ISO and tendencies

[Stephen Colbert]

From the description of the ISO they espouse the "ideas of Karl Marx, Lenin, and Trostsky". Would anarcho-whatevers be a good fit for the ISO? They are the only group even close to where I live so I was wondering what you all think or experiences you all have had with them.

[Chimurenga.]

From the description of the ISO they espouse the "ideas of Karl Marx, Lenin, and Trostsky". Would anarcho-whatevers be a good fit for the ISO? They are the only group even close to where I live so I was wondering what you all think or experiences you all have had with them.

What are your options? If you're looking to get involved with that group but don't have many options, I'd say go for it. Their Socialism conferences seem alright from what I've heard/seen online. As for you being an Anarchist and joining , that's up to the people in the local branch and you, I guess.

[Nachie]

They do not have a very high opinion of anarchism in their organization (they're Trotskyists) but will try to suck you in as best they can, especially if you are young and have that starry look in your eye.

Beware the ISO though, they have a high burnout rate with one of the worst revolving doors in the organized Left, and there is little to suggest that recruits are made to do anything other than sell the Socialist Worker newspaper, blech.

[Paulappaul]

Their idea of Anarchism is pretty mixed. In one way they really want to get anarchists on their side but at the same time they truly despise Anarchists. I agree with what Nachie said, you have to trully believe in Trotskyism if you want to stay in the organisation for very long, otherwise you'll get fed up with it pretty quick and "burnout".

[Adil3tr]

The ISO's view of state capitalism seems to me like a slight turn to a more of a anarchist twist. I love the ISO, I don't see qhy there is so much animosity towards them. I went to Socialism 2009, it was cool, they had representatives from the local colleges and freegaza. And they a whole room of haymarket books. I read socialism for beginners by alan maass. It was pretty good.

[scarletghoul]

The ISO is terrible. If they're the only leftists in your area then by all means work with them, but I would strongly advise you against joining them.

[Sam_b]

I wouldn't advise an anarchist to join a revolutionary Trotskyist organisation, but you could at least work with them.

Otherwise this thread is go into the typical SWP/ISO pattern of people posting one-liners about them being "terrible" "do anything other than sell newspapers" (which, by the way, is one of the biggest strawmen i've ever heard, and shows up some holier-than-thou posters completely misunderstanding the role of newspapers in a revolutionry organisation) and generally provide a completely unhelpful attitude.

I read the ISO's Socialist Worker online often, and find it to be one of the most valuable resources in the American left; and thats not before mentioning Haymarket Books which is excellent.

[Q]

The ISO is terrible. If they're the only leftists in your area then by all means work with them, but I would strongly advise you against joining them.

What a fine example of constructive criticism this is.

Cool story bro.

[Terminator X]

The ISO is terrible.


I love the ISO

:lol:

I'm cool with the ISO. I'm not a huge fan of their baseless bashing of Cuba, but I have done some work with them in the past, and I quite enjoy the Socialist Worker website, and Haymarket Books has some fantastic information.

I'd definitely give them a shot if they are the only group in your area.

[Zanthorus]

The ISO's view of state capitalism seems to me like a slight turn to a more of a anarchist twist.

Having a state-capitalist position on the Russian question does not an anarchist make. Otherwise the Italian Left and it's descendents would also be considered "anarchist". The ISO for it's part, along with the rest of the IST, has tried pretty hard to fit it's theory of state-capitalism in with some form of Trotskyism by holding the line for the development of state-capitalism at 1928 (Otherwise they would end up indicting Lenin and Trotsky in the creation of state-capitalism).

As for animosity towards the ISO, their theory of the law of value being enforced through military competition is embarassing and is used as a strawman by more Orthdox Trotskyists to indict all theories of state-capitalism. Orthodox trots hate them because they think the theory of state-capitalism is ultra-left.

Well that, and the newspapers thing.

[scarletghoul]

What a fine example of constructive criticism this is.

Cool story bro.
Hey, the OP asked for advice on whether to join them, not for a constructive criticism.

From what I can tell the atmosphere would be suffocating and frustrating for anyone who isn't in line with their ideology, not least an Anarchist. In many ways they're the complete opposite of Anarchists (all theory no practice, generally middle class, etc). Again this isn't attempted as a critique of the ISO, but rather some advice to comrade OP based on my impression of them.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Why not avoid the middle man and just join the Democratic Party directly?

[Chambered Word]

Hey, the OP asked for advice on whether to join them, not for a constructive criticism.

From what I can tell the atmosphere would be suffocating and frustrating for anyone who isn't in line with their ideology, not least an Anarchist. In many ways they're the complete opposite of Anarchists (all theory no practice, generally middle class, etc). Again this isn't attempted as a critique of the ISO, but rather some advice to comrade OP based on my impression of them.

Emphasis added; isn't this same line generally repeated about every Marxist group that doesn't see the Stalinist USSR as some form of worker's state or another?

The OP asked for advice, thus he was not asking for comrades to bring up the same Cliffite stereotype that seems to inevitably surface in these threads. Neither I nor anyone in my family are members of the bourgeoisie and I am a member of a Trotskyist organization. Have a little bit of respect.

[Sam_b]

'm not a huge fan of their baseless bashing of Cuba

I'm not sure about this, if you could provide quotes that could be much more helpful.

As far as the ISO goes on this issue, it is identical to the IST line. We will support the defence of Cuba aggainst imperialism, point to the education and healthcare of Cuba as progressive, but clearly point out that Cuba is not socialist, it is state capitalist.

[Sam_b]

I assume Zanthorus is referring to the Permanent Arms Economy, something developed early by Ed Sard and others, and built upon by the likes of Tony Cliff and Chris Harman. Alongside the theories of state capitalism and deflected permanent revolution, the permanent arms economy could be seen as a 'staple' of the IS tradition.

There's a good article from our International Socialism Journal here: http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=660&issue=127

[Devrim]

I wouldn't advise an anarchist to join a revolutionary Trotskyist organisation, but you could at least work with them.

That is pretty good advice really.


Otherwise this thread is go into the typical SWP/ISO pattern of people posting one-liners about them being "terrible" "do anything other than sell newspapers" (which, by the way, is one of the biggest strawmen i've ever heard, and shows up some holier-than-thou posters completely misunderstanding the role of newspapers in a revolutionry organisation) and generally provide a completely unhelpful attitude.

I don't like to agree with the SWP guy twice in one thread, but there is nothing wrong with selling newspapers.

If you are an anarchist I think that you should take to mind the example of 'Solidaridad Obrera', the CNT's newspaper, which at its peak had a print run of 220,000 copies a day, and had the largest circulation of any newspaper in Spain.

Do you really think that the anarchist militants who built this paper did it without actually going out on the streets and selling a few copies?

Devrim

[Devrim]

I assume Zanthorus is referring to the Permanent Arms Economy, something developed early by Ed Sard and others, and built upon by the likes of Tony Cliff and Chris Harman. Alongside the theories of state capitalism and deflected permanent revolution, the permanent arms economy could be seen as a 'staple' of the IS tradition.

But not a unique invention of Tony Cliff. The idea of the Soviet Union being state capitalist can be seen in the work of the left communists in the Russian Party, and arguably even of anarchists previous to that.

It is not a unique invention that Tony woke up one morning and told Channi about.

Devrim

[Sam_b]

Again this isn't attempted as a critique of the ISO, but rather some advice to comrade OP based on my impression of them.

I wish I could look at people and magically be able to assess their political ideology and class background.

[Sam_b]

It is not a unique invention that Tony woke up one morning and told Channi about.


I didn't say it was, though it doesn't stop it being a staple of the IS Tradition, as say compared to the analysis given by the CWI etc.

[theblackmask]

While most ISO members are happy to work with anarchists, their frequent bashing of aesthetic anarchism does lead to some members taking things a little too far and discounting anarchism as a whole. When I was a member, I really felt like "anarchism" was a dirty word sometimes...so if you are very tied to your anarchist ideas, I would advise against becoming a member. There is, however, no reason you shouldn't work with them or even just check them out.

[scarletghoul]

I wish I could look at people and magically be able to assess their political ideology and class background.
Don't make me post the 'trotskyist student' video again.

[Sam_b]

Don't make me post the 'trotskyist student' video again.

Wow, sensational comeback. Because the video of one of our members completely validates your entire presumtion of the Trotskyist movement, right?

Your tactic of using the bankrupt idea of the 'middle class' in other leftist organisations as a tactic which does much to fragment the left and class movement itself if nothing new, and I have faith that most users on here will see right through it.

[this is an invasion]

Wasn't it the ISO that opposed the occupations of SF State back in November?

[Rusty Shackleford]

If you are an anarchist but looking to join a party with left politics then look at the SP-USA. they have a revolutionary wing which chegitz could probably fill you in on, and a social democratic wing which he could also clarify lol. but you said the ISO is the only thing in your area which is kind of a bummer(lack of variety i mean lol).
since im talking about parties. the PSL might be in your state too. we work with anarchists. but were Marxist-Leninist. basically, PSL, ISO, and SP-USA if you are looking to work with left groups.

[syndicat]

Do you really think that the anarchist militants who built this paper did it without actually going out on the streets and selling a few copies?


"Anarchist militants" didn't go around hawking Solidaridad Obrera. It was run as a commercial operation, with newsboys hawking it to make money and news agents selling it. It had to be in order to have that high of a circulation.

I have no problem with working with anyone who is reasonable as far as organizing and movement building is concerned. It's necessary to be prepared to work with people of other viewpoints. But I would not advise joining a political organization unless you agree with its basic political perspective.

[LaRiposte]

I used to be a member of the ISO. I bought hook, line, and sinker into the state capitalist idiocy, it just fit so nicely with my unsophisticated anti-capitalist worldview that I couldn't help it.

I am so glad to no longer be a part of it.

The ISO's links to the working class are notable only by their complete absence. They make no effort to build a cadre organization, that is to educate and train their members in the theory and practices of revolutionary Marxism. They cynically adopted "yes we can" as a slogan after Obama's victory in 2008. I know for a fact that many of their members actually voted for Obama on election day. Their abandonment of both Nader and McKinney during the 2008 election was shameful, embarassing, and ultra-left. Most of their luminaries are petty-bourgeois to the core, a smattering of college professors, former fellow-travelers, independent journalists, and the like. I don't know of a single actual proletarian in the leadership of the organization.

Whoever said "why not just cut out the middle-man and join the Democratic Party" is spot on.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm in the ISO - if you are convinced on anarchism, then you can not be a regular member, because there are probably some basic disagreements on our approaches to how to organizie, for example. But I think you would probably also find a lot of overlap in our views and focus on building up and trying to help rebuild working class independence and militancy - and we are happy to work with you in coalitions or just on the basis of being allies.

The idea that our members only sell newspapers is ridiculous and a charge faced by any organization that uses a paper as an organizing tool. The whole idea of the paper is so that people can get a sense of our politics. We have no use for followers, we are trying to have an organization where everyone is a leader and confident in their politics and ability to organize where they are - at school at work or our communities. In fact we want to see independent working class leaders in general - even if they don't join our organization.

Anyone who is interested in the ISO, can check out or basic political views here:
http://socialistworker.org/where-we-stand

If you find you are generally in agreement, then I'd say you should at least speak with some local members and see what movement work or labor campaigns they are doing. From there if you find that you are in close agreement with what we are working on and our political positions, then by all means you should talk to someone about joining.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Wasn't it the ISO that opposed the occupations of SF State back in November?I'm not in that branch and so I do not know the specifics of their debates within the coalition there or within the branch there but in general the ISO is not "opposed" to occupations and we want to see more of them - we are opposed to actions that we do not think are going to help build the movement at the time.

The SF state comrades were very clear an open about their position on the occupations - not opposed to occupations in general, but opposed to how specific occupations were being done:

http://socialistworker.org/2009/12/14/where-we-go-now-at-sfsu

Democracy and direct action are not exclusive to each other; in this instance, however, the occupiers did in practice counterpose the two by precluding the General Assembly. We instead are in favor of direct actions that are in sync with and complementary to the development of a real democratic process and movement on campus.

Occupations like Wednesday's are just the first step. This movement will need to organize more occupations, sit-ins, speak-outs and strikes to even have a chance of scaring Sacramento and the trustees into thinking twice the next time they hike fees, furlough workers and give themselves raises. But in order to move beyond small actions of a couple hundred students and get to mass actions of thousands, we need to build a democratic movement based on trust, openness and collaboration.
This is an article written by these comrades for the March 4th actions:
http://socialistworker.org/2010/02/01/building-toward-march-4

While we agree with these groups that the time for bold steps is now, organizing in such a fashion will leave out those who may strongly agree with the aims of our movement, but are currently disconnected from student activist circles.

A series of small autonomous actions will not be able to unite the disparate forces on campus needed to make March 4 a day of really mass action. We encourage occupations, sit-ins and strikes, but we believe that such actions should, whenever possible, be proposed, debated and then democratically decided upon at broadly built General Assemblies. We believe that the expansion of the General Assemblies is the key to the development of a powerful campus movement.
Every branch or every member in coalitions and movements have to try and figure out what the best next step is and what is needed at any given time. The SFSU comrades argued that the problem with some of the occupations was that they were done in a secretive manner that did not help build a larger movement that would then be able to carry out effective radical action.

If people are arguing right now that there should be a general strike across the US in response to state-level austerity and the general attack on the working class, then I would opposed it - not because I oppose a general strike - that would be awesome - but because the level of working class militancy simply does not currently exist and we would be wasting our time and energy trying to do something that, when it failed, would just convince workers that a mass strike is a pipe dream.

Like anyone we make mis-steps but we try and learn from them - and that's one of the benefits of this kind of organization imo as opposed to being an individual activist or working in an isolated or atomized way.

[Devrim]

"Anarchist militants" didn't go around hawking Solidaridad Obrera. It was run as a commercial operation, with newsboys hawking it to make money and news agents selling it. It had to be in order to have that high of a circulation.

Obviously so at its peak. I did once chat though with an elderly Spanish guy who recalled selling it as a militant in the years before the First World War. I have no reason to assume he was lying to me.

Devrim

[Chambered Word]

I used to be a member of the ISO. I bought hook, line, and sinker into the state capitalist idiocy, it just fit so nicely with my unsophisticated anti-capitalist worldview that I couldn't help it.

I am so glad to no longer be a part of it.

The ISO's links to the working class are notable only by their complete absence. They make no effort to build a cadre organization, that is to educate and train their members in the theory and practices of revolutionary Marxism. They cynically adopted "yes we can" as a slogan after Obama's victory in 2008. I know for a fact that many of their members actually voted for Obama on election day. Their abandonment of both Nader and McKinney during the 2008 election was shameful, embarassing, and ultra-left. Most of their luminaries are petty-bourgeois to the core, a smattering of college professors, former fellow-travelers, independent journalists, and the like. I don't know of a single actual proletarian in the leadership of the organization.

Whoever said "why not just cut out the middle-man and join the Democratic Party" is spot on.

So your criticism of the ISO is that they voted for the Democrats and not the Green Party, and the usual 'none of them are working class'? How revolutionary.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The ISO's links to the working class are notable only by their complete absence.Bit of an overstatement ya think? I mean our connection to labor is nowhere near where we would want it to be - the connection of radicals in general to labor is not where we'd like it to be. But there are many members currently involved in their unions and our teacher comrades in Chicago and Los Angeles are involved in the rank and file reform movements inside the unions like CORE.


They make no effort to build a cadre organization, that is to educate and train their members in the theory and practices of revolutionary Marxism. I love how we can be criticized for being an organization that "only reads" while also being "not theoretical enough" or that we "only sell the paper" but are also called "reformists" who "hide our politics". The Stalinists call us anarchists and some anarchists call us Stalinists. These are all shallow and self-contradicting criticisms that don't amount to much.

Your comment has not been my experience - while some brances at sometimes have dropped the ball here or there, the ISO is always trying to build leadership - both among our allies in movements and our own members in the organization.


They cynically adopted "yes we can" as a slogan after Obama's victory in 2008.You mean Obama cynically adopted "Yes we can" from movements in the past. How did we "adopt" this slogan? We wanted to appeal to people's optimism in 2008, but not their support of Obama - anyone can look at the SW website and read our editorials from back then and see that the view we were taking was basically: "Yes, I support your optimism and desire for change, but Obama won't deliver, let's talk about what it will take".

If anything the internal tendency inside branches is too much the other way. We had to consciously curb our knee-jerk dismissal of people who support the Democrats in 2008 after so many years of only finding the most cynical people whole-hartedly supporting Gore or Kerry. There's a big difference between some regular joe who supported Kerry and made apologies for his "surge" in Iraq plan and someone who supported Obama and mistakenly thought he was actually going to end the wars - so we tried very hard to take a nuanced approach to our criticisms of Obama. There are movement allies who still won't speak to me because I told them I was not voting for Obama - there are also others who read our critiques and now have a much better understanding of why Obama has disappointed his supporters and continued the war and so on.


I know for a fact that many of their members actually voted for Obama on election day. Bullshit. If any did, they were probably new members who have not yet been convinced of radical politics - I think the events of the Obama administration since then have probably disabused them of their illusions and shown them that our (and not just the ISO, but the left in general) radical critique of the Democrats and Obama is correct.

Also we published this book in... 2008!:
The Democrats: A Critical History (http://www.haymarketbooks.org/pb/The-Democrats-A-Critical-History)

We published it to explain how the Democrats are not allies to the working class at a time when we knew that people would be blindly supporting the Dems after hating Bush for so long! So for you to oh-so unsubtly claim that we support Obama can be nothing but pure sectarian dishonesty.


Their abandonment of both Nader and McKinney during the 2008 election was shameful, embarassing, and ultra-left.Our support of Nader was always tactical, not on principle. There are existing democratic-socialist 3rd parties with better politics if we were interested in electoralism. Our support was due to the movements in 2000 and the anti-war movement in 2004 and our idea at the time was that Nader was drawing people who were radicalizing and becomingly opposed to the democrats from the left - we wanted to participate with them and try and expose them to a more principled and class-based critique of the Democratic party and corporate power. At that point our critics accused us of "supporting a capitalist party" - but our involvement in the Greens was never an attempt to build some kind of permanent democratic-socialist party in the US or whatever, it was part of trying to build a left independent of the Democrats because that would represent a sea-change in US politics for the left and lay the basis for an opening up of politics in this country. If the Greens had won parody with the 2 parties, then they would get campaign money and it would be hard to keep 3rd parties out of the debates and so that would have made it very hard for the 2 parties to control the mainstream political debate as they do.

In 2008 we had a big internal debate about supporting him again - the side in support barely won so we tacitly supported the campaign but did not direct much energy to actively building the campaign. We withdrew our support of Nader when he made a coalition with right-wing 3rd parties in some states. We could not be involved in immigrant rights movements while also supporting someone who was being endorsed by anti-immigrant right-wing parties.

Our experience with the Greens and Nader was a mixed bag and we learned a lot, made some mistakes, made some gains. This is how you learn and grow collectively and this experience was very instructive. The ups and downs of the last decade were tough for our organization and probably most on the US left, but I think we have come out stronger and more confident from the experience.

[redasheville]

So your criticism of the ISO is that they voted for the Democrats and not the Green Party, and the usual 'none of them are working class'? How revolutionary.

Just to be clear, the ISO did not support the democrats in 08 (or ever).

The only thing shameful about McKinney and Nader in 08 was their alliance with ultra right wing Ron Paul.

[LaRiposte]

So your criticism of the ISO is that they voted for the Democrats and not the Green Party, and the usual 'none of them are working class'? How revolutionary.

No, my criticism is that they made an ultra-left tactical error when they dropped their support for McKinney.

[LaRiposte]

Just to be clear, the ISO did not support the democrats in 08 (or ever).

I never said that they did. I said that many of their individual members did, showing the low political level of their organization.


The only thing shameful about McKinney and Nader in 08 was their alliance with ultra right wing Ron Paul.

Alliance? They had a press conference together in which the sole topic of discussion was getting more exposure for third-party candidates. That was the extent of McKinney's association with Ron Paul.

[LaRiposte]

Bit of an overstatement ya think? I mean our connection to labor is nowhere near where we would want it to be - the connection of radicals in general to labor is not where we'd like it to be. But there are many members currently involved in their unions and our teacher comrades in Chicago and Los Angeles are involved in the rank and file reform movements inside the unions like CORE.

Unsurprisingly an ISOer would assume that 'radicals' have little connection to the working class. Hate to break it to you, but every other Trot organization in the US, even the Sparts, is more rooted in the proletariat than the ISO is by a long shot.

I will give you credit for your involvement in the teachers' unions, which I recall well and fondly from my days in the ISO. Though your concentration in the profession of teaching is pretty indicative of the concentration of your appeal to intellectuals. In my opinion, that's no way to build a revolutionary organization.


I love how we can be criticized for being an organization that "only reads" while also being "not theoretical enough" or that we "only sell the paper" but are also called "reformists" who "hide our politics". The Stalinists call us anarchists and some anarchists call us Stalinists. These are all shallow and self-contradicting criticisms that don't amount to much.

I made none of these criticisms.


Your comment has not been my experience - while some brances at sometimes have dropped the ball here or there, the ISO is always trying to build leadership - both among our allies in movements and our own members in the organization.

The absurdly high turnover that the ISO experiences is a pretty clear indication of this trend. Again, when I left, I don't believe there was a single proletarian in the upper leadership of the organization. It was dominated by petty-bourgeois intellectuals who are happy to support the ISO so long as Haymarket publishes their books.


You mean Obama cynically adopted "Yes we can" from movements in the past. How did we "adopt" this slogan? We wanted to appeal to people's optimism in 2008, but not their support of Obama - anyone can look at the SW website and read our editorials from back then and see that the view we were taking was basically: "Yes, I support your optimism and desire for change, but Obama won't deliver, let's talk about what it will take".

The slogan is now universally associated with Obama, your use of it only confuses the issue. We need to draw a clear line with the Obamaites.


If anything the internal tendency inside branches is too much the other way. We had to consciously curb our knee-jerk dismissal of people who support the Democrats in 2008 after so many years of only finding the most cynical people whole-hartedly supporting Gore or Kerry. There's a big difference between some regular joe who supported Kerry and made apologies for his "surge" in Iraq plan and someone who supported Obama and mistakenly thought he was actually going to end the wars - so we tried very hard to take a nuanced approach to our criticisms of Obama. There are movement allies who still won't speak to me because I told them I was not voting for Obama - there are also others who read our critiques and now have a much better understanding of why Obama has disappointed his supporters and continued the war and so on.

So why use his slogans?


Bullshit. If any did, they were probably new members who have not yet been convinced of radical politics

I remember being disgusted seeing the number of ISO comrades on my facebook stalker feed creaming their pants on election night. There were at least half-a-dozen ISOers making pro-Obama statements that night. The ISO's failure to endorse an alternative in an election so important led to a ton of confusion about what to do in the rank and file of the organization.


- I think the events of the Obama administration since then have probably disabused them of their illusions and shown them that our (and not just the ISO, but the left in general) radical critique of the Democrats and Obama is correct. This is a given, comrade.


Also we published this book in... 2008!:

We published it to explain how the Democrats are not allies to the working class at a time when we knew that people would be blindly supporting the Dems after hating Bush for so long! So for you to oh-so unsubtly claim that we support Obama can be nothing but pure sectarian dishonesty. I recall, I was still in the ISO when it came out. I even sold one or two.

I never once claimed that the ISO officially supported Obama. My argument is that the general political level of the organization is embarrassingly low.


Our support of Nader was always tactical, not on principle. There are existing democratic-socialist 3rd parties with better politics if we were interested in electoralism. Our support was due to the movements in 2000 and the anti-war movement in 2004 and our idea at the time was that Nader was drawing people who were radicalizing and becomingly opposed to the democrats from the left - we wanted to participate with them and try and expose them to a more principled and class-based critique of the Democratic party and corporate power. At that point our critics accused us of "supporting a capitalist party" - but our involvement in the Greens was never an attempt to build some kind of permanent democratic-socialist party in the US or whatever, it was part of trying to build a left independent of the Democrats because that would represent a sea-change in US politics for the left and lay the basis for an opening up of politics in this country. If the Greens had won parody with the 2 parties, then they would get campaign money and it would be hard to keep 3rd parties out of the debates and so that would have made it very hard for the 2 parties to control the mainstream political debate as they do.

In 2008 we had a big internal debate about supporting him again - the side in support barely won so we tacitly supported the campaign but did not direct much energy to actively building the campaign. We withdrew our support of Nader when he made a coalition with right-wing 3rd parties in some states. We could not be involved in immigrant rights movements while also supporting someone who was being endorsed by anti-immigrant right-wing parties.

Our experience with the Greens and Nader was a mixed bag and we learned a lot, made some mistakes, made some gains. This is how you learn and grow collectively and this experience was very instructive. The ups and downs of the last decade were tough for our organization and probably most on the US left, but I think we have come out stronger and more confident from the experience.

Nader I could care less about, he's as pro-capitalist as they come on the left and is generally useless. McKinney, on the other hand, was moving in a convincingly anti-capitalist direction and was getting an echo during her campaign, even among many labor unions. The Green Party is generally a petty-bourgeois party but it is heterogeneous and many of the candidates that they do run are anti-capitalists and aren't afraid to say it. You say that your support for them is tactical and not on principle, but then you turn around and say that since they had a single news-conference with Ron Paul in which the topic and purpose of the event was to promote third parties, you can't support them. Am I the only one who sees a disconnect here?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Unsurprisingly an ISOer would assume that 'radicals' have little connection to the working class. Hate to break it to you, but every other Trot organization in the US, even the Sparts, is more rooted in the proletariat than the ISO is by a long shot.You are delusional if you think any revolutionary organization currently a force in the working class. Saying that other Trot organizations (or any revolutionary groups in the US for that matter) are more rooted in the working class than the ISO is like saying that someone on top of the empire state building is closer to getting to the moon than someone on top of the Chrysler building!

And if we are talking about objective results, I think the size and increased presence of our group in a relatively short time demonstrates that at least on occasion we have made some correct choices. Of course we want to be rooted in the working class, we also want to see mass rank and file action altogether, also a reviatlized left, also Spanish and Korean speaking branches, also more ethnic and racial diversity... you seem to assume that since we have not accomplished these things at a time of very low of revolutionary and working class action, then obviously we have no interest in these things!:rolleyes:

By the way, the branch I am in has three teacher comrades who are active in their unions, a teamster UPS driver, a member of Unite HERE, two SEIU members, an longtime groundskeeper with AFSME, and several working comrades like myself who are at non-union workplaces. I'm sure a branch at San Francisco State is much different, but in our community branches most everyone is a worker and in a union if possible. If someone was a professor or a student fully committed to revolutionary politics I'd be happy to have them as a member as well.


I will give you credit for your involvement in the teachers' unions, which I recall well and fondly from my days in the ISO. Though your concentration in the profession of teaching is pretty indicative of the concentration of your appeal to intellectuals. In my opinion, that's no way to build a revolutionary organization.Oh wow, ok we thought that we could just forgo class struggle and building working class militancy and revolutionary consciousness and instead just convince a bunch of teachers to indoctrinate the youth:rolleyes:.

But seriously, in other words because we have not single-handedley built a working class mass revolutionary party, we have no interest or desire to do so? Since we have not yet lead a general strike in the US, we are obviously against one?


I remember being disgusted seeing the number of ISO comrades on my facebook stalker feed creaming their pants on election night. There were at least half-a-dozen ISOers making pro-Obama statements that night. The ISO's failure to endorse an alternative in an election so important led to a ton of confusion about what to do in the rank and file of the organization.Anyone can go on SocialistWorker.org and check out our position on Obama throught the campaign and after. When you have a concrete criticism of our position on Obama and the regular people who supported him, then we can discuss the political reasoning and debate of our position against Obama.

[redasheville]

I will give you credit for your involvement in the teachers' unions, which I recall well and fondly from my days in the ISO. Though your concentration in the profession of teaching is pretty indicative of the concentration of your appeal to intellectuals. In my opinion, that's no way to build a revolutionary organization.




What a weak criticism. Teachers unions are under attack, and are really one of the last bastions of unionism in this country, and it is pure sectarian lunacy to actually criticize our base in the teachers unions on the ground that its a job that "attracts intellectuals". So fucking what? Our members were instrumental in the M4 struggle in California, including an unofficial walk out in San Francisco public schools (organized by rank and file teachers led by ISO members) that included thousands of teachers, students and parents, almost entirely made up working class people of color. The SF branch includes 4 shop stewards. The SF State branch (i.e. our student branch) nearly half of their membership (including myself) who are active in unions. Our members in the Bay Area were involved in the Oakland teachers strike, and one of our members was on a strike committee during the AFSMCE UC strike in the summer of 08. There is a high concentration of ISO members in the pacific Northwest who are union activists, mostly in unions other than teachers unions (we have a janitor and an ILWU shop steward for example). Our members contribute to Labor Notes and spoke at the Labor Notes conference (the single most important institution on the US labor left). All of this is really minimal, but that is a reflection of the state of the left in general, and not exclusively a problem of the ISO.

Also, the vast majority of books published by Haymarket are not by ISO members (and often written by people who are dead), so your cynical comments about intellectuals happy to be members as long as they have books published by HB is slanderous and pure speculation.

Have fun in your sectarian sandbox.

[Devrim]

Also, the vast majority of books published by Haymarket are not by ISO members (and often written by people who are dead), so your cynical comments about intellectuals happy to be members as long as they have books published by HB is slanderous and pure speculation.

Can we expect a new work by Tony Cliff soon?

Devrim

[Wanted Man]

I used to be a member of the ISO. I bought hook, line, and sinker into the state capitalist idiocy, it just fit so nicely with my unsophisticated anti-capitalist worldview that I couldn't help it.

I am so glad to no longer be a part of it.

The ISO's links to the working class are notable only by their complete absence. They make no effort to build a cadre organization, that is to educate and train their members in the theory and practices of revolutionary Marxism. They cynically adopted "yes we can" as a slogan after Obama's victory in 2008. I know for a fact that many of their members actually voted for Obama on election day. Their abandonment of both Nader and McKinney during the 2008 election was shameful, embarassing, and ultra-left. Most of their luminaries are petty-bourgeois to the core, a smattering of college professors, former fellow-travelers, independent journalists, and the like. I don't know of a single actual proletarian in the leadership of the organization.

Whoever said "why not just cut out the middle-man and join the Democratic Party" is spot on.

Well, that's definitely shit compared to the industrial might of the WIL.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Also, the vast majority of books published by Haymarket are not by ISO members (and often written by people who are dead)
Didn't you know, the quickest way to become rich and famous is by having an independent left-wing press publish your book in a country where the mainstream politicians and critics and media figures ignore the left at best, and are actively hostile to it the rest of the time.

Make it rain with that Haymarket cash, Sidney Lens!

[redasheville]

Can we expect a new work by Tony Cliff soon?

Devrim

Yes. We are releasing a fully updated edition of State Capitalism in Russia with a new introduction by Karl Marx himself (he is our favorite middle class intellectual fellow traveler).

[Atlee]

I read the ISO's Socialist Worker online often, and find it to be one of the most valuable resources in the American left; and thats not before mentioning Haymarket Books which is excellent.

I get books from Haymarket too and just go the new listing in the mail this week.

I'll sometime read the ISR from the bookstore.