If there was a revolution, led by the ISO, would you support it?

[Adil3tr]

If there was a revolution, led by the ISO, would you support it?

[meow]

there could be no such thing.

[Adil3tr]

not even a temporary state of workers councils to build the third world and improve the first?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Hi comrade and welcome.

Well, as an ISO member, if there was a revolution led by the International Socialist Organization... then I would think our organization must have gone off the rails at some point.:lol:

There is a reason that the ISO calls itself an organization and not a party - hopefully as struggle increases, the ISO can play a good role in helping to organize a kind of vanguard party of tons of committed working class revolutionaries and millions of working class allies that can help argue for and promote a working class revolution.

However, if there was a working class revolution based around ideas like those of the ISO, on the other hand, I would not only support it, but I think we'd have a really good shot at a society organized and run by the working class.

[Adil3tr]

I have been following the ISO, I never realized they weren't like that, but the point was , yes, if there was a revolution along the ideals of the followers of the theory of state capitalism

[Comrade Awesome]

Of course I would. While I might disagree with certain aspects of the ISO's theories, I hardly think the argument of degenerated workers state vs state capitalism is enough for me not to support a revolution :rolleyes: Besides, there's always entryism :lol:

[Glenn Beck]

I have been following the ISO, I never realized they weren't like that, but the point was , yes, if there was a revolution along the ideals of the followers of the theory of state capitalism

I'd climb on my Unicorn, brandish my lightsaber, and get ready to defend Gondor from Trotskyite social-imperialism

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

I'd just abstain and hope that my worst fears of oligarchy rising out of revolution doesn't happen... personally, I am a pacifist and want to see change come through the legal process rather than seeing it come from revolution.

[Robocommie]

I'd climb on my Unicorn, brandish my lightsaber, and get ready to defend Gondor from Trotskyite social-imperialism

Red lightsaber, red unicorn - for a Red Gondor.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I have been following the ISO, I never realized they weren't like that, but the point was , yes, if there was a revolution along the ideals of the followers of the theory of state capitalismDon't worry about it, comrade, I knew what you were getting at, I just wanted to be clear.

Also I'm jealous that you are in New Jersey and will be able to go to NY and see lots of thunderous talks by the subject of my own personal "cult of personality":laugh:: Sherry Wolf...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA_kky3hyME

[Hiratsuka]

Like all good answers, mine is "it depends."

[Chambered Word]

Don't worry about it, comrade, I knew what you were getting at, I just wanted to be clear.

Also I'm jealous that you are in New Jersey and will be able to go to NY and see lots of thunderous talks by the subject of my own personal "cult of personality":laugh:: Sherry Wolf...

VA_kky3hyME

She's coming to Perth soon. :cool:

[Zanthorus]

I don't know about the ISO but if it's similar to the British SWP then this question isn't even worth thinking about.

[BAM]

I don't know about the ISO but if it's similar to the British SWP then this question isn't even worth thinking about.

In true Trot style there was a falling out and a split. The ISO - used to be part of the International Socialist Tendency, but the Swappies had them booted out.

[mikelepore]

I am a pacifist and want to see change come through the legal process rather than seeing it come from revolution.

Although it was 114 years ago that he said it, these words of De Leon are still instructive:

"Let us clear up our terms. Reform means a change of externals. Revolution -- peaceful or bloody, the peacefulness or the bloodiness of it cuts no figure whatever in the essence of the question -- means a change from within. Whenever a change leaves the internal mechanism untouched, we have reform. Whenever the internal mechanism is changed, we have revolution."

[dearest chuck]

no, i would flee to a country thats economy was not entirely dependent on exporting newspapers.

[BAM]

no, i would flee to a country thats economy was not entirely dependent on exporting newspapers.

LMAO! :laugh:

[this is an invasion]

I'd just abstain and hope that my worst fears of oligarchy rising out of revolution doesn't happen... personally, I am a pacifist and want to see change come through the legal process rather than seeing it come from revolution.

You're not an anarchist.


How is this person still unrestricted?

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

You're not an anarchist.


How is this person still unrestricted?


I'll explain myself. I am an anarchist, but I am one who is willing to negotiate. With the way that the US is at the moment, if only socialism arises, I will be happy. As one of my favorite teachers put it, "There are times where the only thing you can really do is to push the center of balance to the direction that you want it. Once you get it as far as you can, then you can only help that someone will stand up and push it farther along once you pass on"

[this is an invasion]

I'll explain myself. I am an anarchist, but I am one who is willing to negotiate. With the way that the US is at the moment, if only socialism arises, I will be happy. As one of my favorite teachers put it, "There are times where the only thing you can really do is to push the center of balance to the direction that you want it. Once you get it as far as you can, then you can only help that someone will stand up and push it farther along once you pass on"

Anarchists are against the state, yet you would rather see a "revolution" happen through legal methods? That does not make any sense.

[Zanthorus]

Anarchists are against the state, yet you would rather see a "revolution" happen through legal methods? That does not make any sense.

tbh I don't think you can really be a revolutionary leftist at all whilst espousing pure legalism.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

I want to see revolution through the legal methods. After the revolution is done, I want to see the state that is behind the legal methods set on a path that will gradually dissolve it. The moment that it begins to dissolve is when I want to see the major changes occur, and by the time the state is done, I want to see the changes fully completed.

[this is an invasion]

I want to see revolution through the legal methods. After the revolution is done, I want to see the state that is behind the legal methods set on a path that will gradually dissolve it. The moment that it begins to dissolve is when I want to see the major changes occur, and by the time the state is done, I want to see the changes fully completed.

This is in no way anarchist. The statement also completely ignores the logic of the state.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

This is in no way anarchist. The statement also completely ignores the logic of the state.


Then tell me, how should I think?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Then tell me, how should I think?

Legal methods, really? Who do you think decides what is legal and not, huh?

There is no legal way to disassemble the state, or even do any revolution. Don't you understand that the entire purpose of most legislation is to preserve the ruling bourgeoisie system of government and the capitalist system itself?

[S.Artesian]

If there was a revolution, led by the ISO, would you support it?

So there's a working class revolution, there are organs of dual power, which become the new revolutionary power, and the question is whether revolutionists who support working class revolution are going to support this revolution because a party that not everyone agrees with has the most support in those organs of dual/revolutionary power?

The answer is yes. The questions isn't really a question.........

.....although I am sympathetic to the position of young Caesar

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

I'm starting to see your point especially as I begin to think of how many countries have dissolved their parliaments because of political fall out and what not... But as mentioned in a different thread, revolution does not have to be violent. And it is this type of revolution that I seek. And ultimately, in regards to how classical libertarianism has failed to limit the government as they've been promising since the 1970s... you have a point that legal methods would fail. So, in short, I was wrong.

[this is an invasion]

Then tell me, how should I think?

You can think however you want, except you can't think you're an anarchist OR revolutionary if you want "revolution" to be through legal means.

[Zanthorus]

I'm starting to see your point especially as I begin to think of how many countries have dissolved their parliaments because of political fall out and what not... But as mentioned in a different thread, revolution does not have to be violent.

Not supporting bourgeois parliaments isn't about violence or nonviolence. The total death toll from the Bolshevik seizure of power from what I can recall was about fifteen. What really started the blood flowing was the counter-revolution.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

What I was suggesting was that think that one could changed a government through the legal method is just not possible because you're trusting many of the same people who created the problem to change the problem...

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The revolution won't be "led" by the ISO or any other group.I feel the period of vanguardism is over. The Bolshevik Revolution was extremely important but we should be careful not to generalize the unique features of Czarist Russia to the situation today.

The role of a commie group is to provide a repository of historic memory for the class. What happened in Russia, Spain, Portugal, Chile, etc.? What lessons can be drawn? What works and what doesn't work? When should workers aggressively fight and when should they compromise? What lessons can we draw from US labor struggles in the 30s?

When class struggle heats up the various tendencies will intervene in the struggles and provide their take.Organizations will also play an active role in leading struggles. The creation of a US Labor Party will be most important.


I don't feel the situation will be conducive to being led by any single group or organization. The revolution will either be led by the working class or won't occur at all.If the revolution is led by the ISO (nothing against the ISO, but this is not likely), it means their approach is working and I will join (or rejoin) the ISO.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The revolution won't be "led" by the ISO or any other group.I feel the period of vanguardism is over. The Bolshevik Revolution was extremely important but we should be careful not to generalize the unique features of Czarist Russia to the situation today.

I agree that we cant be mechanical - there is no instant formula for revolution - but I think maybe I disagree with how you are describing a vanguard. I could be making a straw-man of your argument, but the way I was reading it seemed to suggest a "vanguard party" as a kind of organization like the Bolsheviks had when they were underground because of Tsarist repression. If you were not arguing that, then I apologize, but if you were I wanted to clarify how I see the idea of a "vanguard" in relation to existing groups like the ISO.

Understandably, the term "vanguard" has become very loaded because of all the self-proclaimed saviors of the working class who have proclaimed themselves "the vanguard". The way I see it, the ISO is not currently a vanguard and can not appoint itself as such even if we were 50x bigger than we are now. We are a "vanguard" group in the sense that we think that revolutionaries need to organize together as we approach a revolutionary situation. This is different than the approaches of the reformist socialists who want "parties" like those of the bourgeois where membership is determined by checking a box on some form and receiving some mailers by the party officials ever now and then. So the idea is that none of our members are followers, but active and committed revolutionaries organizing people in the locations.

In addition, in my mind, "vanguard" just means the people who are committed to revolution and working towards working class revolution regardless of weather they are organized together into one "party" or not. So syndicalists, independent Marxists, rank and file militants who are convinced of revolution, are all part of a "vanguard". We just think that the best strategy is for these small groups and individuals to coordinate. The only "power" the vanguard party has is how much workers agree with the arguments put forward by these revolutionaries.

[Raúl Duke]

Like all good answers, mine is "it depends."

I'll probably leave the country or be against it...

Although, to be honest, I doubt the ISO will succeed in such a think in the U.S.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I'll probably leave the country or be against it...

Although, to be honest, I doubt the ISO will succeed in such a think in the U.S.

I'm from the UK and I don't know much about the ISO. What are your reservations about it?

[Adil3tr]

the ISO isn't the biggest organization but i really like the theory

[Raúl Duke]

I'm from the UK and I don't know much about the ISO. What are your reservations about it?

I don't trust Leninists really...
only a few. Particularly those from New Zealand seem ok.

Perhaps I'll wait it out and see what happens.

But if someone told me it was the RCP coming to power....I'm obviously leaving.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I understand vanguardism as the leading role the Bolshevik Party played in the soviets during the October Revolution.This role was completely correct for the conditions of the time.Today its not desirable or even possible for any party to play a vanguard role. Some groups like the Sparts, act like this is still 1917.

In a broader sense the US far left, as tiny as it is, is a vanguard, being the consciousness and historical memory of the working class. An important issue coming up I feel will be the development of a US labor party to challenge the hegemony of the Dems.

[Blake's Baby]

I'm from the UK and I don't know much about the ISO. What are your reservations about it?

The ISO is the SWP in the UK I think.


@ Lenina; are you restricting your answer to America? Is the question just about America? I kinda assumed that the "I"SO would be leading an international revolution.

[Os Cangaceiros]

My understanding of the ISO is that it's primarily based around colleges/universities. I'm not sure how much reach it has outside of academic institutions.

[Zanthorus]

@ Lenina; are you restricting your answer to America? Is the question just about America? I kinda assumed that the "I"SO would be leading an international revolution.

The ISO is not actually an international organisation. It's name refers to it's tendency (International Socialism) not it's geography. As BAM said, it used to belong to the International Socialist Tendency along with the SWP and some other organisations from around the world but they were expelled from the organisation.

[Zeus the Moose]

My understanding of the ISO is that it's primarily based around colleges/universities. I'm not sure how much reach it has outside of academic institutions.

I think that's a bit of a loaded perspective. The ISO definitely has that reputation, but most of the articles I've read about the ISO being a primarily campus-based group comes from the 1990s. Since then, it seems like more ISO members are showing up in as teachers and education staff. Maybe some in health services as well, IIRC. This still might qualify as being "primarily based around colleges/universities," or at least education more generally, but when this normally comes up in regards to the ISO, it usually is meant as "ISO= full of students." This seems much less true than it used to be, though I don't know for sure. Anyone who's actually involved in the ISO and knows more about this than I do please feel free to add or correct this.

Regarding the OP, I would most likely participate in a workers revolution that was led by the ISO. What happens after that is definitely a question, however ;)

[Rusty Shackleford]

I cant really vote on this because there is no "depends" type answer.

i cant say no because i cant NOT support a revolution. and i cant say id join it because im with the PSL and its not really my tendency. it really depends on how things are.

if there were a popular front id join that because its not strictly party based.

no matter what though, if there were a revolutionary situation, id do whatever to help further the goals of the working class. its not like id just say "oh its the ISO so no because they are "some criticism")

[chegitz guevara]

but if someone told me it was the rcp coming to power....i'm obviously leaving.

Bob! Bob! Bob!

[Blake's Baby]

The ISO is not actually an international organisation. It's name refers to it's tendency (International Socialism) not it's geography. As BAM said, it used to belong to the International Socialist Tendency along with the SWP and some other organisations from around the world but they were expelled from the organisation.

Oh, right, I thought the ISO was the international organasation that the SWP belonged to.

So we really are discussing a revolution, led by a small Trotskyist group, only in America?

Tough one. I'd have to vote for 'probably wouldn't even hear about it on the news until the National Guard were zipping up the body-bags'.

[Wanted Man]

Other: what is "a revolution, led by the ISO"?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think that's a bit of a loaded perspective. The ISO definitely has that reputation, but most of the articles I've read about the ISO being a primarily campus-based group comes from the 1990s. Since then, it seems like more ISO members are showing up in as teachers and education staff. Maybe some in health services as well, IIRC. This still might qualify as being "primarily based around colleges/universities," or at least education more generally, but when this normally comes up in regards to the ISO, it usually is meant as "ISO= full of students." This seems much less true than it used to be, though I don't know for sure. Anyone who's actually involved in the ISO and knows more about this than I do please feel free to add or correct this.

Regarding the OP, I would most likely participate in a workers revolution that was led by the ISO. What happens after that is definitely a question, however ;)

In the early years of the ISO part of the analysis of the group was that labor was going into retreat and so at the time it was thought that focusing on campuses would be a better place to be able to organize openly. It doesn't mean that our members didn't work on picket lines and so on whenever possible (one of our members in Oakland joined in the 80s because she met ISO members and they helped her unionize her workplace) but the focus was building on campuses rather than in the workplace.

As the political climate changed, our focus changed. While most of our branches are probably still based in or around campuses, our community-based branches have gone from maybe 1/5 when I joined a decade ago to something more approaching 50%.

Building our presence in workplaces and unions among rank and file members, is, of course a primary goal. It is difficult because of the state of unions and the labor struggle right now. But things are changing and many workers are much more open to radical politics than in the 80s and 90s so it has been easier for our union members to get allies and make convincing arguments among their fellow workers.