IMT ship sinks further [Archive]

View Full Version : IMT ship sinks further

2nd June 2010, 22:07

As posted on Leftists Trainspotters:

*STATEMENT OF RESIGNATION FROM THE IMT*

Dear Comrades,

We, the undersigned, have not taken the decision to leave the International Marxist Tendency lightly.

The expulsion by the British central committee (CC) of Comrade Melanie McDonald, a talented comrade who has given unbounded time, energy and commitment to the organisation during the seven years she has been a member, is, for us, proof positive that the leadership of the IMT is beyond reform.

Mel tendered her resignation at CC meeting but this was not accepted in order that her expulsion could be carried out ! Mel was expelled for posting videos of interviews with Pakistani Marxists working in the PPP on Facebook.

Comrade Jonathan Clyne recently visited Pakistan and engaged in lengthy discussions with these comrades. His report and analysis is in the Appendix in the attached word doc. His account differs very widely from the reports given to comrades by the IS of the IMT – that these comrades are not only bending under pressure but are agents of the State and counter-revolutionaries. This is consistent with the siege mentality that the IS are building up in the organisation, with claims that it's critics, those who dare to present a different account of events or raise questions are enemies who are out to destroy the IMT.

Workers internationally have a right to information about the situations our class sisters and brothers in other countries find themselves in, and what measures they take to defend the class and work towards the overthrow of capitalism. The crisis in the IMT, which has seen it reduce in size and significance in the last few years, was not the result of `enemies' undermining it from within or without. In our opinion it stems from fundamental flaws in the approach of the organisation, its application of democratic centralism and it's practical orientation to the working class.

The flawed methodology of the leadership of the International has been outlined in the document called 'Forward to Democratic Centralism' (see appendix). We believe that a concern for personal prestige by some of the leadership has outstripped a realistic approach to what are the extent and depth of the tasks needed to arm Marxist cadres for the overthrow of capitalism in the modern world.

Instead, the current leadership has prefered to fetishize our small group, putting its numerical growth and its control over it above the needs of the objective situation. This is revealed by the fact that we have failed to prepare a base for a serious presence of Marxists in the mass organizations, especially in Britain. Despite decades of opportunity, we have failed to grow or build a second line leadership. A conservative attitude to internal democracy and a narrow, top-down conception of internal structures and member inter-communication has meant that the participation of the rank and file is truncated and our structures are insufficient for on-going discussion. This stagnancy has resulted in mistakes on theoretical questions like the nature of capitalist crisis, the nature of the transitional economy as related to the debate on China and what is a revolution, the leadership has reacted to detailed criticism by placing its prestige above accuracy. Almost all the ideas of the members are appropriated from the top by a leadership that is self-referencing, self-perpetuating and unable to respond to differences within the ranks of the IMT without conflicts ending in splits of whole or partial sections, or the falling away of long standing, experienced comrades. The following examples illustrate this (see attached word doc for the appendices):

*Greece* – Most rank and file members may be unaware of the split/expulsion of the majority of worker comrades and PASKE (PASOK Trade Union faction) activists from the Greek section six years ago. Over 35 experienced trade union comrades and those with strategic positions in PASKE/PASOK were accused of being opportunist and "not obedient enough". Now, the current section has little more than 15 active members who are mostly youth. In hindsight, we believe that the leadership, in a formulaic application of tactics that produced some results in France and Italy, made a mistake in instructing the current Greek section to turn towards the Stalinist, almost impenetrable KKE. When that failed, the section briefly, publicly dissolved itself in order to work in a petit-bourgeois formation called SYNASPISMOS/SYRIZA at a time when PASOK youth conferences had attendances of 2000 people. When members of the international were informed of the FACT of the public dissolution of the Greek section (in order to work in those organizations) the leadership lied about it and accused HK of fabricating it.

*Pakistan* - Two years ago the international was misinformed about the extent of a split in the Pakistan section. Less than one month after the expulsion of 22 year veteran comrade MA on flimsy allegations of opportunism, sabotage and corruption, over 900 comrades that included 3 entire regions were suspended and expelled from the section for supporting MA. Any opportunity to hear their side of the story (like responding to Atif Khan's pleas to AW to speak to anyone from the IS and their demands for a proper control commission into the split) were ignored unless MA resigned his positions – including one he never held! The original reason for the expulsion was not BESOS, it was not the PTCL strike it was the idea that taking unelected positions that are too close to Zardari. Later, the IS had to admit that there are NO positions in the entire PPP that are genuinely elected. ALL positions or tickets to run are appointed by the top leadership.

Instead, the truth behind the conflict has been contorted to fit their bureacratically arrived at decision while relying on the loyalty of the membership not to bother to investigate or substantiate the allegations themselves. In a Stalinist way, they launched into a series of serious pesonal attacks on MA and the comrades around him. The most serious of which is the eroneous statement that MA sabotaged a telecommunications strike, a completely unsubstantiated claim that has been refuted by two of the leaders of the strike. Again, without substantiation, they catagorically stated MA is corrupt, in the pay of Zardari when in fact all of his positions are unpaid. The BESOS program has been described as outright privatization when it is in fact the distibution of dividends from a part of the state controlled shares (12.5% is not a controlling interest and the government retains state control) to workers *which cannot be sold*. One can be critical of supporting this scheme but the expulsion, the distortion of the truth and the defamation of a long standing comrade is unacceptable. Lost with MA are many long standing comrades with decades of trade union experience in the railways, steel, telecommunications, electricity sector, palm oil industries to name but a few – who have been defamed and demoralized in the most uncomradely manner. The international has also been misinformed about the the immense benefits of MA's position as head of the People's labour bureaux which includes having access to every trade union in the country as well as uniting them under the banner of one left wing trade union federation that will build solidarity and give them international reach to the working class of trade union bodies around the world.

*- Spain* - The recent split in the Spanish section resulted in the loss of about 450 comrades with about 40 remaining in the IMT. Trade unionists and workers from the petrochemical, shipyard, janitorial, metal and hotel workers in what was one of our most proletarian sections in Europe has been lost. Control of the student union and the Frederick Engels foundation are gone. Without including the membership in the decision making process, the Spanish leadership split away from the IMT and proceeded to block any efforts of minority members to stop the split or advocate a different position. Needless to say, this is very poor behavior and a serious analysis as to why they saw it fit to behave this way is necessary. It should be taken into consideration that over 17 very serious criticisms were made against the leadership of our once star European section in two documents produced by the IS not long after members of the IS had attended the Spanish national conference and voted in favour of all the documents produced by the section. The criticisms included ultra-leftism, sectarianism, mechanical marxism, inability to understand the nature of the epoch or the consciousness of the working class, substitutionalism, and Stalinist bureaucratism - criticisms guaranteed to isolate a leadership who until then considered themselves good Marxists doing some of the best work in Europe.

We believe that instead of pointing out mistakes in a comradely, measured way, this sudden onslaught resulted in the leadership of the Spanish section (who suffer from their own issues of arrogance and prestige politics) to leave abruptly, taking most of the section with them instead of facing the political issues that had been tabled. This is a pattern of behaviour very similar to that which the IS has adopted in the recent period.

- *Venezuela* - The majority of the section that gave our international so much inspiration and credibility went with the Spanish section with the loss of over 76 comrades. About 38 remain. We have lost the UNT trade unionists in the Sidor plant, we have lost the coordinator of FRETECO, the General Secretary of Singetram, the General Secretary of Sutravivex, Mitsubishi workers, INVEVAL leaders and workers as well as many PSUV activists. They left the IMT because of allegations of bureaucratic degeneration of the IS and factional activity outside of the official structures of the section to which they responded in kind. This section now is being characterized by the leadership as ultra-left and unwilling to intervene in the PSUV.

- *Mexico* - This section also split following the Spanish and Venezuelan sections with the loss of about half of the membership leaving the IMT section with about 40 comrades.

- *Sweden* - The split that took place at the Swedish section annual conference resulted in the loss of about 25 comrades with about 10-15 remaining in the IMT. Many of the trade unionists, including 10 from the blue-collar union federation, 6 from the white-collar union federation, the union branch chairman of Lagena who helped lead the Lagena strike and many who are well-known to the workers at Lagena and 2 in the Left Youth/Left Students League. Comrades with an average of 20 years experience in the labour movement, with a very high theoretical level have left to begin the work toward forming a new international. (See appendix)

- *Iran* – In a truly shameful way, against all statutes and basic democracy, the Iranian section was expelled without being present on the basis of totally false allegations about compromising the security of two IMT members of Iranian origin. These allegations have been easily disproven and are absurd given that they are working openly in other countries under their real names (see appendix). In an article on Marxist.com by Ted Sprague called "An interview with and Iranian socialist", the comrade allegedly in so much peril from the Iranian state uses his real name openly catergorising himself as a socialist. He also calls himself a socialist, Marxist and atheist on his Facebook page with photos of himself. This is just one example of the alarmist lies the IS used to pressure the IEC to expel this section without factual substantiation of the allegations or hearing the other side of the story. We are very dissappointed that no member of the IEC saw fit to openly oppose this behaviour.

We believe that the real reason for the expulsion of the official Iranian section of the IMT was because they had for a long time requested a more critical class position towards Chavez's relationship with Ahmadinejad. (This became a vital demand of the IRMT after the June street protests and Chavez's whole-hearted support despite severe repression by the state). We believe that in an opportunist fashion, the IS has chosen to ignore the inconvenient position of the official Iranian section fearing it would harm their future work in Chavez's 5th International in an attempt to re-gain some form of authority, some sort of foothold in Venezuela after the devestating split in that section and loss of all the bases that gave that section its credibility.

What is a revolution? is another difference between the IS and the former Iranian section. The IS says Iran is in revolution. The former Iranian section says that a revolutionary situation is maturing. We believe that because AW initially got some media attention in Iran to his sensational headline 'The Iranian Revoluiton has begun' the leadership has not wanted to qualify this slogan despite its inacuracy in hopes of bolstering AWs noteriety.

One might ask that if Iran is in the throws of a revolution why we would not want to help correct any mistakes made by this important section no matter what its size? Instead, the leadership has used totally false allegations against them and accused what were so recently our comrades and allies of now being no better than police informants. For a detailed account from the Iranian comrades themselves see: http://www.militaant.com/.

- *Poland* – The Polish EC co-authored the document 'Forward to democratic centralism'. The comrades from the IS were very keen on investigating who had signed the platform in Poland but, having assumed the political responsibility for the section back in Autumn, they completely neglected addressing any of the very serious concerns and problems with building the tendency that comrades experienced. Instead they looked to undermine the position of those comrades who signed the platform. As a result of the whole dispute with the IS and after considering what happened to WF on the IEC, comrades feel their intellectual and organizational potential cannot fully be realized within the IMT as it functions. The comrades wish to continue to build something completely fresh. They do not wish to quarrel with the IMT and loose time on discussing about the past. Those who are in the IMT plan to resign soon. The status of WF is not clear as the IS representative refused to clearly state in writing whether after his walk-out from the IEC and the subsequent resolution passed by this body he is or he is not an IMT member. Therefore, instead of arguing about the IMT, the comrades prefer to use their capabilities for developing their ideas and building. They want to discuss about the future. In the Polish trade-union movement there are lots of opportunities to meet activists keen on doing political work – like the recent provincional trade-union semminar comrades attended with 100 participants. They will organise a series of events where they will be able to exchange their ideas and experiences and build together with a broader layer of trade-union activists.

- *Belgium* - A group of about 10 comrades, among them 5 former CC members from the Belgian section have left the IMT leaving about 15 active members. The group, who is in agreement with the 'Forward to democratic centralism' document left because the IMT leadership refuse to openly discuss the internal regime it implements. On the CC meeting at the end of march, a resolution was moved to disaffiliate the Belgian section as a whole - with the possibility of IS supporters paying subs directly to London. A short majority rejected the resolution. Two weeks after, most of the comrades critical to the policies of the IS left the organisation.

Co-incidentally, the most influential activist and spokesperson of SP.a rood Erik De Bruyn who was nominated by the Antwerp Socialist Party branch - the biggest in Flanders - for the position of national chairperson of the Socialist Party (SP.a) has resigned for similar reasons.

- *Germany* - There is a serious fissure within the small German section. The Berlin branch---who is in agreement with the document 'Forward to democratic centralism'---is in opposition to the majority of the German leadership. They put forward a critical motion (see appendix). The German leadership decided with a majority to cancel the annual conference this year and are not ready to discuss the issues with all the German comrades.

- *US* – For those members of the International who are unaware, another version of events that preceded the departure of the San fransisco and Portland branches two years ago is available. (See appendix) More recently, a leading EC comrade asked to resign from the EC and another 2 rank and file comrades are deeply critical of the methods of the leadership of the IMT and the way the organization is developing.

- *Canada* - 3 members and a group of about 10 contacts from the Ottawa branch left the IMT accusing the Canadian leadership of bureaucratic centralism and over differences on the class nature of China. The leader of this group, AF sent a letter explaining his reasons for leaving the IMT when it was repeatedly stated that he left because of emails sent by HK. (See appendix)

- *Britain* - In the recent period we have lost key experienced trade union comrades and comrades with a high theoretical level like ASLEF elected official AV, PCS regional chair RH and BECTU activist and former fulltimer for the Militant II and some very good young trade union comrades like JA who as a fulltimer played an excellent role in recruiting the majority of the new youth comrades who joined two years ago. Veteran comrade MR (See appendix for a short biography) resigned who is an expert on economics and whose writings gave the tendency credibility and a serious factual base for economic analysis. He used his access and understanding of the latest in bourgeois statistics to apply a Marxist analysis to forsee with a great deal of accuracy the housing slump and the great recession. More recently, a faction called the faction on Internal Democracy of 10 signatories was denied faction rights.

*Conclusion*
We believe that how Marxists deal with differences is one of the keys to building a strong, healthy revolutionary organization filled with a membership and a leadership that are mutually strengthened by the process of airing, investigating and discussing out ideas and differences. This can help make better leaders and prepare cadres for their concrete interventions in the labour movement and create a Marxist vanguard of scientifically based, independent minded fighters who can intervene in the labour movement as it is in order to work and fight arm in arm with our fellow workers to overthrow capitalism and change society for the better. The methods that we employ to do this and how we bolster our own Marxist forces is a key political question. We take exception to the claim that our grievances are not political. If the claims we are making are not considered political then the IMT is even less prepared for the task at hand than we previously thought.

Therefore, the comrades signed below which includes a shop steward in UNISON who tirelessly helped to build the Spanish section of the Militant out of the ashes of fascist dictatorship (PW) and dedicated, fighting trade union official in PCS (MW) and others with knowledge, skills and talents are leaving the IMT. We remain convinced of the ideas of Scientific Socialism. We will continue to work in the labour movement, putting forward these ideas. We also continue to believe in the need for a revolutionary party organised on democratic centralist lines. To this end we will continue to fight for the overthrow of Capitalism and the construction of a Socialist society. We give our solidarity and respect to all the members of the IMT and wish them our sincere best wishes in the future.

Comradely, in Solidarity and for Socialism !

*Signed: PW, DP, AP, MW, DR, PJP*

2nd June 2010, 22:10

New developments since our previous threads: Poland is in the process of being kicked out, Belgium lost half its members (including star-member Erik de Bruyn!), minorities in Germany, US and Canada are critical or kicked out, British section lost many key activists.

Kassad

2nd June 2010, 22:14

2nd June 2010, 22:18

Is there any information as to where these former members of the IMT are going? If these statements about mass departure of entire branches and sections of the international are correct, I'd assume the members would be going somewhere.

If my information is correct, there is a new international in the making, consisting of the Swedish, Iranian and some other groups, I don't know if they have a website already up and running though. The Spanish who split a few months ago already founded the CMR international.

Zeus the Moose

2nd June 2010, 22:25

Is there any information as to where these former members of the IMT are going? If these statements about mass departure of entire branches and sections of the international are correct, I'd assume the members would be going somewhere.

If I remember from the previous discussions, at least some of them seem to be grouping together, partially around Heiko Khoo. On his website at least (http://www.karlmarx.net/), there are listed contacts in Sweden, Pakistan, and Iran.

Also, for spotterly interest, this is the US group referred to that split/was expelled two years ago: http://www.workerscompass.org/

EDIT: Q, I believe the Venezuelan section (and maybe some of the Latin American sections as well) are associated with the CMR.

2nd June 2010, 22:33

EDIT: Q, I believe the Venezuelan section (and maybe some of the Latin American sections as well) are associated with the CMR.

Right, I meant to say Spanish-speaking.

RedScare

2nd June 2010, 23:14

Don't tell me they're forming another bloody international. For fucks sake, why doesn't CWI take this chance to say "Hey, why don't we merge..."

Crux

2nd June 2010, 23:34

Don't tell me they're forming another bloody international. For fucks sake, why doesn't CWI take this chance to say "Hey, why don't we merge..."
We'll try no doubt.

Die Neue Zeit

3rd June 2010, 01:46

If my information is correct, there is a new international in the making, consisting of the Swedish, Iranian and some other groups, I don't know if they have a website already up and running though. The Spanish who split a few months ago already founded the CMR international.

These new sectarians aren't humble enough to float over to the CWI? :rolleyes:

Oops, sorry I didn't catch the "Spanish international" part. My question still applies.

graymouser

3rd June 2010, 03:43

Crux

3rd June 2010, 04:03

I'll admit that I haven't read the bulk of the documents coming out of the split, but for accuracy's sake I'd like to see if anyone can answer the following questions.

1. Are the split forces aligned relatively closely? It seems that the Swedish / Iranian / Polish split is quite separate from the Spanish / Venezuelan / Mexican split, and they are forming different internationals. If so the questions below will apply for as many currents as they are. And where do the other splits/splinters fit relative to them?

2. Are these groups maintaining the basic IMT line on Chavez? Has there been any hint on where they are going relative to Venezuela?

3. Specifically in the Mexican and Pakistani sections, are these still relating to the PRD and PPP respectively? Is there any analysis of these relations as being popular frontist? (I know the IMT considers the PRD and PPP subject to its "mass organizations" thesis but they are bourgeois parties and not bourgeois workers parties.)

4. Do the splits maintain the traditional IMT thesis of entrism in the mass workers parties? Have any embraced it in kind of an ortho-Grantist way or is this a result of backing off?

5. I know there was some discussion on China at the beginning of this; is the non defense of the People's Republic a live issue in this? If so does that mean some of these groups still consider China a deformed workers state and call for its defense and a political revolution rather than for a social revolution?
1. Post the Spain/Venmezuela/Mexico/Colombia split all the other groups splitting seem to be moving in the same direction, some groups are very small though and, given the IMT's orientation might end up like their greek section and basically disbanding into their "mother party" so to speak. I think the iranians kept in touch with the venezuelan/spanish splitters for a while, but since they were expelled seem to be going with the other group.

2.The Spanish and venzeualn splits claim to have a more critical view on Chavez, as does the Iranians, so possibly this is reflected among the swedish/polish etc but I haven't really seen any definitive sign of it yet. In sweden both the split and the IMT will maintain the Hands of Venezuela campaign together.

3. The short answer would be, "no." Or not as far as I know.

4. No diffrence on the view on entryism as far as I can discern. the swedish IMT split seems very much to maintain the old line of working both in the socdems and the left party. Those who remained with the IMT seem to focus exclusively on the left party.

5. yes, the view of those that split seem to be a variance of the "deformed worker's state" analysis vis a vis china.

Crux

3rd June 2010, 04:10

These new sectarians aren't humble enough to float over to the CWI? :rolleyes:

Oops, sorry I didn't catch the "Spanish international" part. My question still applies.
They still maintain the IMT program on most relevant points but we will see if they move in any new direction. We were, apparently, briefly in contact with their Iranian section, prior to them joining the imt, but they have some sectarian tendencies unfortunatly. I am not sure in which specific questions but in any case our main orientation is not towards the small split off's of other organizations. if they show any tendency to change their analysis of the socdem parties we would be happy to open discussions.

vyborg

3rd June 2010, 07:55

bcbm

3rd June 2010, 08:13

who fucking cares

Crux

3rd June 2010, 09:02

Nothing new really, on the contrary as these guys have no more access to internal document, so that they cannot leak them to the world, they are less and less interesting to the humankind.

Anyway I suggest to read the comment these people made of the statement of the pakistani marxist about Manzoor. Look what they comment and what they dont. It will be absolutely clear what the problem is...

Of course, they do not talk about the role of Manzoor NOW, as it would be a bit counterproductive for them...they keep talking about 2008-2009...

I dont see anything that make spanish people (very sectarian towards reformist parties but at least vert active) similar to swedish or british (very opportunistic towards reformist parties and completely passive); as for the iranians, nobody knows what they think, not even themselves (as for the "EC of Polish section" it has more words than people anyway...).

So I think that a combination is very difficult. It is more likely that anyone of these small groups will find a way towards a more similar international group.
Well, yes as I said, if the swedish group as well as the other small split-offs get something together it will definitely be separete from the Corriente Marxista Revolucionario (the spanish/venezualan/mexican group). Hah maybe the "4th international" will take them in as observers. hahaha. I do commend them for having an international view. As for the spanish section they still maintain a mistaken view on the social democracy making their program, especially in face of the neo-liberal attacks made by the PSOE, very mild. the old slogan of the wroking class "moving through the mass organizations" seems not to be borne out. You have to realize though that only two of the IMT's main sections, italy and france, have remained stable. There might be further rifts ahead., and I do, at the fundament, think this flows from the mistaken approach of the IMT.

Proletarian Ultra

3rd June 2010, 09:09

Hold up, peeps...IMT does entrism in the Pakistan People's Party? For real?

Lame beyond words, if so.

vyborg

3rd June 2010, 09:29

As for the spanish section they still maintain a mistaken view on the social democracy making their program, especially in face of the neo-liberal attacks made by the PSOE, very mild. the old slogan of the wroking class "moving through the mass organizations" seems not to be borne out.

If the working class doest use its mass organization it is not moving at all, that's the problem. of course you can have some small even if radical partial movement but this is not enough to change the situation.

as for spain, the problem is that when you are outside the real movement, you tend to be opportunistic and sectarian at the same time...that's the problem.

vyborg

3rd June 2010, 09:31

Hold up, peeps...IMT does entrism in the Pakistan People's Party? For real?

Lame beyond words, if so.

I'm sorry if the workers of Pakistan consider the PPP as their party...it is not the fault of the IMT it is the reality...

the problem is how you work in the PPP...

Crux

3rd June 2010, 10:22

If the working class doest use its mass organization it is not moving at all, that's the problem. of course you can have some small even if radical partial movement but this is not enough to change the situation.

as for spain, the problem is that when you are outside the real movement, you tend to be opportunistic and sectarian at the same time...that's the problem.
See this is where your position becomes dogmatic, the spanish working class is on the move, but they are moving not into but against the PSOE.

Well, I think, partially, el militantes problem is that they, and you, more so than the working class have illusions in PSOE. In effect that means tailing the movement, not aspiring to lead it. This creates whole range of issues.

Again the same issues arises with the PPP. In what direction are the working class moving and how can we, as marxists, best intervene.

vyborg

3rd June 2010, 10:28

Crux

3rd June 2010, 10:32

vyborg

3rd June 2010, 10:40

They never "disbanded"; the problem is that the different bureaucracies of the reformist parties have different attitudes, traditions and so on. In rifondazione you can state you have a tendency and no one care. in the KKE if you try to organize a tendency you got expelled in some hours.

I think even not very smart people understand that you must adapt (organizationally not politically) to these different situations.

As for Spain, IU is growing. It is very logical as the PSOE is proposing a very right wing policy. So IU is more favourable now...as is SYN in Greece or Die Linke in Germany.

Crux

3rd June 2010, 10:55

vyborg

3rd June 2010, 11:09

The KKE was an example but not only...
As for the tendencies...a reformist party can accept reformist tendency but not revolutionary one...so the problem is always concret, how to work in the best way.

graymouser

3rd June 2010, 11:34

I'm sorry if the workers of Pakistan consider the PPP as their party...it is not the fault of the IMT it is the reality...

the problem is how you work in the PPP...
The PPP (like the PRD in Mexico) is a bourgeois party, not a workers party. They muddied the waters a bit initially by mentioning "socialism," but structurally they are a conglomeration of local bourgeois or petty bourgeois electoral machines, more like the Democrats in the USA than Labour in Britain. You couldn't say the same thing about the workers of America and the Democrats, so why do you say it about the PPP and the Pakistani workers?

vyborg

3rd June 2010, 11:40

The PPP (like the PRD in Mexico) is a bourgeois party, not a workers party. They muddied the waters a bit initially by mentioning "socialism," but structurally they are a conglomeration of local bourgeois or petty bourgeois electoral machines, more like the Democrats in the USA than Labour in Britain. You couldn't say the same thing about the workers of America and the Democrats, so why do you say it about the PPP and the Pakistani workers?

The problem is not what I say but what the workers of Pakistan do. When Benazir flew back in Pakistan some 3 millions of workers and peasants went to acclaim her shouting revolutionary slogan, so the marxists in Pakistan went to these demos explaining that the coming PPP government will have to cut their living standards. If you didnt participate to these movement you simply cut yourself away from the workers. You have to participate using a revolutionart attitude and programme.

The same is true in Mexico with AMLO etc

nideaquinidealli

3rd June 2010, 12:46

Who ever said that the PSOE ends what the IMT considers mass organization in Spain?
This is not the case, as this is not in Greece with the PASOK.

The problem is exactly that El Militante was waiting for a left area in the PSOE forgetting about the rest...

Other comrades of the IMT were a bit smarter and they grew a lot... and now have a far better situation

Viborg,
I cannot understand why are you trying to hide that the Spanish section of the IMT is linked to the PSOE. Your people in Alava (your only stronghold in Spain) is linked to the UGT, the PSOE's Union. Even one of your leaders (J.D.) is a socialist union full-timer, you are publishig articles written by Arturo Val del Olmo, a man linked for decades to the PSOE's left...
Where the hell are you working inside United Left (IU) or the Communist Party (PCE)? I'm in IU, and I have no news about IMT members in IU.
On the opposite, CMR people is very active inside IU and the PCE. They have a majority in some branches in Andalousie, and they are doing a signifiant job in many places. You can read the PCE- Madrid branch related forums, where some old-style stalinists are proposing to use "the piolet" for killing the CMR people in their Leganes branch...
I'm not at all interested in the IMT shit, but the people who reads this forum may know the truth.

vyborg

3rd June 2010, 13:02

I can see also in the El Militante website that they have awaken to reality. this is very good. I think they can do a very good job in IU as they are very active and dedicated people.

As for the position of the CMI (the spanish section of IMT) anyone can read here (http://www.corrientemarxista.org/estado-espanol.html) and have an idea of the real situation.

If El Militante really is gung-ho for IU now, I think we should try to create a united front of the left of IU against the bureaucracy

12th June 2010, 12:58

This weeks' Weekly Worker has an article on the subject: Fresh thinking and stale dogma (http://cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1003975)

Another split on the left leads to questions being raised about what passes for ‘democratic centralism’. James Turley looks at the travails of the IMT

The decay of the International Marxist Tendency continues apace. A relatively successful Trotskyist organisation, with roots in the British Militant Tendency and (mostly tiny) sections in a large number of countries, it remains under the effective dominance of the British. First among these is IMT high priest Alan Woods.

This dominance - and the increasingly eccentric way in which it is exercised - has cost the IMT dear in recent years. The Pakistani section - by far the largest, with around 2,000 members at its peak - split a few years ago, losing one of its best known leaders and a third to half of the total membership. Earlier this year, ill tidings were in evidence again: this time, the ‘international’ lost the majority of the Spanish and Venezuelan memberships, which were likewise two of the more important.

That, alas, was not the end. A key issue behind the Venezuelan split has been a major political foible of the IMT - its utterly uncritical admiration of Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez. It seems that this policy works better in Greenwich mean time than it does on the ground in Latin America. The issue was finally forced last year, when the streets of Iran erupted into angry mass protests after the patently rigged presidential election in that country. The initial reaction from the Woods machine was if anything too wide-eyed, declaring that the Iranian revolution had begun.

A couple of thousand miles in the other direction, however, one Hugo Chávez was none too pleased to see his friend, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, under attack, congratulating the Iranian president on his ‘victory’, which was one in the eye for “global arrogance” (that is, US imperialism). After that, the IMT became increasingly embarrassed - not by providing left cover for this left-Bonapartist bilge, but by its support for the Iranian protests. Documents submitted by the Iranian section to the IMT’s In defence of Marxism website were spiked.

After the Venezuelans had left, then, the Iranians were always going to be next. The leadership accused them of rather ludicrous charges of breaching security, in a tortuous tale involving two exiled Iranians who were IMT members in North America - but actually members of the Worker-communist Party of Iran, a slightly sinister organisation which considers all opponents of the Islamic Republic, up to and including monarchist supporters of the shah, acceptable allies. Not any more popular a position in the Iranian IMT section than the fawning over Chávez ...

Since then, the discontent has proved infectious. Several comrades in Britain have resigned, including veterans from the Militant days. The Swedish organisation has split, with the leadership supporters in the minority. The IMT has lost a handful of comrades in Belgium, including a prominent leader of Flemish left social democracy. The list goes on, and on, and on. Where the leadership has commented publicly on these splits, it has often been to mud-rake. The overall pattern is of the Woods clique systematically misleading the membership and wider class movement about the true state of their organisation.

So far, not so newsworthy - ‘Trots split’ is rather on the ‘Dog bites man’ end of the editorial spectrum. What is unusual here is the somewhat encouraging response of many groups of ex-IMT members to the question of organisational norms in the movement. Having been at the sharp end of a petty, bureaucratic regime intolerant of criticism, the comrades - for once - have begun to draw some important lessons. As the Spanish and Venezuelan splits boiled over, some former IMT members in America issued an extensive document criticising the IMT’s internal regime, concluding: If we can’t achieve collective democracy within our own movement, how do we hope to be able to establish a democratic socialist society across the world?”[1] Quite.

At the same time, the Polish, Iranian and Swedish sections - then still members in good standing - produced a document, ‘Forwards to democratic centralism’, which demolishes in admirably comprehensive fashion the IMT’s eight so-called “basic rules of democratic centralism”. It should be required reading not only among this particular milieu, but for most left organisations today.

Others have questioned the presuppositions of bureaucratic regimes before, like the Permanent Revolution split from Workers Power. None, to my knowledge, have continued to defend any version of democratic centralism as extensively revised as it is here. The authors even go for the ultimate sacred cow of all ‘Leninist combat organisations’ - discussing differences openly before the movement. (Unfortunately, the IMT’s trade-mark snottiness about other activists is still present: “The only ones to take an interest in our differences at the moment are various ‘rival’ piddling little left groups, and of course the sectarian ‘trainspotters’ have a heyday. It is not worth our while to kick up a big fuss and waste time trying to trace leaks for their sake.” Pretty charming, considering their ideas have been the stock in trade of those who publish the Weekly Worker for almost three decades.)[2]

Now that the split is finalised, the individuals and groups behind this document have attempted to practise what they preach. Skype discussions centring on the party question have been made publicly available,[3] for a start - and they show at least some evidence of serious thinking, albeit peppered with certain unexamined Trotskyist prejudices.

So is this split likely to develop in a healthy direction? Despite these positive signs, it looks unlikely. Certainly, elements among the recent ex-members appear to be very soft on the previously expelled groups and individuals. These are not overwhelmingly politically principled oppositions. Apart from their love of Chávez, the IMT has one major distinguishing political feature - a wholesale commitment to continuous work, wherever possible, in the ‘traditional mass organisations’ of the working class. It was this issue that led to the split in the Militant that gave birth to the IMT, with long-time leader Ted Grant finding himself in a minority on the question and leaving the mother organisation.

The split took a similar form in the other sections of Militant’s ‘international’, the Committee for a Workers’ International. For Grant and current leader Alan Woods, action for socialism is ‘dead’ outside the traditional organisations - and thus the IMT operates deep entry in a wide variety of parties, from the social democratic to the ‘official communist’ (France and Spain), to the populist bourgeois Pakistan People’s Party.

The leader of the Pakistani split, Manzoor Ahmed, had some success in inveigling himself into key positions in the PPP. At the time of the split, the IMT accused him of taking on unelected roles too close for comfort to PPP leader Asif Zardari, and of opposing certain strikes in line with PPP policy.

Meanwhile, Erik De Bruyn, in a similar position in Flemish politics, has been guilty of censoring his politics - or, perhaps, abandoning them - on at least one occasion. Asked by an interviewer what a socialist alternative would look like, he had - among other things - this to say: “It would be madness to eliminate the market. Why should a government be engaged in the production of shoes, clothes or bread? But the community should control this economic game: companies should respect the social, economic and ecological rules. This control does exist partially today - I am an environmental functionary myself - but insufficiently.”[4] Whatever happened to the nationalisation of the top 200 monopolies?

The most recent split document (not currently publicly available) is happy to offer guarded technical criticisms of some ex-sections (eg, in Spain); Manzoor gets off scot-free, however. The comrades argue that Manzoor was right to take on his senior positions because “there are no positions in the entire PPP that are genuinely elected. All positions or tickets to run are appointed by the top leadership”.

If this is the case, however, how on earth would a revolutionary Marxist hope to get anywhere without watering down their politics? I am in no position to know if Manzoor actually attempted to demobilise politically inconvenient strikes, but one cannot but wonder if this role was exactly what Zardari had in mind for him. As for de Bruyn, the comrades have nothing to say on the charges against him - perfectly well known at this point.

This is not merely a matter of drawing up a balance sheet - ‘ on the positive side, on the negative side ...’ In the first instance, it is plain that more than Alan Woods’s ego is implicated in the course of all these splits. It seems that the IMT has been engaged in entry operations deeper even than Militant - which at least attempted to look like it was to the left of Tony Benn and so on. The natural tendency is for sections of the membership to ‘go native’. Although Manzoor was not predestined to embarrass the IMT by working his way into the PPP establishment, if it is your strategy to engage in long-term entry at all costs, and you enter a bourgeois organisation, and this bourgeois organisation has no internal elections, then this kind of opportunism is almost inevitable. The same goes, on a much smaller scale, for de Bruyn.

The fresh thinking on democratic questions, meanwhile, is limited to the internal regime. On that particular terrain, the ex-IMT dissidents are as close to Marxist orthodoxy as any Trotskyist fragment has been for decades. Yet they remain, as far as anyone can tell, committed to strategic goals inimical to democratic struggle in society at large. They see no problem with working their people into completely unaccountable positions (Manzoor), or arguing against official policy for reformist tripe (de Bruyn). All the democratic internal norms imaginable will not make this economistic strategy anything other than a dead letter for the radical democratisation of society at large.

james.turley(at)weeklyworker.org.uk

Notes

1. weknowwhatsup.blogspot.com/2010/01/comments-on-current-crisis-in.html
2. sites.google.com/a/karlmarx.net/open/topics/democratic-centralism-1/forwardstodemocraticcentralism
3. www.militaant.com/audio
4. www.socialistparty.net/international/359-open-letter-to-the-members-and-former-members-of-the-imt

vyborg

14th June 2010, 08:46

When an article is based on arguments like "Alan Woods ego" you can assess its deepness without even analyzing it...

At least WW doesnt' pretend to be expert on what is writing about

Saorsa

14th June 2010, 10:47

14th June 2010, 10:57

Lolz. The article talks about how like 35 IMT members were expelled, and now their Greek section has like 15 members.

The entire IMT in Greece (Greece of all places!) is smaller than the queue I was just standing in for a sausage.

In b4 Vyborg saying that when you base an argument on the size of you sausage queue you can assess the deepness without even analysing it... Or to be an expert on sausage queues for that matter.

nideaquinidealli

14th June 2010, 13:51

I don't know the size of the Greek section of the IMT, but, after participating in a nationwide meeting of Spanish IU (United Left), I can state that the IMT is out of the Spanish political life and out of the workers movement. Nobody in IU has news about the IMT Spanish section. Only in Malaga there is an IMT guy participating in IU, but his action is individual, and it seems there is no IMT branch there.
In Alava there are a small group of IMTers, but they are linked to the Socialist Party and the socialist union (UGT). The IU people in Alava say they are irrelevant, most a case of unconditional loyalty to their leaders than a solid political position.
Neither in Madrid or Barcelona, the main Spanish cities, are signs of IMT life. It seems that their web site is fed from abroad, with translations of out-of-date writtings by IMT leaders or writtings from Latin America.
Ancient leaders of the IMT in Spain, guys who left the IMT in the 90's and are now in the IU leadership (the group known as Nuevo Claridad), told me that there is no IMT section, but Alan Woods is trying to fastly rebuild it before October 2010, when a Spanish congress of the IMT is, supposedly, to be held.
The former Spanish section, the people who published the newspaper El Militante hasn't produced any statement about the split. They are working in the same way as they were one year ago. IU leaders from Andalousie say they are very active in Malaga, Cadiz and Sevilla. I haven't spoke with El Militante people in a in-depth way, but it seems that they aren´t at all worried about their political future. They are quite secretive about their international links, if any, although their web page links to Mexican, Venezuelan and Colombian marxist sites.

vyborg

14th June 2010, 17:38

The former Spanish section, the people who published the newspaper El Militante hasn't produced any statement about the split

as i said, someone lives in real word. el militante among them. other the article speaks about not at all

Faceless

15th June 2010, 02:43

Q,

I remember in the past having a certain amount of respect for your posts but recently you do not post arguments against the ideas of the IMT. It seems that you do not approach us in a comradely way any more. I wonder what we did.

The Weekly Worker post is politically vacuous and contains nothing "new". Do you agree with it? Who knows.

What are these "8 rules of democratic centralism" we are supposed to have constructed? Do you agree with them? Who knows.

Vyborg is right not to bother debating this until a political line is put and we are taken to task for what we actually say. Not some fictional "rules" or some fictional "ego". Are the likes of the Weekly Worker really surprised at the small change they get from us when they prefer to make attacks on a comrade's ego than on his politics?

it_ain't_me

15th June 2010, 03:42

Mel was expelled for posting videos of interviews with Pakistani Marxists working in the PPP on Facebook. lol. expelled from a party over facebook pictures. jesus christ the radical left is in a pitiful state in 2010.

15th June 2010, 06:58

Q,

I remember in the past having a certain amount of respect for your posts but recently you do not post arguments against the ideas of the IMT. It seems that you do not approach us in a comradely way any more. I wonder what we did.
Perhaps you have missed much of the discussion in these last few months but there have been tons of documents published about the internal life of the IMT in relation to the splits. These at the very least indicate something very wrong with it. But instead of discussing openly these problems such discussions are silenced, comrades kicked out and the general public, of which Revleft is a part, is constantly being frustrated and lied to. This dropped my opinion of the IMT considerably. People like Vyborg presenting themselves as the conduits for whatever line Alan Woods and his IS come up with don't help either.

The Weekly Worker post is politically vacuous and contains nothing "new". Do you agree with it? Who knows.
I think the article has several good points and some lesser well written points. I didn't make this thread to present my opinion though, but just to post the article so others can form their opinion on the happenings in the IMT. This is needed because the IMT still plays good weather.

What are these "8 rules of democratic centralism" we are supposed to have constructed? Do you agree with them? Who knows.
It stems from a discussiondocument called "Forward to democratic centralism", written by (former) IMT comrades, not from the Weekly Worker. I have no particular opinion about it.

Vyborg is right not to bother debating this until a political line is put and we are taken to task for what we actually say. Not some fictional "rules" or some fictional "ego". Are the likes of the Weekly Worker really surprised at the small change they get from us when they prefer to make attacks on a comrade's ego than on his politics?
More points were made and certainly have been made in the last few months, have a look on karlmarx.net for extensive discussion documents.

Besides, the article only mentions "ego" once and only in the sense that there is more to it than that. Such misquotings and attempts to dodge the discussion is something we also have seen frequently in these past few months which also undermined my esteem for quite a few IMT comrades.

Revolutionary honesty is what is needed and this can only be achieved by open discussion on the issues involved, not by shying away after findng a political line because we've been waiting for that for half a year now and still nothing is forthcoming.

vyborg

15th June 2010, 07:31

Q I guess you are expert enough to assess the situation. Spanish guys NEVER wrote anything about the situation and they do have something to say and to do. On the contrary, these "forward to democratic centralism" types that do nothing, wrote a lot. We all know well this kind of "comrade".

They can write very interesting abstract documents, useless nontheless.

***
Coming back to the real problem about Spain: El Militante has changed its attitude about IU. This is a merit of the IMT even if this change came too late..the problem is that they didnt change enough. They do write but they do not intervene as an organized tendency in IU. At least so far.

Antid Oto

29th June 2010, 01:09

"Who ever said that the PSOE ends what the IMT considers mass organization in Spain?
This is not the case, as this is not in Greece with the PASOK.

The problem is exactly that El Militante was waiting for a left area in the PSOE forgetting about the rest..." (vyborg)

Not even that. Only a small fraction of El Militante, particularly in the Malaga province, do actually work in PSOE (Izquierda Socialista), but the leadership is more orientated towards independent work, altough not to the point of calling for an open party. That was the real problem.

PS: I translated the "Forward to Democratic Centralism" document into spanish, in order to de discussed at the next world congress, and thought, as I a had to read it carefully in order to translate it, that it was a complete mess.

And the fact that an absolutely internal document like that one was leaked says much about the "comrades" around it. But check then for the IS reply (which I also translated in about a third)...that's also on HK's page...

Benghazi

29th June 2010, 12:01

There are questions on what basis does the IMT claim to be building.

Last week an article was posted on IOM (“Pakistan: Marxists elected President of Punjab People’s Student Federation”) that reported a Punjab People’s Student Federation (PSF) convention entitled “Bhuttoism—Socialism”.

Amongst the reports of the speakers at this meeting we read that:
“Former leader of the PSF and general Secretary of the Pakistan People’s Lawyers’ Forum and deputy attorney general of Pakistan Ilyas Khan said that PPP was formed to carry out a socialist revolution. But today they talk about democracy when the poor youth and workers are committing suicides to escape poverty. There are lucrative positions available for the children of Ministers but the sons and daughters of the poor are going door to door in their futile efforts to find jobs. Bhutto was killed not because he advocated democracy but because he raised the slogan of “Roti, Kapra aur Makan” (Bread, clothing and shelter) and Socialism. Not a single problem can be solved by Capitalism now and the only solution is Socialism.”

This gives the impression that Ilyas Khan, the “deputy attorney general of Pakistan”, is a supporter or a member of the IMT?

Previously the name Ilyas Khan has appeared a number of times on IOM. Before this current report he was mentioned last November as speaking at a November 1917 revolution commemoration meeting in Rawalpindi where it was reported that:

“Comrade Ilyas Khan highlighted the role of Lenin and Trotsky’s revolutionary leadership in his passionate speech. He explained that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a failure of Stalinism, not that of Socialism. He expressed his disgust at the mass politics of non-issues and said that working class movement is gaining momentum and its ultimate goal is a socialist revolution.”

Fine words, but how is this squared with taking a key role, not a clerical or administrative job, as “deputy attorney general” in the Pakistani capitalist state? This is not at all the same as winning a parliamentary position which is then used as a political platform. Presumably the Pakistani government must have felt it safe, and useful”, to appoint the IMT’s friend or comrade to this post.

Antid Oto

2nd July 2010, 23:13

[

This gives the impression that Ilyas Khan, the “deputy attorney general of Pakistan”, is a supporter or a member of the IMT?

I haven't got a clue as I'm too far from Pakistan, but we do not call "comrade" only the members of the IMT but also people we think have a key role in the labour movement, for instance we speak of "comrade Chávez " and that doesn't mean that the president of Venezuela is a member of the IMT...

Jolly Red Giant

3rd July 2010, 02:02

Mayday

Addressing a seminar in Multan, the Deputy Attorney General Pakistan Muhammad Ilyas Khan said that present government is providing all rights and facilities to the workers to uplift their economic condition.

He said PPP government is taking all necessary steps to provide basic rights and necessities to the workers and low income group of the country.

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=28849

Revolutionary stuff from the guy the IMT are cheerleading.

vyborg

3rd July 2010, 08:53

while someone uses his time to slander, pakistani comrades are doing a fine job as always...

(for instance: http://www.marxist.com/inqilab-e-kashmir-conference-june-2010.htm)

it is a pity that the Manzoor stooges do not write here anymore, they could explain us what the "left opposition" of the IMT in Pakistan with a third or half of the membership of the section with them is doing to secure a very good job to Manzoor himself...

Jolly Red Giant

4th July 2010, 01:01

while someone uses his time to slander,
Hang on a minute vyborg - I didn't mention Manzoor. The IMT have an article on their website praising Ilyas Khan as a revolutionary - in the meantime he takes a job as a deputy attorney general in Lahore and praises the PPP government at a mayday demo in Multan.

If you want to deal with the issue then deal with what is in front of you, rather than building a paper castle to knock down.

nideaquinidealli

5th July 2010, 06:33

Look at the pics published yesyerday by the Venezuelan section of the IMT.
Their main activity at Inveval, a worker-occupied factory, is selling second-hand clothes.
It has some logic: you start selling second hand ideas, and end selling second hand t-shirts.

http://www.luchadeclases.org.ve/control-obrero-leftmenu-167/6748-jornada-de-lucha-en-inveval-comunidades-y-trabajadores-unidos

Muhammad

5th July 2010, 13:15

[

I haven't got a clue as I'm too far from Pakistan, but we do not call "comrade" only the members of the IMT but also people we think have a key role in the labour movement,

Don't fool us. You know Ilyas Khan is an outstanding leader of the IMT Pakistani section, as anyone can read in marxist.com (Pakistan: 29th Congress of The Struggle -a historic gathering- Day Two, 23 March 2010): "The second speaker was Ilyas Khan from Multan who emphasized the correctness of our perspectives for the PPP and made a very sharp criticism of Zardari and the present government." (my emphasis)

vyborg

5th July 2010, 18:28

Benghazi

7th July 2010, 16:19

Unfortunately none of the IMT comrades who participated in this discussion have yet clarified whether or not Ilyas Khan, the recently appointed Pakistani Deputy Attorney General, is a comrade of or simply a friend of the IMT?

Since my original question in post 40 some other contributors have added more details concerning Ilyas Khan in posts 42 and 46.

Perhaps the IMT comrades are not able to fully respond because it is around this time of the year that the IMT holds its annual international meeting. But if they are attending an IMT meeting then it is an opportunity for them to clarify Ilyas Khan’s status.

This is not a small side issue, especially in Pakistan. As I originally wrote “taking a key role, not a clerical or administrative job, as ‘deputy attorney general’ … is not at all the same as winning a parliamentary position which is then used as a political platform.” Indeed the Pakistani newspaper report quoted in post 42, if accurate, indicates that Ilyas Khan is publicly supporting the Pakistani government’s policies.

I believe that, at least until recently, Ilyas Khan was a member of the central leadership body of “The Struggle” in Pakistan. If this was, or is still the case, then it is even more important to clarify his position

Muhammad

8th July 2010, 09:40

A big rally was organised at Nawa Shehar on 3rd January in which nearly 4,000 people took part. The rally was led by Comrade Ilyas Khan, a veteran leader of the PPP and leading comrade of The Struggle who addressed the workers... (The intervention of the Pakistani Marxists in the movement against the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, 9 January 2008, in marxist.com)

The question is: If Ilyas Khan left the IMT to support Zardari's right-wing government, what can get the IMT from keeping silent?

leon T

26th February 2012, 02:57

The IMT is fine. "Q" is actually Heiko Khoo

Martin Blank

26th February 2012, 05:12

The IMT is fine. "Q" is actually Heiko Khoo

Note: This post was in the moderated queue. I only approved it because of how much of a howler it is. I'm surprised I could, given how hard I was laughing.

26th February 2012, 11:45

lolwat :lol:

daft punk

26th February 2012, 12:47

DaringMehring

26th February 2012, 17:39

This annoys me. The IMT and any other splinter groups should just join the CWI ffs. They stayed in the Labour Party and the Labour Party fucking bombed Iraq! Jesus. What more proof do they want that is over?

Unfortunately, sects in general do not work this way. Sects are all about the being the personal power machines of the leaders. In a merge, the merging in group's leadership loses the sort of dictatorial control it craves. So even if the politics are similar, there will be no merge.

We all know there are several clusters of groups that should merge -- IMT/CWI, WWP/PSL, CPUSA/CCDS, SL/IBT for four easy examples just out of groups that split from each other. But it is a personal/leadership thing, not political.

Just another of the sad conditions sickening the far left today... I'm sure the FBI/CIA has a role.

GoddessCleoLover

26th February 2012, 17:48

Perhaps the lesson to be drawn from the pitiful sectarianism of the Left is that the material conditions for authentic working-class revolutionary organizations are not yet present. I initially became politically active back in the mid-1970s and noticed back then that the sectarian Left organization had very little relation to the working class. They were composed primarily of radicalized former university students (back then the remnants of SDS) from petit-bourgeois or even bourgeois family backgrounds. Things haven't changed much, and until revolutionary organizations develop organic ties to the working class they will remain little more than micro-organizations engaged in little class struggle and a great deal of sectarian rivalry.

daft punk

26th February 2012, 19:08

I dunno, I joined the Militant in 1984 and the bloke who recruited me was working class, and I was living in quite a poor area. In fact there had been riots close by some time earlier. Most of the members were working class as well.

They split because Ted Grant and one or two others didnt want to leave the Labour Party, but that was right at the start of New Labour. They need to merge now. Not heard of the others except PSL who are weird and the CPUSA who I assume are Stalinist.

GoddessCleoLover

26th February 2012, 20:01

It seems that the British Left has much deeper organic links with the English working class than the American Left enjoys with the American working class.

Crux

26th February 2012, 23:29

Unfortunately, sects in general do not work this way. Sects are all about the being the personal power machines of the leaders. In a merge, the merging in group's leadership loses the sort of dictatorial control it craves. So even if the politics are similar, there will be no merge.

We all know there are several clusters of groups that should merge -- IMT/CWI, WWP/PSL, CPUSA/CCDS, SL/IBT for four easy examples just out of groups that split from each other. But it is a personal/leadership thing, not political.

Just another of the sad conditions sickening the far left today... I'm sure the FBI/CIA has a role.
Can't speak for the others, but to say the political differences between the CWI and the IMT are down to personal clashes is absolute nonsense.
While we, unsurprisingly have much in common, the political difference is no less obvious, except for someone who wants to wave their hands and talk about "the sects".

DaringMehring

27th February 2012, 02:02

Can't speak for the others, but to say the political differences between the CWI and the IMT are down to personal clashes is absolute nonsense.
While we, unsurprisingly have much in common, the political difference is no less obvious, except for someone who wants to wave their hands and talk about "the sects".

I cede to your authority on this matter; my understanding was, that the split came over the question of continuing entryism in the UK Labor Party. And since, it is now obvious that the Labor Party is completely dead from a socialist or working class perspective, the reason for the split is now history. But if this isn't so, then, I retract my comment...

Though honestly Woods has a huge ego so it seems to me impossible the IMT would ever consider a merge or anything like that.

Crux

27th February 2012, 02:10

I cede to your authority on this matter; my understanding was, that the split came over the question of continuing entryism in the UK Labor Party. And since, it is now obvious that the Labor Party is completely dead from a socialist or working class perspective, the reason for the split is now history. But if this isn't so, then, I retract my comment...

Though honestly Woods has a huge ego so it seems to me impossible the IMT would ever consider a merge or anything like that.
And the IMT's section in the UK, Socialist Appeal are still in the Labour Party.
So yeah. A merger is unlikely.

leon T

27th February 2012, 02:17

I cede to your authority on this matter; my understanding was, that the split came over the question of continuing entryism in the UK Labor Party. And since, it is now obvious that the Labor Party is completely dead from a socialist or working class perspective, the reason for the split is now history. But if this isn't so, then, I retract my comment...

Though honestly Woods has a huge ego so it seems to me impossible the IMT would ever consider a merge or anything like that.
So your a personal friend of Woods and have done a detailed analysis of his personality. SUCK YOUR OWN DICK, probable your favorite past time.

Ostrinski

27th February 2012, 02:19

So your a personal friend of Woods and have done a detailed analysis of his personality. SUCK YOUR OWN DICK, probable your favorite past time.I think a Freudian would take interest to your fascination with one sucking their own dick. Who knows what kind of projection this is.

Deicide

27th February 2012, 02:25

So your a personal friend of Woods and have done a detailed analysis of his personality. SUCK YOUR OWN DICK, probable your favorite past time.

It's ok, I'm sure someone loves you.

GoddessCleoLover

27th February 2012, 02:28

Perhaps leon T is really Alan Woods.

Deicide

27th February 2012, 02:30

Yeah, come on Alan, I thought you were a nice bloke, but you're being a bit of a bastard.

A Marxist Historian

27th February 2012, 04:03

The problem is not what I say but what the workers of Pakistan do. When Benazir flew back in Pakistan some 3 millions of workers and peasants went to acclaim her shouting revolutionary slogan, so the marxists in Pakistan went to these demos explaining that the coming PPP government will have to cut their living standards. If you didnt participate to these movement you simply cut yourself away from the workers. You have to participate using a revolutionart attitude and programme.

The same is true in Mexico with AMLO etc

Benazir Bhutto? Benazir Bhutto? Benazir Bhutto? Pakistan's Hillary Clinton?

Read Salman Rushdie's book about her.

She was the CIA's very favorite Pakistani leader, which is why Washington practically went into mourning when the Taliban offed her.

The Taliban was invented by the Pakistani secret police on her watch, so I guess that was ungrateful on their part.

-M.H.-

A Marxist Historian

27th February 2012, 04:14

A Marxist Historian

27th February 2012, 04:17

So your a personal friend of Woods and have done a detailed analysis of his personality. SUCK YOUR OWN DICK, probable your favorite past time.

Isn't this creature banned, due to his activities in another thread?

-M.H.-

Crux

27th February 2012, 04:20

Isn't this creature banned, due to his activities in another thread?

-M.H.-
Indeed he is. he is also the necromantic that brought this thread back to life, with the startling revelation that Q is heiko Khoo.

TrotskistMarx

27th February 2012, 06:19

Dear friends, humans in general have been subjected to an economic terrorism, stress, etc. And I am talking about most humans right-wingers, left-wingers, centrists, independent, religious people. That's why I am tolerant even against right-wingers, because people are supposed to make mistakes like the song Billy Joel. Well, what I am trying to say about this specific case is that the leadeship and administrators of most leftist movements of the world, the left of the whole world, has behaviour problems. Not in all of the leftist parties and movements, but in some. Specially in many leftist leaders, and thinkers who because of their intellectual superiority over the average joes, lose all their humility, and become full of pride, superiority complex, unfriendly behaviour, lack of humility, lack of love, and lack of compassion, lack of tolerance toward other people who are suffering the economic crisis.

So I think that the leaders of most leftist parties of the world need to be more humble, less sectarian. Specially the leaders of http://www.wsws.org (World Socialist Website). And the folks of Worldsocialism, and many other factions, that should put away their petty differences and unite for a common good for change into a United Marxist Front in each nation composed of all the leftist movements of each nation.

I still don't understand why there are so many leftist thinkers who are so proud, lack friendliness, love and compassion for others. Maybe is their personality, and it's very very hard to change.

I also went to the website of Alan Woods in http://www.marxist.com and they haven't written any thing about the incicent that was published in http://www.karlmarx.net but I wish that they fix that problem, and the left unites. Because if the left doesn't unite, we will have Chelsea Clinton vs. Jeb Bush in 2016 and 2020. Something has to give !!!

.

As posted on Leftists Trainspotters:

Jimmy Haddow (SPS)

27th February 2012, 10:01

When this original thread started I was not involved in Revleft, even though I did read it and other left-wing websites, so I could not get involved in the discussion.

To say that Woods, et al, had/has a big ego is psycho-babble and superficial. In the end of the day is comes down how one understands the social and economic and political situation of an epoch. The strategy and tactics of any Left wing individual/political group is how best they interpret the social conditions that they are going through and where as best as possible it will lead them to the mass of the working class so that they can complete the socialist transformation of society.

I was/am involved in the CWI in the late 1980s and early 90s in the epochal changes that were taking place because of the Collapse of Stalinism. One of these major changes was the right-wing move of social democratic political parties into, eventually, bourgeois parties. Two trends developed within the British section of the CWI, the Militant Tendency, on how to develop strategy and tactics to the changing situation. One that wanted to stay with the old methods, a minority, and one that wanted to break from the old methods, the majority. The trend that wanted to stay with the old methods was grouped around Grant/Woods/Sewell. Subsequently in the early 90s this discussion political and theoretical discussion developed within the whole of the CWI.

This discussion on the perspectives and tasks of the Collapse of Stalinism and on whether to stay within the British Labour Party was taken in, I believe, the most democratic way. I post you the discussion documents, from both sides, from that period which is on the CWI website under Marxist.net for comrades to read, if they are interested, not just from a historical point of view, but to see, I believe, the incorrect approach to theory, strategy and tactics Alan woods, et all, had/have to the social and economic conditions of the time and today.

http://www.marxist.net/openturn/index.html

daft punk

27th February 2012, 19:11

Maybe someone should stay outside the two parties, try to unite them, and then get elected onto the CWI Central Committee just before a revolution. And they could say "I cannot call myself a CWIer". Just to wind everybody up. Just a thought.

GoddessCleoLover

27th February 2012, 19:21

Complicated timing-wise and otherwise. IMO once these sectarian micro-groups establish themselves they will never unite with anyone. They seem to develop an inbred culture, and the leadership of each sect develops a vested interest in maintaining his leadership position within that particular micro-group.

blake 3:17

27th February 2012, 22:24

The IMT is against the BDS campaign against Israeli apartheid.

Carol diez

27th February 2012, 22:46

The IMT is against the BDS campaign against Israeli apartheid.
I wouldn't be for it either. It only hurts the workers, not the state.

Yehuda Stern

27th February 2012, 23:52

The IMT is against the BDS campaign against Israeli apartheid.
Do tell. (i.e., prove.)

Carol diez

28th February 2012, 00:32

Do tell. (i.e., prove.)
Well I'm an honest girl, and I'm not ashamed to say I can't remember all the details. However, I read the BDS book that was pushed by the ISO. I personally found it to be anti-Semitic instead of anti-Zionist. There are a lot of Palestinians employed by Israel, and the harder a BDS movement goes the more they will take it out on the Palestinians. I could be wrong, you tell me what you like about it, I would like to hear your perspective.

blake 3:17

28th February 2012, 02:23

Quote:
Originally Posted by blake 3:17
The IMT is against the BDS campaign against Israeli apartheid.
Do tell. (i.e., prove.)

http://www.marxist.com/against-blanket-boycott-israel-working-class-solution.htm

If you search the CWI's site the only thing you get on Palestine is a series of articles against terrorism.

Jimmy Haddow (SPS)

28th February 2012, 07:36

“If you search the CWI's site the only thing you get on Palestine is a series of articles against terrorism.”

What a ridiculous statement! If one goes on to the site map on the CWI site and click onto the Middle East then on to Israel/Palestine one will find a significant amount of articles on all social subjects pertaining to the country, not just on terrorism.

Jimmy Haddow (SPS)

28th February 2012, 07:39

http://www.socialistworld.net/view/15

Forgot to post this from my previous post

Yehuda Stern

28th February 2012, 11:57

Carol diez: The accusation that anti-Zionist criticisms of Israel are in fact anti-Semitic is all too common to be taken seriously without some sort of proof. As for the claim that many Palestinians are employed by Israel, this was true up to about 20 years ago, but since the First Intifadah there has been a clear move by Zionist capital to reduce sharply the number of Palestinian workers in Israel.

blake: I haven't read the whole thing, because the IMT's writing style tends to bore me, but the first few lines seem reasonable enough. BDS doesn't have a class perspective, and I do think a blanket boycott is a mistake (though with some things, like military equipment of all sorts, there certainly isn't any place for doubt). Divestment and sanctions mean appealing to capitalists and imperialist states to defend Palestinians, which is a futile tactic. There's a lot to criticize about BDS without being pro-Israeli in any way and without denying the need for some sort of boycott. (Of course, given recent laws in Israel, I am prevented from advocating boycott in any way - I am merely speaking in theory.)

As for the CWI, you're quite right, and we have criticized this tendency many times. But these are different organizations. As far as memory serves, the IMT is actually somewhat better on Palestine (although both organizations have a terrible pro-Zionist position).

daft punk

28th February 2012, 13:33

The IMT is against the BDS campaign against Israeli apartheid.
so is the CWI I think

http://www.marxist.com/against-blanket-boycott-israel-working-class-solution.htm

If you search the CWI's site the only thing you get on Palestine is a series of articles against terrorism.

er, no, that is no where near true. Here are their articles:

http://www.socialistworld.net/view/15

The four most recent by the way are about a CWI MEP touring Gaza, and the flotilla which he was on. Interestingly I recently met a woman who's sister was on that, by pure chance when I was working in her house.

Ot8zdKI_sHI

Devrim

28th February 2012, 13:39

They stayed in the Labour Party and the Labour Party fucking bombed Iraq! Jesus. What more proof do they want that is over?

I cede to your authority on this matter; my understanding was, that the split came over the question of continuing entryism in the UK Labor Party. And since, it is now obvious that the Labor Party is completely dead from a socialist or working class perspective, the reason for the split is now history. But if this isn't so, then, I retract my comment...

The UK Labour Party also was a member of the coalition government in the First World War. It is amazing how much proof some people did want.

Devrim

daft punk

28th February 2012, 13:43

As for the CWI, you're quite right, and we have criticized this tendency many times. But these are different organizations. As far as memory serves, the IMT is actually somewhat better on Palestine (although both organizations have a terrible pro-Zionist position).

Please explain your differences with the CWI on Israel /Palestine, and how you manage to interpret the CWI's stance as pro-Zionist, something that I find frankly ludicrous.

Please explain why 'pro-Zionists' were on the flotilla to Gaza (which meant risking their lives incidentally).

daft punk

28th February 2012, 13:51

The UK Labour Party also was a member of the coalition government in the First World War. It is amazing how much proof some people did want.

Devrim

hmm, dunno, but at the end of WW2 most workers had aspirations of some sort of socialism, I think, even if of a reformist nature. At least they got the NHS and stuff.

Crux

28th February 2012, 14:24

The UK Labour Party also was a member of the coalition government in the First World War. It is amazing how much proof some people did want.

Devrim
Forgive me but please show me where the CWI argued for entryism in the Labour Party during WW1, else your point is quite moot.

Devrim

28th February 2012, 14:39

Forgive me but please show me where the CWI argued for entryism in the Labour Party during WW1, else your point is quite moot.

Obviously the CWI didn't. In the mid-sixties though when the forerunners of the CWI were in the UK Labour Party it is not as if it didn't already have a long history of supporting imperialist wars though providing ample 'proof' of their nature.

Devrim

Yehuda Stern

28th February 2012, 15:19

Please explain your differences with the CWI on Israel /Palestine, and how you manage to interpret the CWI's stance as pro-Zionist, something that I find frankly ludicrous.

Please explain why 'pro-Zionists' were on the flotilla to Gaza (which meant risking their lives incidentally).

The CWI supports a socialist confederation between an Israeli and Palestinian state. This means supporting the continued existence of Israel, socialist or not. This is a blatant pro-Zionist position, which CWI members quite explicitly say is meant to assuage the fears of racist Zionist workers who do not want to live in a Palestinian state. You can find more in the two articles we have written that deal with the CWI (see link to our website below).

Pro-Zionists can join projects like the Gaza flotilla. Not all Zionist are Kahanists. Some, despite being racists at bottom, have a true concern for the victims of Zionism, though not enough to recognize the reactionary nature of Zionism or Israel. Some simply want to see a more merciful Israel which has a better image in the eyes of "the world".

Crux

28th February 2012, 15:19

Obviously the CWI didn't. In the mid-sixties though when the forerunners of the CWI were in the UK Labour Party it is not as if it didn't already have a long history of supporting imperialist wars though providing ample 'proof' of their nature.

Devrim
Fair enough. So it is not the sole decider whetever intervening inside a party is a viable tactic or not, agreed.

The CWI supports a socialist confederation between an Israeli and Palestinian state. This means supporting the continued existence of Israel, socialist or not. This is a blatant pro-Zionist position, which CWI members quite explicitly say is meant to assuage the fears of racist Zionist workers who do not want to live in a Palestinian state. You can find more in the two articles we have written that deal with the CWI (see link to our website below).

Pro-Zionists can join projects like the Gaza flotilla. Not all Zionist are Kahanists. Some, despite being racists at bottom, have a true concern for the victims of Zionism, though not enough to recognize the reactionary nature of Zionism or Israel. Some simply want to see a more merciful Israel which has a better image in the eyes of "the world".
I thought you had backed down from claiming the CWI were actually pro-zionist though. I do not think neither a one-state or two-state solution is viable in the immediate term or under capitalism at all, or indeed the it is the most acute angle on the issue of palestine.

Yehuda Stern

28th February 2012, 15:29

When did I ever say that I backed down from it? We have written on the subject and all our interactions with CWIers (both in Israel and on RevLeft) have convinced me that our criticisms were a hundred percent correct.

Devrim

28th February 2012, 15:29

Fair enough. So it is not the sole decider whetever intervening inside a party is a viable tactic or not, agreed.

I am not sure what you are saying we are agreed on. I think that it is quite clear that the Labour Party was a viciously anti-working class party, which was fully a part of the imperialist war machine at the time that the forerunners of the CWI originally joined it. The comments made on this thread that suggest that the IMT is 'shockingly' part of a party, which bombed Iraq, when the Labour Party was part of a coalition government, which used chemical weapons to bomb insurgents in Iraqi Kurdistan in 1919i brings to mind the words pot, kettle,and black.

Devrim

hashem

28th February 2012, 17:38

daft punk

28th February 2012, 18:01

The CWI supports a socialist confederation between an Israeli and Palestinian state. This means supporting the continued existence of Israel, socialist or not.

Yeah, make no difference whether it's socialist or not, neither here nor there really.

This is a blatant pro-Zionist position, which CWI members quite explicitly say is meant to assuage the fears of racist Zionist workers who do not want to live in a Palestinian state.

And you think that by offering the nothing, they are gonna suddenly stop bombing Gaza, and hold hands with Palestinians and socialists? So what do you offer them? A state of Palestine but no Israel? Does it mattter if it is socialist or not? How are you gonna achieve this, bearing in mind no Israelis will back you? They might nuke you, but they wont back you.

Has it never occurred to you that you are part of the problem?

You can find more in the two articles we have written that deal with the CWI (see link to our website below).

Pro-Zionists can join projects like the Gaza flotilla. Not all Zionist are Kahanists. Some, despite being racists at bottom, have a true concern for the victims of Zionism, though not enough to recognize the reactionary nature of Zionism or Israel. Some simply want to see a more merciful Israel which has a better image in the eyes of "the world".

Ah yes, we always send our best racists to risk their lives helping Palestinians.

Not that you are racist of course, calling for the ending of the state of Israel.

You fucking know damn well that the CWIer there does not just want a more merciful Israel, they want a socialist federation of the Middle East.

28th February 2012, 18:12

You fucking know damn well that the CWIer there does not just want a more merciful Israel, they want a socialist federation of the Middle East.

The point I believe YS is trying to make is that Israel, as an entity, is a thoroughly Zionist concept, both historically, socially, culturally and politically. Israel is the "Jewish nation" and as such a racist concept in which Palestinians have by very definition no place.

So, while the idea of a socialist federation may sound interesting, it keeps alive a racist entity as a racist entity.

The solution I think must therefore be found in a single-state Palestine, within the context of a socialist Middle East. As long as the Israeli state exist, there can be no peace, nor a solution.

This article by Israeli Marxist Moshé Machover (http://cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004712) sheds some light into the political narrative of Israel. A snippet:

One state, Zionist style

By now most people are aware that the present Israeli government has done all in its power to torpedo a so-called ‘two-state solution’. What is less well known is that opposition to a sovereign Palestinian state in any part of Eretz Yisrael is not a mere quirk of a rightwing Israeli government, but a deep-seated and fundamental principle shared by all mainstream Zionist parties.

In 1975, General Moshe Dayan put it like this: “Fundamentally, a Palestinian state is an antithesis of the state of Israel … The basic and naked truth is that there is no fundamental difference between the relation of the Arabs of Nablus to Nablus [in the West Bank] and that of the Arabs of Jaffa to Jaffa [in Israel] … And if today we set out on this road and say that the Palestinians are entitled to their own state because they are natives of the same country and have the same rights, then it will not end with the West Bank. The West Bank together with the Gaza Strip do not amount to a state … The establishment of such a Palestinian state would lay a cornerstone to something else … Either the state of Israel - or a Palestinian state.”[6]

Thus, for mainstream Zionism any admission that “the Palestinians are entitled to their own state because they are natives of the same country and have the same rights” would undermine the legitimacy of the Zionist state, and eventually its very existence.

This has remained a cornerstone of Israel’s political strategy. For this reason, no Israeli government has ever signed a legally binding commitment to accepting a Palestinian Arab state. This applies, in particular, to the Oslo accords of 1993, which the second government of Yitzhak Rabin co-signed with the Palestinian leadership under Yasser Arafat. In this treaty there is no mention of a Palestinian state. This was not an accidental omission: when presenting the Oslo accords to the Knesset for ratification - on October 5 1995, a month before he was assassinated - Rabin pointedly stressed that what Israel was going to insist on was a Palestinian “entity which is less than a state”.

Many observers have been puzzled by Israel’s adamant rejection of any Palestinian sovereign state, however small, west of the Jordan River. This seems terribly short-sighted. For, if the whole of pre-1948 Palestine is to remain under Israeli sovereignty, that would mean that Israel would have to rule over a hostile Palestinian Arab people. In effect, the whole of that territory will be one state. Right now there is a rough numerical parity between the two national groups. Since no large-scale Jewish immigration is expected, and since the natural rate of increase of the Palestinian population is higher that that of the Hebrew population, the former will considerably outnumber the latter within a few decades. Surely, the Palestinian majority cannot indefinitely be denied equal rights; but equal rights would lead to the demise of the Jewish state. For Zionism this ‘demographic peril’ is worse even than a sovereign Palestinian mini-state. So it would seem that by sabotaging the creation of such a state, Israel is heading for what its own ruling ideology regards as the abyss.

This apparent contradiction disregards a third option: neither a two-state solution, nor a single state with an Arab majority, but ‘population transfer’. Large-scale ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs would result in a single state in the entire territory, with a large Jewish majority, which is the ultimate aim of all mainstream Zionist parties.

But implementing ethnic cleansing on a sufficiently large scale - while technically quite easy, as explained by the Israeli military theorist, Martin van Creveld[7] - is politically very tricky. It cannot be done in normal, politically tranquil circumstances. It requires what in Zionist parlance is called she’at kosher: an opportune moment of major political, and preferably military, crisis.

Interestingly, quite a long time ago, on November 16 1989, a junior minister in the Shamir government made precisely this point in a speech delivered at Bar-Ilan University, a hotbed of clerical ultra-chauvinist Zionism.

The Jerusalem Post of November 19 1989, quoting a tape recording of the speech, reported that the deputy foreign minister (roughly equivalent to parliamentary under-secretary of state in Westminster) “has called for Israel to exploit political opportunities in order to expel large numbers of Palestinians from the [occupied] territories”. He told students in a speech at Bar-Ilan University that “the government had failed to exploit politically favourable situations in order to carry out ‘large-scale’ expulsions at times when ‘the damage would have been relatively small. I still believe that there are opportunities to expel many people’.”

Oh, the name of that junior minister: Binyamin Netanyahu.

A sacrifice worth making

A war with Iran would present a golden opportunity for large-scale expulsion of Palestinians, precisely because (unlike the Iraq invasion of 2003) fighting would not be over too soon, and major protests and disturbances are likely to occur among the masses throughout the region, including the Palestinian Arabs under Israeli rule. What better way to pacify such disturbances than to “expel many people”.

Of course, a decision to ignite a war against Iran is not one that any Israeli leader would take lightly. There is a non-negligible risk that Israel would suffer many casualties. This is not a price that even the most adventurous prime minister would consider paying, unless the expected prize is extremely high. But in this case the prize is the highest possible one from a Zionist point of view: eliminating the demographic threat to the future of Israel as a Jewish ethnocracy. So Netanyahu will be sorely tempted to make a sacrifice of his own people for the greater national good.

I assume that American policy-makers are aware of Israel’s special interest in a military denouement of the conflict with Iran, an interest not quite shared by the US. This is why they are worried, and issue stern warnings to Netanyahu and Barak - discreetly and behind the scenes, of course, because especially in this election year, when he will face Republican crazies, Obama cannot afford to appear pusillanimous.

However, Netanyahu cannot flagrantly go ahead and start a war without US approval. Therefore the most likely scenario is a series of provocations instigated by Israel, mostly by devious and covert means, in order to escalate the conflict and drag the US by degrees into mission creep.

blake 3:17

28th February 2012, 18:20

I wasn't aware of that site. I was basing it on Marxist.net.

Martin Blank

28th February 2012, 19:53

Crux

28th February 2012, 20:40

FYI, "Carol diez" was our dearly-departed leon T trying his hand at sockpuppetry.
But I thought he wanted to get banned. Sheesh, make up your mind already. :laugh:

Lev Bronsteinovich

28th February 2012, 20:44

IMT is a fascist sect. i exposed their policy in a country which had a fascist regime (Iran). they responded by threatening to give my personal information to police and asked me to deny my statements. fortunately i had remained anonymous by using a fake name.

several of their sections in different countries cooperated with each other in order to indentify me. they are all fascists.

Comrade, I don't like the IMT, and they may have done you wrong in the worst kind of way, but throwing around the term "fascist" as an empty pejorative is not helpful. The IMT, in my opinion, is a reformist international. They are not, nor have the ever been fascist.

A Marxist Historian

29th February 2012, 01:10

Yeah, make no difference whether it's socialist or not, neither here nor there really.

And you think that by offering the nothing, they are gonna suddenly stop bombing Gaza, and hold hands with Palestinians and socialists? So what do you offer them? A state of Palestine but no Israel? Does it mattter if it is socialist or not? How are you gonna achieve this, bearing in mind no Israelis will back you? They might nuke you, but they wont back you.

Has it never occurred to you that you are part of the problem?

Ah yes, we always send our best racists to risk their lives helping Palestinians.

Not that you are racist of course, calling for the ending of the state of Israel.

You fucking know damn well that the CWIer there does not just want a more merciful Israel, they want a socialist federation of the Middle East.

This is all true enough, and elementary common sense really. Trying to claim that the CWI is Zionist is silly. You do have one group of genuinely pro-Zionist alleged Trotskyists in England, the AWL of Sean Matgamna. They're pretty unique I should think.

A much more sensible critique, which I recall our ISL vicarious Palestinian nationalists offering this summer, would be about whether in its practical activities the CWI group in Israel is soft on Zionism, in particular in the movement that arose last summer in Israel, where apparently they played a leading role, so as not to offend Zionists.

And I thought the ISL made a pretty good case for that.

But they undercut their criticisms with this silliness.

-M.H.-

A Marxist Historian

29th February 2012, 01:12

FYI, "Carol diez" was our dearly-departed leon T trying his hand at sockpuppetry.

And claiming to be female too!

Yuck.

-M.H.-

blake 3:17

29th February 2012, 05:08

Size matters.

http://blog.timesunion.com/wagingpeace/files/2011/05/lg_map_copy_1.jpg

TrotskistMarx

29th February 2012, 06:22

Indeed, if the USA was a real beacon of liberty like it claims. USA would invade Israel, overthrow its capitalist imperialist zionist government and replace it with a socialist government, that wouldn't hate, oppress and invade Palestinian lands. But we all know that USA is capitalist, imperialist and pro-Israel zionist government.

Since the Israel Government is so fascist, so oppressive, and so totalitarian, it is real hard to see the Israeli socialists to rise to government power in Israel and overthrow the zionist government and replace it with a socialist anti-war government.

.

Size matters.

http://blog.timesunion.com/wagingpeace/files/2011/05/lg_map_copy_1.jpg

daft punk

29th February 2012, 12:25

The point I believe YS is trying to make is that Israel, as an entity, is a thoroughly Zionist concept, both historically, socially, culturally and politically. Israel is the "Jewish nation" and as such a racist concept in which Palestinians have by very definition no place.

So, while the idea of a socialist federation may sound interesting, it keeps alive a racist entity as a racist entity.

The solution I think must therefore be found in a single-state Palestine, within the context of a socialist Middle East. As long as the Israeli state exist, there can be no peace, nor a solution.

This article by Israeli Marxist Moshé Machover (http://cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004712) sheds some light into the political narrative of Israel. A snippet:

well that is not the CWI position. why do you keep promoting CPGB stuff?

http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/3131

"But the demand for one state raises enormous fear in the region – especially among Israeli Jews, who recoil at the idea of becoming a discriminated-against minority in such a state, as the Palestinian birth rate is out-stripping that of Jews. So this proposition is not conducive to winning Jewish workers over to seriously challenging the Israeli ruling class, which is essential if the powerful Israeli state machine is to be defeated. Only by supporting a socialist Israel alongside a socialist Palestine, can the path be set for the development of trust and cooperation between working people on both sides of the divide, a rise in their living standards across the board, and an end to the bloodshed for ever."

This makes the most sense.

daft punk

29th February 2012, 12:39

This is all true enough, and elementary common sense really. Trying to claim that the CWI is Zionist is silly. You do have one group of genuinely pro-Zionist alleged Trotskyists in England, the AWL of Sean Matgamna. They're pretty unique I should think.

A much more sensible critique, which I recall our ISL vicarious Palestinian nationalists offering this summer, would be about whether in its practical activities the CWI group in Israel is soft on Zionism, in particular in the movement that arose last summer in Israel, where apparently they played a leading role, so as not to offend Zionists.

And I thought the ISL made a pretty good case for that.

But they undercut their criticisms with this silliness.

-M.H.-

CWI member and MEP was arrested by the Israeli army and detained. In fact he was kidnapped in international waters, his ship sank. In prison they were mistreated.

Another CWI member, TD Joe Higgins, demanded in the Irish Parliament that the Israeli ambassador be expelled from the country.

v7LJuDZCCXI

After his release Paul Murphy said:

"The worst of the conditions in the prison – conscious sleep deprivation, being locked up 21 hours a day, no access to reading or writing material, and prisoners being forced to stand to attention up to five times a night – were improved through a combination of our protest action inside the prison, protests action outside, in Ireland and internationally, including outside Givon prison itself, and the work of the Irish embassy in Israel. Through those actions, we won political prisoner status, including the right to free association and the right to have access to reading material. Of course, the conditions we faced gave a glimpse of the conditions faced by many Palestinians, in particular those imprisoned in the open air prison camp of Gaza by the Israeli regime. We were fortunate to have running water at all times, unlike 100,000 Palestinians in Gaza. The fact that the Israeli army felt the need to violently attack the boats of peaceful activists trying to break the siege of Gaza and then hold us in detention for a week underlines the criminal nature of their blockade. It is clear that the length of the detention and the conditions on the final evening in particular, where we were held in what could only be described as a hell-hole, were actions designed to forcibly dissuade activists from repeating the attempt to break the blockade. Once again, the Israeli regime has miscalculated –their treatment of us will bolster our commitment in fighting for an end to the oppression of the Palestinian people."

daft punk

29th February 2012, 12:45

CWI:
Palestine and Israel

To great media fanfare, President Obama convened new ‘peace talks’ between Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian leader Abbas in September 2010. The ‘aim’ of the talks, a so-called ‘two state settlement’, would actually see the 1967 partition lines maintained, with Israel holding nearly 80% of the land, plus part of the West Bank. Palestinians would be given a small and unviable territory, with no right of return for refugees. Netanyahu has made clear that Jerusalem will remain under Israeli rule and will not be a ‘shared capital’ and that any Palestinian state will be policed by Israel.
No doubt, the Obama administration would like to see a deal made – at the expense of the Palestinians, of course - to enhance and strengthen US interests, including the long-term position of Israel, its chief ally in the region. Netanyahu, buffeted by the various factions in the Israeli coalition government, including the ultra right wing linked to settlers, and within his own party, Likud, is not prepared to accede to US wishes, at this stage. However, Netanyahu may eventually yield to US pressure, which is backed up by sections of the Israeli ruling class that fear consequences of demographic trends, as well as the regional and international position of Israeli capitalism.
The Israeli ruling class is locked in a trap. They fear the “demographic time bomb” which could eventually see the growing Palestinian population inside Israel become a majority. Israel’s security minister, Barak, articulated the problem facing the ruling class in February 2010: "As long as in this territory west of the Jordan River there is only one political entity called Israel, it is going to be either non-Jewish or non-democratic”. He went on, "If the Palestinians living in the West Bank could in the future vote in the elections in Israel then Israel will become a bi-national state. On the other hand, if the Palestinians could not vote, then we will become an Apartheid state... The alternatives compel us to constitute a border of a state which contains a Jewish majority and on the other side a Palestinian state".
The Israeli ruling class is fearful that giving any concession to the Palestinian masses will only reinforce the struggle against the oppression. But stepping up state repression will ultimately have a similar effect.
The rise of neo-liberalism in Israel was decisive in crushing the traditional base of support of the main political parties of the Israeli ruling class, eventually culminating in the total collapse of the ‘Zionist Left’ camp. The Netanyahu government, confronted with the historical crisis of Zionism itself, is compelled even more then previous governments to be based on strong Israeli nationalism and militarism, as well as Islamophobia and anti-Arab racism. This has led to the inclusion of far right parties in the government and their growing influence in traditional main parties of the ruling establishment. Such a development means these parties are less reliable tools acting in the interests of the ruling class.
Israeli/Palestinian ‘talks’ are currently on hold, following the re-starting of ‘settlement’ building on Palestinian land on 27 September. Even if Netanyahu, under intense US pressure, can placate the right wing enough to keep the current so-called talks ‘alive’(even bringing the ‘Kadima’ party into the coalition) the Israeli ruling class will give away as little as possible and ensure there is no development of a genuine independent Palestinian state.
Amongst the Jewish population, a layer, especially of young people, is repelled by Netanyahu’s policies and the far right, and is starting to move into open opposition. Although still small in numbers, this trend is significant.
While Zionist nationalism is used to block the class struggle, particularly united struggles that can bridge the national divide, important fight-backs of the working class have taken place in Israel over the last few years. A massive strike of high-school teachers, which challenged the government in 2007, peaked with a mobilisation of 100,000 teachers, students and supporters in a solidarity rally, where the head of the union was forced by the mood to call for a wider struggle for a "welfare state". Even the Histadrut union federation grew in membership since 2006. From 1996 to 2004, the former Histadrut leadership was forced to head the biggest strikes in the history of Israel. Following the defeats of those battles, the new leadership has managed to impose an unprecedented industrial silence since 2005 (the high school teachers’ union is not part of the Histadrut). They made rotten deals with the bosses and the government, under the guise of "national responsibility" However, as is already implied by a few small but significant examples of the bureaucracy being forced to let off steam in recent years (in some cases, due to the influence of the new workers’ organization – ‘Power to the Workers’ - which the CWI assisted in establishing and building) the industrial quiet is bound to end and the grip of the bureaucracy to loosen. This will be especially the case when the Israeli economy is hit by recession, which can be expected to be sharper than the last slowdown in early 2009. To win future battles against the bosses, the Israeli workers will have to adopt a programme of solidarity and a united struggle of Jewish and Arab workers. This entails breaking from the ruling elite’s agenda of national oppression, occupation, colonizing settlements and militarist aggression towards the masses in the region.
For the moment, the craven Palestinian Authority (PA) ‘leadership’, under pressure from the US administration, is still desperately trying to keep talks going, as is the supine Arab League. The reality is that the current round of (non) talks will lead nowhere. While a very limited degree of further ‘self-rule’ for Palestinians could be granted, at some point, – even leading to the announcement of a so-called “Palestinian state” – on the basis capitalism and imperialism no lasting or fundamental solution can be found to the Palestinian question or peace brought to the region. Moreover, such an announcement can serve as pretext for the escalation of repression against Palestinians living in Israel or a new military attack on Hamas in Gaza, where one and a half million people remain under brutal siege, with huge rates of poverty and joblessness. Conditions in the PA are barely much better. Palestinians living in Israel are increasingly alienated by discriminatory measures, and the brutal persecution and repression of any form of protest. This is compounded by physical attacks from the far-right, growing poverty and attempts by the Israeli state to alter the demographic balance to the detriment of the Palestinians.
The Israeli army continues to threaten to launch military attacks against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Indeed, more military conflict and wars are implicit in the situation. Like the Israeli attacks against Lebanon and Gaza, such conflicts will ignite huge anger and opposition in the Arab world and internationally. Instead of talks leading to peace and justice, the national question is becoming more intractable, leading to new mass movements and revolts of the oppressed Palestinians. Even the Palestinian ruling elite partially recognized this, with some of the national leaders echoing the accumulated mass frustration of the masses when they talk about the "struggle". Of course, these ‘leaders’ try to use the threat of renewed mass struggle to increase pressure on Israel and the Western powers to make a deal with them.
Any significant gains for the Palestinians were won through mass movements, especially the first Intifada. The current developments lay the basis for new mass uprisings. The struggle for the democratic and social rights of Palestinians inside Israel is most likely be a focal point of a “3rd Intifada”. The mass struggle of the Palestinians, as during previous uprisings, will find ready solidarity, both internationally and in the region, including amongst a section of Jewish workers and youth. However, without a leadership armed with a class approach, the mass movement can be end up deploying counter-productive methods of struggle, limiting its ability to undermine the brutal repression of the Israeli regime. A Marxist programme to solve the national question, on a class and socialist basis, is crucial for taking the struggle forward and to overcome a possible deepening of the national divide.
The Hamas regime in Gaza continues to partially channel Palestinians’ anger at their terrible conditions. But its right wing political Islam agenda offers no viable alternative strategy for the oppressed Palestinians and is increasingly questioned by sections of the population of the Gaza. Indeed, Hamas has had behind the scenes negotiations with US imperialism and under its rule women are increasingly oppressed, as is any open opposition to Hamas.
The liberation of the Palestinian masses cannot be achieved within the framework of capitalism. Their aspirations cannot be met in a struggle alongside the corrupt and reactionary Arab regimes. After all, the Mubarak regime in Egypt is responsible for the blockade of the Rafah border with Gaza, and the Lebanese ruling class for the continuing oppression of and discrimination against Palestinians in the Lebanon’s refugee camps. The struggle for emancipation needs to be linked to the struggle for socialism, on the basis of working class unity across the region. It is only through united mass movements of the working class and poor in Palestine, and in Israel, as well, that a solution will be found; opposing national oppression, the bosses’ parties and imperialism; and bringing about real self-determination for Palestinians - for a socialist, democratic Palestine and a socialist Israel, as part of a equal and voluntary socialist confederation of the Middle East.
The principled political positions established by the forces of the CWI in Israel and Lebanon, often under very difficult objective conditions, are key in preparing the ground for future big steps forward for Marxism in the region.

http://www.socialistworld.net/mob/doc/4736

29th February 2012, 13:50

well that is not the CWI position.
So?

why do you keep promoting CPGB stuff?
1. Moshé Machover is not a CPGB member. They just published his stuff.
2. Why are you responding in such a partisan manner?

http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/3131

"But the demand for one state raises enormous fear in the region – especially among Israeli Jews, who recoil at the idea of becoming a discriminated-against minority in such a state, as the Palestinian birth rate is out-stripping that of Jews. So this proposition is not conducive to winning Jewish workers over to seriously challenging the Israeli ruling class, which is essential if the powerful Israeli state machine is to be defeated. Only by supporting a socialist Israel alongside a socialist Palestine, can the path be set for the development of trust and cooperation between working people on both sides of the divide, a rise in their living standards across the board, and an end to the bloodshed for ever."

This makes the most sense.

And it makes no sense to me.
1. What fear is there to be a minority? Also, wouldn't Israelis be a minority anyway within a socialist federation? So I think this point is moot.
2. The only ones who are discriminating are the Zionist Jews with regards to the Palestinians. If both populations lived together as equals, there would be no discrimination, at least not on an institutional level (as is the case in Zionism).
3. The Palestinian birthrate (the "demographic bomb") is indeed a problem, but only from a Zionist perspective (as Moshé describes pretty well).
4. We not only need the Israeli workers to attack the Israeli ruling class, but also the Zionist foundations of the Israeli state itself. This implies solidarity work with Palestinians and political agitation and education work among the Israeli masses.

So, I reject the idea of a socialist Israel as being at all possible. The foundation of this entity is disciminatory and can therefore never lead to an ending the bloodshed. If this leads to being a minority in the Israeli workers movement at this point, then so be it.

hashem

29th February 2012, 15:06

Comrade, I don't like the IMT, and they may have done you wrong in the worst kind of way, but throwing around the term "fascist" as an empty pejorative is not helpful. The IMT, in my opinion, is a reformist international. They are not, nor have the ever been fascist.

calling them fascist is not an "empty pejorative", its reality. they were going to give my personal information to police. if people who are doing this kind of activity are not fascists, then show me the proper word for describing them, although im sure that word cant be "reformist".

if you dont believe me, see this link:

http://www.marxist.com/iranian-workers-attack260905.htm

im not going to discuss the whole "campaign" story here (although im willing to discuss why i was exposing it elsewhere). but the important thing is:

they knew im in danger but they published my name! fortunately i had used a flase name, otherwise who knows? maybe i was dead by now!
the article mentions "elements within Iran" then mentions a full name. why? what use does a name have for readers? couldnt they just wrote about their "campaign" and about the reasons behind it? did they wanted the police to identify and arrest that person? yes. can there be other reasons? i dont think so.

thats why they are fascists.

this is not the frist time which trotskyists are cooperating with fascists, history is full of such examples. for example chinese trotskyists acted the same way during the second world war.

29th February 2012, 15:30

if people who are doing this kind of activity are not fascists, then show me the proper word for describing them, although im sure that word cant be "reformist".
The word you're looking for is probably "scabs".

daft punk

29th February 2012, 15:48

And it makes no sense to me.
1. What fear is there to be a minority?

Tell that to the Palestinians living in Israel now.

Also, wouldn't Israelis be a minority anyway within a socialist federation? So I think this point is moot.

It will be moot if you have your way because nothing will ever happen.

2. The only ones who are discriminating are the Zionist Jews with regards to the Palestinians. If both populations lived together as equals, there would be no discrimination, at least not on an institutional level (as is the case in Zionism).

You are never gonna get the Israelis to stop bombing Gaza while they feel the Arab world wants Israel to cease to exist, like the proverbial parrot, or dodo in fact.

3. The Palestinian birthrate (the "demographic bomb") is indeed a problem, but only from a Zionist perspective (as Moshé describes pretty well).
4. We not only need the Israeli workers to attack the Israeli ruling class, but also the Zionist foundations of the Israeli state itself. This implies solidarity work with Palestinians and political agitation and education work among the Israeli masses.
Pipedream on the basis of a one state solution. You have to offer the Israelis some feeling of protection and autonomy. You cant just wish Israel way now, it's too late. It is a fucking big country armed to the teeth and it could flatten Gaza if it wanted, almost has in fact.

You forget that Israel is also the 52nd state of the USA. There is no question of there being no such country any more.

So, I reject the idea of a socialist Israel as being at all possible. The foundation of this entity is disciminatory and can therefore never lead to an ending the bloodshed. If this leads to being a minority in the Israeli workers movement at this point, then so be it.
It wouldn't be discriminatory if it was part of a socialist federation would it? It would simply be a way to get the Israeli Jews on the socialist train.

It is the same in all these cases, eg when the sectarians banged on an on for a united Ireland. No conception of the fear of the Protestants. They were so blind they welcomed the British troops going in in 1969, almost all did except Militant who kept a clear perspective.

your paste contained no references to socialism.

Lev Bronsteinovich

29th February 2012, 18:53

calling them fascist is not an "empty pejorative", its reality. they were going to give my personal information to police. if people who are doing this kind of activity are not fascists, then show me the proper word for describing them, although im sure that word cant be "reformist".

if you dont believe me, see this link:

http://www.marxist.com/iranian-workers-attack260905.htm

im not going to discuss the whole "campaign" story here (although im willing to discuss why i was exposing it elsewhere). but the important thing is:

they knew im in danger but they published my name! fortunately i had used a flase name, otherwise who knows? maybe i was dead by now!
the article mentions "elements within Iran" then mentions a full name. why? what use does a name have for readers? couldnt they just wrote about their "campaign" and about the reasons behind it? did they wanted the police to identify and arrest that person? yes. can there be other reasons? i dont think so.

thats why they are fascists.

this is not the frist time which trotskyists are cooperating with fascists, history is full of such examples. for example chinese trotskyists acted the same way during the second world war.

Well incompetence and stupidity could be a reason, but there is, of course, no excuse for this. But "fascist" is a term that is fairly non-inclusive and in this case you are not using it correctly. How about "police agent"?

Also, do you have any documentation on Trotskyists collaborating with fascists?

Crux

29th February 2012, 21:48

calling them fascist is not an "empty pejorative", its reality. they were going to give my personal information to police. if people who are doing this kind of activity are not fascists, then show me the proper word for describing them, although im sure that word cant be "reformist".

if you dont believe me, see this link:

http://www.marxist.com/iranian-workers-attack260905.htm

im not going to discuss the whole "campaign" story here (although im willing to discuss why i was exposing it elsewhere). but the important thing is:

they knew im in danger but they published my name! fortunately i had used a flase name, otherwise who knows? maybe i was dead by now!
the article mentions "elements within Iran" then mentions a full name. why? what use does a name have for readers? couldnt they just wrote about their "campaign" and about the reasons behind it? did they wanted the police to identify and arrest that person? yes. can there be other reasons? i dont think so.

thats why they are fascists.

this is not the frist time which trotskyists are cooperating with fascists, history is full of such examples. for example chinese trotskyists acted the same way during the second world war.
Judging by the article, they probably believed you to be a state agents of some sort.

Lev Bronsteinovich

1st March 2012, 03:10

Judging by the article, they probably believed you to be a state agents of some sort.

And with some justification it would seem. . . . Can you explain your actions comrade hashem?

blake 3:17

1st March 2012, 03:17

It's from 2005. Other than the chaos imposed on Iraq and the stepping down of Khatami, what happened?

hashem

1st March 2012, 07:04

And with some justification it would seem. . . . Can you explain your actions comrade hashem?

they didnt believed im a state agent, the article writes "some elements – who present themselves as being on the left", which means they knew about my political position, and even if they didnt they had no right to cooperate with a fascist state based on their prejudgments, even if i was a right winger.

as i said before, im not going to discuss the whole "campaign" story. this is no place for it.
but to make things short:

if the "campaign" had truly "attracted a lot of attention inside and outside Iran", or it had "brought together in a united front various Iranian left and workers’ organisations around the basic questions of workers’ rights", or it was "broad-based and non-sectarian" (as written in the article), then there was no reason for its organizers to be afraid of few e-mails! their reaction alone is sufficient to expose how popular and non-sectarian their "campaign" was!

besides, what is important is not about the "campaign" itself, its about cooperating with a fascist state. whatever my political position was (either right or wrong) doesnt change the fact that they are fascists (or as you prefer "police agents").

the "campaign" was insignificant. it only consisted of gathering names (even from criminal and reactionary organizations) in a list. no one toke it seriously even at that time. to tell you the true, i regret about the time and energy which i spent for exposing it. but the good thing about it was showing the true face of IMT.

Martin Blank

2nd March 2012, 05:07

Well, at least the IMT didn't publish photos of those who were critical of their campaign, like the Healyites did with Iraqi exiles in the 1970s.

Yehuda Stern

5th March 2012, 22:56

daft punk: actually, it doesn't make a difference if you claim that the Israeli state will be socialist or not. An Israeli state, like Q said, can only be a racist colonialist state. We are not offering Israelis nothing: we are offering them a chance (the only one!) to live in peace and security in a state in which they will be treated as equals instead of racist oppressors. I think that's a whole lot. It takes a Zionist chauvinist to think that that's "nothing".

Of course it won't be easy to convince Zionists to give up their privileges - but some of them will do so when they'll see that keeping them is more dangerous. Others will be neutral, and others will be resistant. That's life. You can't support a solution that will never work just because the real solution is difficult or might scare people. That's what kids call "opportunism" nowdays, if I'm not mistaken.

A few final gems:

Has it never occurred to you that you are part of the problem?

Not that you are racist of course, calling for the ending of the state of Israel.

You fucking know damn well that the CWIer there does not just want a more merciful Israel, they want a socialist federation of the Middle East.

Well, pro-Zionists accusing Palestinians pro-Palestinians of causing the problems and being racist. What else is new. And no, I don't "fucking" know that, because I don't believe it to be true for at least most of your Israeli comrades.

As for AMH's comments, it really takes some gall for a Zionist to call someone else a nationalist.