that a `fifth international' be launched. We think that this is a very important issue that the World Congress should discuss and vote on. Therefore the real political reason for our hurried expulsion was the IEC's support for Chavez and his so-called `fifth international' which they will be presenting to the Congress as a [I]fait accompli.

We ask the members of the IMT to judge this question on the basis of the evidence. On the one hand, we have Maziar Razi's spotless record of over 40 years of political activity in some of the most difficult conditions imaginable. On the other hand, we see the bureaucratic manoeuvres of the IS-IEC, which when their coup-like plot to `parachute in' members was foiled and the fictitious `split' in the IRMT did not materialise, had to launch a vicious personal attack on Comrade Razi through a crude and inept attempt at character assassination. The behaviour of the IS-IEC leads us, inevitably, to believe that similar methods were used against the leaderships of the Spanish and Venezuelan sections. It also makes us acutely aware of the need to re-examine some of the previous splits, expulsions, `walkouts' and `drop outs' – particularly that of the Turkish section.

We believe that the methods adopted by the IS during the past nine months are clearly and unquestionably bureaucratic measures. Only bureaucracies behave like this towards those with a different view; unfortunately all bureaucracies work on the basis of the same logic, no matter how left-wing or `red' the bureaucrats may be! We have therefore now made a formal request to exercise our right of appeal against our expulsion in accordance with the IMT's 1994 statutes and look forward to discussing our experience of the past nine months with as many of the rank and file members of the International at the 2010 World Congress.

Communist greetings

Iranian Revolutionary Marxists' Tendency
22 March 2010

Appendix

The IEC's justification for the expulsion of Maziar Razi and the disaffiliation of the IRMT together with the text of the two relevant resolutions:
A criminal act
What is the reason for this drastic step? Before the IEC, MR had publicly attacked the positions of the International on several occasions. In spite of being offered all the internal channels to express his disagreement, he decided to boycott the IEC, considering it to be a bureaucratic rubber stamp for the IS (he sent a representative to read a statement to this effect).
His deliberate boycotting of the democratically elected leadership of the International and his slanderous campaign against it were sufficient reasons for disciplinary action – suspension from the IEC at the very least. But what he did subsequently can only be described as a crime. In his latest tirade of insults against the International, sent out to undisclosed recipients, he deliberately leaked personal information on two young Iranian comrades who support the line of the International.

This information was enough to allow the Iranian state to identify them, making it virtually impossible for these comrades to return to Iran to build the International or even to visit their families. These comrades' "crime" was to disagree with the position defended by MR that there is no revolution in Iran. This is no longer a political question. It is a betrayal of the most elementary principles of the workers' movement and is equivalent to acting like a police informer. The only possible response was immediate expulsion. And since these actions were carried out in the name of the whole Iranian group (there are only a few of them), the consequence was the disaffiliation of the group itself.

This does not mean the end of our work in Iran. On the contrary, it will be stepped up and put on a far healthier basis. Our ideas are having a big impact in Iran and we have many contacts in Iran and in exile, in addition to the Persian speaking comrades in Pakistan. The antics of MR, who denies that there is a revolution in Iran and has a sectarian approach, has alienated many people on the Left who would otherwise have joined us. His departure from our ranks, far from being a problem, will open new doors. On this basis we are sure that the work in Iran (which was at a very embryonic stage) can be quickly rebuilt on a far sounder basis.

Resolution on the Conduct of Comrade Maziar Razi (1)
This IEC condemns the action of comrade MR in boycotting this meeting. Comrade MR was elected to the IEC by the World Congress. If he has serious differences with the line of the International on Iran or any other question, he had the duty to attend the IEC and explain his ideas. For unacceptable reasons, he has refused to attend the IEC and instead sent a letter announcing he was boycotting the meeting. The International is a democratic organization where comrades with differences are given every opportunity to put their point of view. The IEC has guaranteed comrade MR's right to express his ideas freely, with the same time as the representative of the IS. For unacceptable reasons, he has refused to attend. We reject the undemocratic method of "debate by email". Neither do we accept the method of threats, ultimatums and blackmails that has characterised comrade MR's correspondence with the IS in the recent period. We totally reject the unfounded allegations made by comrade MR against the IS, and in particular the assertion that he has been "censored". We point out that, while any comrade is free to express criticisms and differences within the normal channels of the International, the articles published on the public organs of the International must reflect the line of the International, decided democratically by the World Congress and its elected bodies - the IEC and the IS. Neither comrade MR nor anyone else has any right to demand that our public organs must publish opinions that contradict the line of the International. The actions of comrade MR, in publishing articles in alien websites, and giving interviews on the radio, attacking the positions of the International and the International itself constitute a blatant and unacceptable violation of revolutionary discipline.
[Passed unanimously]


On the Provocations of MR (2)
Following the deliberate and scandalous boycott of the IEC, MR has launched a vicious attack on the International which has been sent to an undisclosed list of recipients. The material he circulated includes personal attacks against two young Iranian comrades whose only "crime" is that they dared to disagree with the political line of MR. In making these personal attacks, MR saw fit to publish detailed information about them, from which their identities can be easily determined by the Iranian state forces. One of these comrades has previously been arrested, imprisoned and tortured in Iran.
By publishing information that compromises these two comrades, MR has made it impossible for them to return to Iran to build the International without putting their lives in danger, even to visit their relatives. MR is not an inexperienced person. He is well aware of the question of security. His group has even refused to give the most basic membership figures to the International, alleging it was a "security risk". He was therefore well aware of what he was doing when he circulated this information. It was an attempt to strike back at his critics by exposing their identity, thus opening them to identification by the Iranian authorities. This was the action, not of a Marxist revolutionary, but of a vulgar police informer. This is a crime against the International, against the working class, and against all the democratic and progressive forces in Iran. We therefore declare that MR is expelled with ignominy from the International with immediate effect. In view of the fact that this criminal conduct was carried out with the active participation of both the internal and external ECs of the Iranian section, the IEC hereby disaffiliates the Iranian section of the International.
[Passed unanimously]

[MarkP]

So the "great crime" of Maziar Ravi, which justified his immediate expulsion along with that of the whole Iranian section from the IMT was that...

In a letter sent only to IMT members, the Iranians used the initials of the pseudonyms of two Iranian members of the IMT who don't live in Iran? Two IMT members who use their real names on facebook and have been interviewed under those real names about the situation in Iran?

Oh dear. Still, let's see the Woods cultists try to defend this. It should be entertaining.

[vyborg]

I didn't know the IMT split was that severe...;)

Wewll the dog played his role but...

[vyborg]

So the "great crime" of Maziar Ravi, which justified his immediate expulsion along with that of the whole Iranian section from the IMT was that...

In a letter sent only to IMT members, the Iranians used the initials of the pseudonyms of two Iranian members of the IMT who don't live in Iran? Two IMT members who use their real names on facebook and have been interviewed under those real names about the situation in Iran?

Oh dear. Still, let's see the Woods cultists try to defend this. It should be entertaining.

Wow the whole section you know...

Anyway, to reply to this guys would be useless. We have better thing to do. I hope for Maziar, he will find other people that will pay his wage. Good luck to him

[vyborg]

after the very important task to count the head in the room, has anyone of the Woods haters group read something about what the comrades in Pakistan said about the situation in Pakistan? Maybe it is interesting even for them

[Benjamin Hill]

Wow the whole section you know...

Anyway, to reply to this guys would be useless. We have better thing to do. I hope for Maziar, he will find other people that will pay his wage. Good luck to him
So, your once praised Iranian section that responds to lies and slander being spread about them is no longer worthy of a proper response? What a nice way to show you can't respond to it, in which case it would have been better not to say anything at all.


after the very important task to count the head in the room, has anyone of the Woods haters group ...
You guys continually use phrases like this, trying to place yourself into the underdog position. Also phrases like you being the "only serious marxist organisation" on planet Earth are getting quite tiresome. Could you stop that please? It is quite embarrassing (I'm responding to all the IMT guys here that use similar phrases, not just vyborg).

[MarkP]

after the very important task to count the head in the room, has anyone of the Woods haters group read something about what the comrades in Pakistan said about the situation in Pakistan? Maybe it is interesting even for them

There is nothing much of substance about Pakistan in the article, beyond the not very original insight that the country is poor and in turmoil. It seems that you are easily interested.

[Jolly Red Giant]

the Woods haters group
Believe it or not - I don't hate the IMT - indeed I don't even hate Alan Woods, a man who I had several political discussions with in the past. I have a far greater dislike of Stalinists and an even greater dislike of maoists (particularly the Hoxha variety).

The stuff emerging about the leadership of the IMT is quite depressing in general political terms, but, for members of the CWI (particularly those who were active at the time of the split with the IMT) the current difficulties are not a surprise. They are a manifestation of incorrect orientation and tactics derived from a mistaken political understanding - a political misunderstanding that permeates all of the writings of Alan Woods.

One thing that does surprise me is the blind faith that appears present among IMT members in the leadership of the IMT. Since my first days of political activity nearly thirty years ago, I have never accepted anything on blind faith from the leadership of the CWI. You can defend your organisation from political attacks, but that defence has to be realistic and balanced. Any defence has to be based on the political outlook and the political track record of your organisation. You should be able to point to evidence to contradict the claims being made by Maziar, or the Spanish, Venezuelans etc (although it has to be said, in the tradition of the IMT, they have been keeping remarkably silent about recent events).

There is no point in dismissing the claims of the Iranian group - the claims are out in cyberspace and will not go away. Be honest and say you don't know enough about the situation and will wait for information from the IMT leadership before commenting, or else defend your organisation politically from such claims.

[MELT]

Believe it or not - I don't hate the IMT - indeed I don't even hate Alan Woods, a man who I had several political discussions with in the past. I have a far greater dislike of Stalinists and an even greater dislike of maoists (particularly the Hoxha variety).

The stuff emerging about the leadership of the IMT is quite depressing in general political terms, but, for members of the CWI (particularly those who were active at the time of the split with the IMT) the current difficulties are not a surprise. They are a manifestation of incorrect orientation and tactics derived from a mistaken political understanding - a political misunderstanding that permeates all of the writings of Alan Woods.

One thing that does surprise me is the blind faith that appears present among IMT members in the leadership of the IMT. Since my first days of political activity nearly thirty years ago, I have never accepted anything on blind faith from the leadership of the CWI. You can defend your organisation from political attacks, but that defence has to be realistic and balanced. Any defence has to be based on the political outlook and the political track record of your organisation. You should be able to point to evidence to contradict the claims being made by Maziar, or the Spanish, Venezuelans etc (although it has to be said, in the tradition of the IMT, they have been keeping remarkably silent about recent events).

There is no point in dismissing the claims of the Iranian group - the claims are out in cyberspace and will not go away. Be honest and say you don't know enough about the situation and will wait for information from the IMT leadership before commenting, or else defend your organisation politically from such claims.


But... the thing is that the IMT is not in crisis and it never was...

The reality is that MR acted a police informant. He made public not just the aliases of two iranian comrades, but information that can easily associate their aliases to the real names, neighborhood of birth in Iran, time they are planning to visit Iran, parties they participate into etc.

I am sadened that many of the members here just out of sectarian spite have lost any feeling of comradery towards fellow activists. I am not just sadened but disgusted.

[Tower of Bebel]

[...] the current difficulties are not a surprise. They are a manifestation of incorrect orientation and tactics derived from a mistaken political understanding - a political misunderstanding that permeates all of the writings of Alan Woods.
I'm more that type of Marxist who would say that political mistakes ("unclear" or "incorrect perspectives") are firmly rooted in organizational errors or even opportunistic principles of organization. There is a so called dialectical relationship between organization (mostly called structures within the Militant tradition) and politics or ideas, but for me 'organization' is the most decisive factor in determining the party's character. If Woods is wrong he can be corrected... unless he uses (f.e.) bureaucratic methods to avoid this.

[Crux]

But... the thing is that the IMT is not in crisis and it never was...

The reality is that MR acted a police informant. He made public not just the aliases of two iranian comrades, but information that can easily associate their aliases to the real names, neighborhood of birth in Iran, time they are planning to visit Iran, parties they participate into etc.

I am sadened that many of the members here just out of sectarian spite have lost any feeling of comradery towards fellow activists. I am not just sadened but disgusted.
And how to you respond to claims that they have used their real names on facebook and in interviews? That you could easily debunk if it were not true.

[Jolly Red Giant]

But... the thing is that the IMT is not in crisis and it never was...

Pakistan
Spain
Venezuela
Mexico
Iran

and trouble in
Sweden
Poland
Britain

(did I miss anyone?)

Wow - calm waters for the IMT sailing valiantly onwards to lead the proletarian revolution.

In all honesty - the stuff from IMT people on here is really getting quite embarrassing. :blushing: :blushing: :blushing:

[Jolly Red Giant]

If Woods is wrong he can be corrected
I would wish anyone who tried it all the luck in the world :thumbup1:

[MarkP]

(did I miss anyone?)

Colombia. Not that there's very many of them anyway.

Also the Greeks have semi-liquidated, joining SYRIZA as individuals and abandoning regular publication of their paper. They would have been able to join SYRIZA as a faction quite easily, so this move is quite bizarre.

The Swedes, Poles and the British minority will be formally outside in the near future.

If this isn't a crisis I'd hate to see what a real crisis looked like!

[MarkP]

The reality is that MR acted a police informant.

The Iranians say that the email went to IMT IEC members and to IMT members involved in the debate about Iran only. The IMT IEC says only that it went to "undisclosed recipients", which in plain English means that they have no idea who it went to.

I can only conclude that you think that some IMT IEC members are policemen. Or alternatively, that this is a vicious, dishonest and empty slander.


He made public not just the aliases of two iranian comrades, but information that can easily associate their aliases to the real names, neighborhood of birth in Iran, time they are planning to visit Iran, parties they participate into etc.

1) What evidence do you have that anything at all was "made public" or given to the police? The IMT IEC documents indicate that they don't know who the information was sent to and the Iranians say it was sent only to IMT IEC members and some other IMT members involved in the discussion.

2) Is it true that the two comrades concerned use their real names on facebook, in political interviews and the like?

3) Is it true that the Iranian's documents were not distributed?


I am sadened that many of the members here just out of sectarian spite have lost any feeling of comradery towards fellow activists. I am not just sadened but disgusted.

What solidarity do two people who don't live in Iran need as a result of having the initials of their pseudonyms revealed to other members of the IMT? What consequences are they meant to have suffered?

[vyborg]

[QUOTE=MarkP;1701124]
Also the Greeks have semi-liquidated, joining SYRIZA as individuals and abandoning regular publication of their paper. They would have been able to join SYRIZA as a faction quite easily, so this move is quite bizarre./QUOTE]

No they didnt join syriza, they joined synaspisom. It is quite different.

As for Iran, I know the situation and I think that their conduct was simply not compatible with bolshevism. It is unfortunate. They were from another tradition, still they seemed to improve. Anyway we did right to try...
Marxists always have to give a chance to anyone.

[Benjamin Hill]

Also the Greeks have semi-liquidated, joining SYRIZA as individuals and abandoning regular publication of their paper. They would have been able to join SYRIZA as a faction quite easily, so this move is quite bizarre.

No they didnt join syriza, they joined synaspisom. It is quite different.
Synaspismos is part of Syriza. How is it "quite different"?


As for Iran, I know the situation and I think that their conduct was simply not compatible with bolshevism. It is unfortunate. They were from another tradition, still they seemed to improve. Anyway we did right to try...
Marxists always have to give a chance to anyone.
Did you actually read the statement from the IRMT? You keep talking about alleged "conduct" as if it were true. And "giving chances"? What are you talking about?

[vyborg]

You should be able to point to evidence to contradict the claims being made by Maziar, or the Spanish, Venezuelans etc (although it has to be said, in the tradition of the IMT, they have been keeping remarkably silent about recent events).

There is no point in dismissing the claims of the Iranian group - the claims are out in cyberspace and will not go away.

For me, the claims of the Iranian group can stay in cyberspace for centuries. I know very well the situation and I disagree completely with them. I strongly disfavour any debate with 4 or 5 people in internet.

Look at how spanish, that are serious people, treated the differences and how treated them the iranians. the less these people work in real world, the more they speak about revolution in cyberspace.

When they restart to live with the rest of the human race, here on planet earth, maybe they will improve.

[vyborg]

Synaspismos is part of Syriza. How is it "quite different"?

You dont see the difference? You must study more the topic then


Did you actually read the statement from the IRMT? You keep talking about alleged "conduct" as if it were true. And "giving chances"? What are you talking about?[/QUOTE]

Giving chance means to accept them as comrades

[Benjamin Hill]

For me, the claims of the Iranian group can stay in cyberspace for centuries.
The documents are on cyberspace, publically known to everyone. You (as an organisation) fail thus far to give a proper response to it.


I know very well the situation and I disagree completely with them.
You clearly don't show you know all about it...


I strongly disfavour any debate with 4 or 5 people in internet.
To this discussion maybe only a few contribute, but many hundreds are following it, which is then networked to other discussions. In any case this discussion has a far wider base here than in any of your so-called "democratic structures".


Look at how spanish, that are serious people, treated the differences and how treated them the iranians.
Being "serious" equals not being open about your politics to the working class?


the less these people work in real world, the more they speak about revolution in cyberspace.
Baseless statement.


When they restart to live with the rest of the human race, here on planet earth, maybe they will improve.
And trolling.

[MarkP]

No they didnt join syriza, they joined synaspisom. It is quite different.

That would be Synaspismos. Which is the biggest component of SYRIZA. They have joined as individuals, formally announcing the dissolution of their organisation and have ceased regular production of their paper.

Of course, this Greek group which has now semi-liquidated is itself just the minority of the old Greek IMT group which was suddenly expelled along with the Turkish group a few years ago. There was no discussion about the loss of either section in the IMT.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The former Iranian IMT section, the IRMT, has issued a response to the allegations made by the IMT's IS. A very interesting read. One of the highlights is that it puts an explicit link between the pro-Chavez stance of the IMT that the IRMT has argued against, the expulsion and the fact that the IMT now has announced full support for Chavez's latest project, the 5th international.

So the Iranian split has to do with bureaucratic centralism and accommodating Chavez's stance on "anti-imperialist" Iran.

Why did the IRMT have to bring the new International into the debate? They would be sectarians if they stayed out.

Oh, and their hostility towards the "worker-communism" of Hekmat and deeming it petit-bourgeois is so off the mark.

[vyborg]

That would be Synaspismos. Which is the biggest component of SYRIZA. They have joined as individuals, formally announcing the dissolution of their organisation and have ceased regular production of their paper.

Of course, this Greek group which has now semi-liquidated is itself just the minority of the old Greek IMT group which was suddenly expelled along with the Turkish group a few years ago. There was no discussion about the loss of either section in the IMT.

4 slanders in 3 and a half lines is a good record. But that's because this guy tries very very hard to be a good IMT fan club member...go on like this!!

[vyborg]

The documents are on cyberspace, publically known to everyone. You (as an organisation) fail thus far to give a proper response to it.

These documents are completely irrelevant to me. I read these and disagree completely. I would consider an "official" reply as a completely waste of time. Nothing could convince these guys to behave properly.

Anyway Maziar can go wherever he likes to do whatever he likes. I'm sure he will find a warm supper somewhere. Good luck to him. As for us, we will go on with out duties.

[MarkP]

4 slanders in 3 and a half lines is a good record. But that's because this guy tries very very hard to be a good IMT fan club member...go on like this!!

You are as delightfully dishonest as always. What slanders precisely?

1) The Greek section has announced the dissolution of its political movement.

2) They have joined SYRIZA as individual members of Synaspismos.

3) It was open to it to join SYRIZA as a group but it decided not to do that.

4) They have announced that they will cease publishing their regular paper and instead will try to produce an occasional review magazine.

5) The IMT split in 2003, expelling the majority of the Greeks and all of the Turks.

6) This was never properly discussed across the international and indeed most members never even knew about it.

Which part is the "slander"?

[MarkP]

By the way, the Congress of the Manzoor group has also recently taken place and they sent out the following appeal to members and formers members of the IMT:

Resolution on International Collaboration

This congress of Pakistani Marxists extends fraternal greetings to all
members and former members of the IMT, and fellow Marxists around the
world.
We invite you to enter into correspondence and collaboration in the
spirit of the ideas of the Communist Manifesto in order to realize the
unity of the workers of the world.

Agreed by the Congress of the Left Opposition of the Pakistani Section
of the IMT.
21st March 2010
Islamabad. Pakistan

Please write with any questions, concerns and issues you would like to discuss.

Revolutionary Greetings.

Comrades

Sajjad Mehdi [email protected]
Ch. Manzoor Ahmed [email protected]
Atif khan [email protected]

[MELT]

You are as delightfully dishonest as always. What slanders precisely?

1) The Greek section has announced the dissolution of its political movement.

2) They have joined SYRIZA as individual members of Synaspismos.

3) It was open to it to join SYRIZA as a group but it decided not to do that.

4) They have announced that they will cease publishing their regular paper and instead will try to produce an occasional review magazine.

5) The IMT split in 2003, expelling the majority of the Greeks and all of the Turks.

6) This was never properly discussed across the international and indeed most members never even knew about it.

Which part is the "slander"?

All of it. Why should we publicly tell you what the Greek section is doing? In order to endanger the work just for scoring a point against a sectarian on an obscure leftist forum and then endanger our work? Ask your comrades in Xekinima the CWI section and they'll tell you. If they still have internet access in their center because of their financial problems due to the cutting of state funding:lol:

The "2003" split was previously discussed properly in the whole international. You weren't there and you don't know about it. Because of the years of work in social democracy certain layers had material attachments to it and fetishized work in PASOK.


By the way, the Congress of the Manzoor group has also recently taken place and they sent out the following appeal to members and formers members of the IMT:

Resolution on International Collaboration

This congress of Pakistani Marxists extends fraternal greetings to all
members and former members of the IMT, and fellow Marxists around the
world.
We invite you to enter into correspondence and collaboration in the
spirit of the ideas of the Communist Manifesto in order to realize the
unity of the workers of the world.

Agreed by the Congress of the Left Opposition of the Pakistani Section
of the IMT.
21st March 2010
Islamabad. Pakistan

Please write with any questions, concerns and issues you would like to discuss.

Revolutionary Greetings.


A sell-out to the Pakistani state and his clique are trying to opportunisticaly divide the international. Their efforts are in vain. The international emerged much stronger after the purge of opportunist and ultra left tendencies. Any IMTer can testify for that.

So yeah you are wasting your time trying to spread division, discontent or confusion among our ranks. Comrades have the highest morale since the expulsion of the CWI.

[Benjamin Hill]

So yeah you are wasting your time trying to spread division, discontent or confusion among our ranks. Comrades have the highest morale since the expulsion of the CWI.
You sound more and more like this guy (http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/).

[Voloshinov]

If they still have internet access in their center because of their financial problems due to the cutting of state funding:lol:

Venom


The "2003" split was previously discussed properly in the whole international. You weren't there and you don't know about it. Because of the years of work in social democracy certain layers had material attachments to it and fetishized work in PASOK.

It was discussed, indeed. But the events which now take place put the whole process in a different light, especially the role the IS played in splitting the group.


The international emerged much stronger after the purge of opportunist and ultra left tendencies. Any IMTer can testify for that.

Let's wait for some of the congresses of the national sections which are due in the coming months, shall we? If I'm correct, the Swedish are having their congress this weekend. I'm curious what the IS will do with the democratic decisions of the Swedish IMT-ers. But perhaps they'll just be glad to be rid of the "petty-bourgeois/anarchist/ultraleft/menshevik" factions and comrades and continue their monolithic reign.


So yeah you are wasting your time trying to spread division, discontent or confusion among our ranks. Comrades have the highest morale since the expulsion of the CWI.

There is a difference between spreading information which makes you critical about the dishonest methods of your leadership and sowing confusion. Indeed, some here indulge themselves in the crisis of the IMT. They don't understand that the mere fact of the split is a bad thing, because it weakens the left internationally and demoralizes whole layers of politically active comrades, just as happened after the split with the CWI. Others, however, are critical members, ex-members, and even sympathizers of the IMT and wish you the best. Those who dissent are not wrong because they dissent. They dissent because of a reason. Comrades haven't suddenly turned into "traitors" and "alien elements" overnight. Try to find materialist instead of idealist-subjectivist causes why there's a crisis in the IMT and ask yourself the question why the IS and IEC are not able to solve any internal dispute in a genuine and comradely way.

[vyborg]

greed by the Congress of the Left Opposition of the Pakistani Section
of the IMT.
21st March 2010
Islamabad. Pakistan

Th is the most fantastic...the left opposition...we all cant' wait to see this "left opposition" in action...the pakistani proletariat is particularly anctious to seen this LEFT opposition in march...

[Crux]

All of it. Why should we publicly tell you what the Greek section is doing? In order to endanger the work just for scoring a point against a sectarian on an obscure leftist forum and then endanger our work? Ask your comrades in Xekinima the CWI section and they'll tell you. If they still have internet access in their center because of their financial problems due to the cutting of state funding:lol:
So the former greek section are just kidding when they say they will dissolve themselfes and join synapsismos individually? This is really some form of extreme deep entryism? I am not sure if either conclusion really is good for you.


The "2003" split was previously discussed properly in the whole international. You weren't there and you don't know about it. Because of the years of work in social democracy certain layers had material attachments to it and fetishized work in PASOK.
An IMT section fetischizing work in the Social Democracy? Really?

[vyborg]

An IMT section fetischizing work in the Social Democracy? Really?

Not a section but some comrades (and even very good comrades I add). This happens...it is one of the danger of entrist work. When CWI comrades used to read Grant and Trotsky they knew about it.

[Benghazi]

Actually, as I have mentioned before, the IMT have not published Ted Grant's writings on entry work from the 1940s; writings which show a much more flexible approach than Ted Grant had adopted by the end of 1980s. Why is there this censorship? What are the IMT leadership afraid of in Ted and the RCP's material??

[Voloshinov]

Actually, as I have mentioned before, the IMT have not published Ted Grant's writings on entry work from the 1940s; writings which show a much more flexible approach than Ted Grant had adopted by the end of 1980s. Why is there this censorship? What are the IMT leadership afraid of in Ted and the RCP's material??

Isn't this covered in the History of British Trotskyism book?

[vyborg]

A lot of great material has been published and even translated. By Ted, by Trotsky...

[Jolly Red Giant]

The condescending attitude being displayed by members of the IMT on this forum is quite remarkable. I am surprised given the crisis that the IMT has gone through / is going through I would have thought that they would be a lot more humble.

I agree with what Voloshinov has said. The split in the IMT is bad for the revolutionary left. The more splits and factions that occur the more difficlut it will be to develop unity or even common ground among those on the far-left when social upheavals occur.

I, and I believe the CWI, recognise that the current situation within the IMT flows from the mistaken position originally adopted at the time of the CWI/IMT split. Others on the left may not be fully aware of the issues surrounding the split - but CWI members are.

I find it incredible that the IMT appear to be battening down the hatches, condemning the traitors and proclaiming that they are the one true followers of Marxism. It is reminiscent of the worst rabid sectarianism of the late 1960's and early 70's - 'we are right and everyone else should be condemned, dismissed, ridiculed'. More importantly it is a decidedly un-Marxist approach.

The circling of the wagons in the current circumstances is the exact opposite of what the IMT members should be doing. People like vyborg and MELT etc. should be engaging in debate, learning from others and using it to make their organisation better. Instead they are doing the opposite - following the dictat of Woods that prohibits the use of modern communications and technology. The IMT has to live in the current century, not the 1970's - it has to recognise that disputes cannot be contained within any organisation and they must address these issues in public. The technology is not going to go away and the IMT has so far demonstrated an inability to adapt. By avoiding this the IMT is faced with a future that will be ridden with suspicion and dissention and will face moribund sterility.

[vyborg]

I agree you alwasy have to fight for a better organization...
where and when, anyway, cannot decided by some dumb guy on internet.
it is undemocratic...and useless.

It is very remarkable that the CWI 3 or 4 comrades that discuss in here never speaks about politics or something interesting for anyone but only tray to undermine the IMT leadership using whatever they can. It says a lot about them...

[Jolly Red Giant]

It is very remarkable that the CWI 3 or 4 comrades that discuss in here never speaks about politics or something interesting for anyone but only tray to undermine the IMT leadership using whatever they can. It says a lot about them...
With all due respect - I have done nothing but talk about politics - unfortunately the IMT posters are doing nothing more than repeating a mantra. And as for the IMT leadership - they are doing a damned good job of undermining their own leadership.

[vyborg]

I havent noted "politics" but yes IMT leadership bashing. Anyway, I repeat, 4 or 5 people in here are not a great fan club. so to discuss much about strategies and methods in here is a bit useless. nothing can convince these guys that they made a mistake in declaring an "open turn" etc etc

[Jolly Red Giant]

to discuss much about strategies and methods in here is a bit useless.
To discuss strategies and methods is never useless - I certainly don't know everything about Marxism and I have been doing this stuff for a long time.


nothing can convince these guys that they made a mistake in declaring an "open turn" etc etc This is a bit like the attitude of the Jehovah's Witnesses when you ask them are they open to becoming an athiest if they could be convinced through discussion.

It really is a waste of time discussing with anyone who has the attitude 'I'm right and you're wrong' and they will only engage in discussion if you agree to be willing and open to being convinced by discussion, but they are not.

Convince me that the IMT stretegy was/is right - let's go back to the issues that saw the split between the IMT and the CWI and address each one, their implications over the past 20 years and what evidence exists for the appropriateness of each groups outlook. I have never once in nearly 30 years claimed that the CWI (including in it's Militant guise) was the one true Marxist organisation - I am open to being convince that the CWI is making fundemental mistakes in strategy - so far no one has been able to convince me this is the case. If you can do so I will openly acknowledge that the CWI is in error and I will argue within the CWI for change. Are you willing to do the same thing?

[vyborg]

After some years in politics I concluded that discussion is not the main way to solve problems. You can argue for centuries and each parts can deduct it is right.
The way, I think, is a common work.

As I said, in some country it is concretely possible to work with something like a united front as there are different trot tendencies in the same party. For example, in Italy, in abstract, it already happens.

It is doing things together that you see who works well and how.

As for "the truth", this is something not relevant in this field.

[Jolly Red Giant]

The way, I think, is a common work.

Would this be by everyone else agreeing to follow the IMT in telling people to join a LP that is introducing savage cuts on working class people and try to transform it from within?

[vyborg]

O yes it is the first time in history a workers party savaged workers...a complet new situation.....how can we do...we do not have historical examples of it...
because, you know, in the 70s the LP was a marxist party when Callaghan started a thatcherite programme...

All this is nonsense. The SD and CP parties are always everywhere capitalist slaves. So what you implying with it?

[Jolly Red Giant]

because, you know, in the 70s the LP was a marxist party when Callaghan started a thatcherite programme...
you are being more than a little facetious here.


The SD and CP parties are always everywhere capitalist slaves. So what you implying with it?
This is another one of your off-the wall sweeping statements - the leadership of these parties have always been on the side of the bourgeois (with some initial qualification in relation to the CP's) - the origins of these parties were based on the working class and traditionally the working class have actively engaged with these parties. That is no longer the case.

Let's take the LP in Britain as an example - in the mid-1980's it had an active left-wing comprising significant numbers of left-wing members, trade unions activists and MP's - that is no loger the case - left-wing political and trade union activists (apart from the IMT) do not play any role in the British LP.

As for the 'left' MP's - the IMT touts support for the LRC within the British LP - yet out of those MP's who are members of the LRC (out of about 25 MP's) 6 abstained on votes in the British Parliament on proposals to improve trade union rights - two actually voted against. One abstained on a vote restricting abortion rights with three voting to restrict abortion rights. And probably the worst example - 3 abstained on votes implementing welfare cuts and four voted in favour of welfare cuts. These are the 'left-wing MP's that the IMT in Britain are supporting.

The British LP has no rank-and-file - it has no left wing - and of those MP's who actually claim to be 'left-wing' - many vote against trade union rights, against abortion rights and in favour of welfare cuts. The British LP is a neo-liberal party modelled on the lines of the Democrats in the USA, desiring the same relationship with the trade unions as the Democrats in the USA and incapable of being changed specifically because it would have to be destroyed to be changed.

The IMT are buried deep inside the LP - so deep that they are indistinguishable from any other elements within the LP and so determined to stay there (waiting for the flood of activists to shift it to the left) that they will not raise a whisper of opposition within LP structures in order to avoid the possibility of being expelled.

[MarkP]

All of it. Why should we publicly tell you what the Greek section is doing? In order to endanger the work just for scoring a point against a sectarian on an obscure leftist forum and then endanger our work?

"Endangering your work"? Because the SYRIZA death squads will come and get you if you openly affiliate as opposed to liquidating yourselves and abandoning your paper so that you can sneak in unobserved? You are a lunatic.

Here is the statement of the Greek section, the minority of the old Greek section, on their liquidation. Everything I said about it was entirely accurate.

In Greek:
http://www.marxismos.com/content/view/602/1/

Google translated:

<<Declaration of electoral support to SYRIZA and becoming members of
the "Coalition of the Left, of the Social Movements and of Ecology"
(this is the expanded name of SYNASPISMOS, Synaspismos means
Coalition- Doros)

Those participating in the political movement "Marxist Tendency", held
a meeting and decided:

The dissolution of our Political Movement.

The critical support to SYRIZA at the coming critical for the working
class and the Left electoral confrontation.


To continue to fight, as members of Synaspismos, for the victory of
socialism in Greece and Internationally on the basis of defending the
principles and ideas of scientific socialism which were our guiding
lights up to today.


The monthly paper Marxistiki Foni www.marxismos.com (http://www.marxismos.com/) will become a
periodic review contributing to the defence of Marxist theory and the
editorial board will be open to every socialist fighter.


To become members as individuals of Synaspismos, on the basis of
complete acceptance of party discipline.

Our readiness to learn from the common activities with the comrades of
Synaspismos.>>

[MELT]

"Endangering your work"? Because the SYRIZA death squads will come and get you if you openly affiliate as opposed to liquidating yourselves and abandoning your paper so that you can sneak in unobserved? You are a lunatic.

Here is the statement of the Greek section, the minority of the old Greek section, on their liquidation. Everything I said about it was entirely accurate.

In Greek:
http://www.marxismos.com/content/view/602/1/

Google translated:

<<Declaration of electoral support to SYRIZA and becoming members of
the "Coalition of the Left, of the Social Movements and of Ecology"
(this is the expanded name of SYNASPISMOS, Synaspismos means
Coalition- Doros)

Those participating in the political movement "Marxist Tendency", held
a meeting and decided:

The dissolution of our Political Movement.

The critical support to SYRIZA at the coming critical for the working
class and the Left electoral confrontation.


To continue to fight, as members of Synaspismos, for the victory of
socialism in Greece and Internationally on the basis of defending the
principles and ideas of scientific socialism which were our guiding
lights up to today.


The monthly paper Marxistiki Foni www.marxismos.com (http://www.marxismos.com/) will become a
periodic review contributing to the defence of Marxist theory and the
editorial board will be open to every socialist fighter.


To become members as individuals of Synaspismos, on the basis of
complete acceptance of party discipline.

Our readiness to learn from the common activities with the comrades of
Synaspismos.>>

I will not discuss the magnificent work of the marxists in Greece in public in order to score points against a sectarian(for security reasons unknown to a sectarian that has never orrientated to mass parties of the working class). Just ask your Xekinima comrades (CWI-section) about it.

[Crux]

You are fucking ridiculous. So pray tell, are the Spanish,Venezuelan, Colombian, Mexican, Iranian, Pakistani, British, Swedish etc who have left (or have pretended to have left?) your organization also partaking in some kind of "secret" tactic?

[vyborg]

you are being more than a little facetious here.


This is another one of your off-the wall sweeping statements - the leadership of these parties have always been on the side of the bourgeois (with some initial qualification in relation to the CP's) - the origins of these parties were based on the working class and traditionally the working class have actively engaged with these parties. That is no longer the case.

Let's take the LP in Britain as an example - in the mid-1980's it had an active left-wing comprising significant numbers of left-wing members, trade unions activists and MP's - that is no loger the case - left-wing political and trade union activists (apart from the IMT) do not play any role in the British LP.

As for the 'left' MP's - the IMT touts support for the LRC within the British LP - yet out of those MP's who are members of the LRC (out of about 25 MP's) 6 abstained on votes in the British Parliament on proposals to improve trade union rights - two actually voted against. One abstained on a vote restricting abortion rights with three voting to restrict abortion rights. And probably the worst example - 3 abstained on votes implementing welfare cuts and four voted in favour of welfare cuts. These are the 'left-wing MP's that the IMT in Britain are supporting.

The British LP has no rank-and-file - it has no left wing - and of those MP's who actually claim to be 'left-wing' - many vote against trade union rights, against abortion rights and in favour of welfare cuts. The British LP is a neo-liberal party modelled on the lines of the Democrats in the USA, desiring the same relationship with the trade unions as the Democrats in the USA and incapable of being changed specifically because it would have to be destroyed to be changed.

The IMT are buried deep inside the LP - so deep that they are indistinguishable from any other elements within the LP and so determined to stay there (waiting for the flood of activists to shift it to the left) that they will not raise a whisper of opposition within LP structures in order to avoid the possibility of being expelled.

You dont have to convince me that "left" reformist are a bunch of useless burgeois slaves. On the contrary you must understand it yourself!! I mean, when a SD or a CP moves to the left, it is "different"? No, even when workers parties are very left due to the pressures from below or other factors they are still burgeois workers party.

If you read "The rise of Militant" by Peter Taaffe it is obvious that PT under-estimates this problem. As the left of the LP was very good in the 70s and the 80s, many leaders of the Militant (not only the ones that ended in CWI) simply forgot that, no matter how a reformist leader speaks to the left, he remains an enemy of the working class.

When the left wing of the LP dissolved, the leaders of the Militant decided that the LP as a workers party dissolved. This is a mistake.

It was not te first time the SD parties went far to the right.

I ask you comrades: in 1914 the SPD, the SPO, the PSF and LP were workers party yes or not? This didnt prevent them to plunge the workers in the worst slaughter of all time, the FWW.

The LP of Blair and Brown, as more or less any SD and CP in Europe, is extremely right wing now, we know it. But even if tomorrow something happens and a "left" leader comes out from these parties (for instance a british lafontaine, so to speak), this wouldn change the NATURE of the party.

it goes without saying that the marxists know that they are all reformist but do not approach a worker that is happy because his party is going to the left telling him: you know, your leader pretends to go to the left but he is only a puppet of the capital. This would be useless of course.

We always will encourage any left movement in the workers parties but we never ever confound these movements with the idea that these leaders are different socially speaking.

At the end of the day, for all their differences, Blair and Benn were to the side of capitalists.

[Crux]

So why does this not apply to the italian social democrats?

And further more there are two vital differences the socdems of 1914 and the socdems of today. Even if they undoubtedly had a rightwing leadership, at least they talked about reforming to socialism. And that brings us to my second point which I have already mentioned, they had a rank-and-file of baseactivist worker's, the sd's of today do not. There was a base that excerterted a certain amount of pressure, without that base a party becomes bourgeois.