Thoughts on Socialist Organizer?

[CynicalIdealist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Organizer

I'm planning on working with some S.O. comrades in the area. Judging from what I've read so far on them, I like them far better than most Trotskyist groups including ISO, but I was wondering how revleft generally views them.

Points of interest/contention:

- They believe in building a Labor Party, and that it will be different from the labor parties built in the late 19th/early 20th centuries since capitalism is in a decline, not an ascent.

- (I have my misgivings about this.) They believe that in the new socialist state, since racism is not guaranteed to be abolished, oppressed minorities should have the right to form nations of their own. Does nations in this context mean nation states or simply parties, etc.?

For more: http://www2.socialistorganizer.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=0&Itemid=83

[Who?]

Eh...
I don't know much about them.

If you're looking for a Trotskyist organization I would personally recommend Socialist Action. They appear to be the least sectarian of the bunch.

But then again I'm not a Trotskyist.

[CynicalIdealist]

Eh...
I don't know much about them.

If you're looking for a Trotskyist organization I would personally recommend Socialist Action. They appear to be the least sectarian of the bunch.

But then again I'm not a Trotskyist.

Incidentally, Socialist Organizer split from Socialist Action, so likewise they seem pretty okay too.

[wunderbar]

You'd probably get more responses if you moved this to Learning.

[Wanted Man]

Moved to Learning.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Eh...
I don't know much about them.

If you're looking for a Trotskyist organization I would personally recommend Socialist Action. They appear to be the least sectarian of the bunch.

But then again I'm not a Trotskyist.

Yeah, Socialist Action is a good recommendation.I've been a member of their youth segment for a while now and have plenty of good experiences. Great party to join.

Can't say I know much about S.O though.

[CynicalIdealist]

Hm... anyone else?

[Geiseric]

I'm in S.O. and about the nationality question we believe that oppressed minorities should have the right to do whatever they want to end their oppression, if that means self governing their communities where they live then so be it. Basically we support things like Black Nationalism, where an oppressed group is fighting to earn the same rights as everybody else, however if that nation is still oppressed they can split off or do whatever needs to be done. Terrorism doesn't count as a nation trying to earn self determination though. Nation in our terms means any amount of people in a race, religion, etc. White Nationalism is different from Colored Nationalism in that it seeks to suppress other races, not build up institutions of let's say defense for its own. Try PMing the user BIG BROTHER about your question on race, he knows alot more than I do.

[graymouser]

Honestly, I'm not impressed by Socialist Organizer.

I don't want to get too long-winded but, their politics seem to be too centered around the labor bureaucracy - Alan Benjamin, who is the leader of the group, is on the San Francisco Labor Council. They took a really bad position at a major antiwar conference last summer, when the demand "End All US Aid to Israel" came up they opposed it, saying that US Labor Against the War would pull away The conference voted for it anyway, but SO and some of their allies - who we had worked with in the National Assembly in the previous years - pulled out and left. Now they are floating the idea of a "New National Assembly" which would divide the antiwar movement and exclude Palestine.

In California they've also done a lot of work in support of the DREAM Act, which would militarize a "road to citizenship" for young Latino immigrants. Socialist Action is against that, which I think is a correct position, and I couldn't be in an organization that supports it.

The labor party question I more or less agree on - the fight for a labor party would transform electoral and trade-union politics in this country. It's also a very good answer to workers angry about cutbacks and attacks on unions from both Democrats and Republicans. And the position on oppressed nationalities is basic Leninism - it's not necessarily encouraged, since for instance with Black Nationalism there isn't territorial coherence. But SO takes a lot of their stance from the old US Socialist Workers Party formulation that an independent Black party, which supports socialism, would be a positive step forward and should be supported if there is movement toward it. I'm not sure what it means in SO's context because they're mostly in California. In Socialist Action on the east coast, it has meant that we work with some forward-looking Black Nationalists.

A year ago, I would not have been as harsh toward SO, but I think their politics have taken a pretty hard right turn. As an antiwar activist who has been putting a lot of time and energy into organizing around Palestine the last few months, I find their willingness to abandon Palestine solidarity in exchange for some labor support unacceptable.

[Geiseric]

I'm pretty new to the group, but I agree with mostly everything in their pamphlets. But like Greymouser said, the nationalities question is basic leninism. I'm mostly in it right now since alot of my neighbors also are, and I agree generally with the politics. Didn't know much about the Israel thing though, and the way I saw the DREAM act was a way for latino immigrants to get citizenship, couldn't see a problem with it, but then again i didn't read too much on it.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Theres an SO organizer in our area who ive met on a few occasions and the April 13th action.

But my opinion of the SO isnt well developed.


All i know is its an organization that seeks to create organizations... i guess thats the way i think of it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Incidentally, Socialist Organizer split from Socialist Action, so likewise they seem pretty okay too.I've heard this too, anyone know what the split was over - if it isn't a pretty obvious political disagreement and the answer is convoluted or will cause some mud-slinging, pretend I didn't ask.:D

I've worked with members of both groups and while I don't know a whole lot about S.O.'s political stances, neither seems cultish or crazy so my suggestion is to work with them, read their stuff and find out more about their politics and methods - if you generally agree with their stances and you think how they are going about things is in concert with their views, then go for it. It's really the only way to know if a group is right for you or not and if you disagree, you can always quit the group.

[graymouser]

I've heard this too, anyone know what the split was over - if it isn't a pretty obvious political disagreement and the answer is convoluted or will cause some mud-slinging, pretend I didn't ask.:D
Socialist Organizer's founding cadres were expelled from Socialist Action for violating discipline. There was a conference in Barcelona in 1991 where Pierre Lambert "reproclaimed" the Fourth International. There had been some discussion between the Lambertists and SA in the preceding years, but SA decided against endorsing this "reproclamation" of the FI, and when members wanted to attend the conference, they were told explicitly not to do so. When they went to the conference anyway, they were expelled.

As for the involved part... Lambert's group came out of the French section of the Fourth International after World War II. They were actually the leadership of the section but they were sidelined by the International after a decision to go through entrism into the Communist Party - a position that didn't last very long. Lambert was part of the International Committee split in 1953, which also involved the British section led by Gerry Healy and the American SWP led by James P. Cannon. The remaining sections were grouped around the International Secretariat. In the early '60s, the SWP and the Latin American groups around Moreno and Blanco came to a reconciliation with the majority, which led to the formation of the United Secretariat. Healy and Lambert were lashed up together for a few years in a rump International Committee, but Lambert struck out on his own. There was a prominent near-fusion with Moreno when his group left the United Secretariat, but it didn't pan out. So Lambert went ahead and "reproclaimed" the FI.

Lambert's group in France was very dynamic in the class struggles of the 1950s, but became very bureaucratic and hidebound over the next period. They have been constantly peddling for influence in the French trade unions, and have spent a lot of their time on campaigns that basically get left-leaning trade union bureaucrats to sign on to various petitions and calls. They've had a pretty large group in France but little influence elsewhere. In political terms, they've been known for strident anti-feminism among other things. Dave Walters, who's back with the group these days, wrote some really meaty posts on the Leftist Trainspotters list about five years ago that go into a lot of detail on the problems of the Lambertistes.


I've worked with members of both groups and while I don't know a whole lot about S.O.'s political stances, neither seems cultish or crazy so my suggestion is to work with them, read their stuff and find out more about their politics and methods - if you generally agree with their stances and you think how they are going about things is in concert with their views, then go for it. It's really the only way to know if a group is right for you or not and if you disagree, you can always quit the group.
Yeah, Socialist Organizer's not a cult or out-there, they are just a group I have some differences with. I do think the whole National Assembly thing is a blot on their record, and fwiw the ISO has actually been really good as builders of the new United National Antiwar Committee (UNAC).

A bit more of Socialist Organizer's politics. They do tend to go toward "front groups" - the biggest being an international Lambertiste group, the International Liaison Committee of Workers and Peoples. This is the main thing where they are fishing for "influence' with trade union flaks. It does get them some really interesting contacts; there was a great speaking tour about 2 years ago with trade union organizers from Haiti and Guadeloupe. But it's all about that relationship with left-wing trade union bureaucrats. In the US, it's taken some weird forms. In 2008 they were pushing for a "Reconstruction Party" that would run Cynthia McKinney as a candidate but never got off the ground. They've also pushed a "Workers' Emergency Recovery Campaign" that is a fairly transparent front. If you are not a fan of that style of politics, and I'm not, then SO would be a group to shy away from.

Socialist Action, by contrast, has bent over backward to not have UNAC be a front group; while we work to be some of its best builders, we have seriously involved the ISO and Workers World Party, as well as a panoply of non-socialist peace groups, as real leaders in the coalition. And it's been a success, in that UNAC is genuinely much broader than SA.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Socialist Action, by contrast, has bent over backward to not have UNAC be a front group; while we work to be some of its best builders, we have seriously involved the ISO and Workers World Party, as well as a panoply of non-socialist peace groups, as real leaders in the coalition. And it's been a success, in that UNAC is genuinely much broader than SA.Thanks for the background on S.O.

You probably know the ISO's stance on UNAC, but just to add an extra plug to your post, I think this is one of the real hopes for being able to reorient the anti-war movement in a positive direction. UNAC has not only reached out to the other anti-war groups but has made good inroads in involving more arab-americans in organizing.

[Q]

There had been some discussion between the Lambertists and SA in the preceding years, but SA decided against endorsing this "reproclamation" of the FI, and when members wanted to attend the conference, they were told explicitly not to do so. When they went to the conference anyway, they were expelled.

Sorry, but this sounds like a stupid reason to expel people and trigger a split. One that comes over to me as a bureaucratic maneuver.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Sorry, but this sounds like a stupid reason to expel people and trigger a split. One that comes over to me as a bureaucratic maneuver.Since this is learning, maybe a separate discussion on these two groups and the split would be good if you or graymouser want to continue it. I don't know if speculating on reasons for the split will be helpful to the OP's question which is why I asked for a direct answer. If someone in S.O. wanted to give their perspective, if different, then maybe that would be useful to get both sides, but otherwise this thread will just attract a bunch of trollish un-political responses after a couple more posts (not saying anyone in the thread will do this, just, you know, that's how these threads tend to develop:().

[Crux]

Lambert's group in France was very dynamic in the class struggles of the 1950s, but became very bureaucratic and hidebound over the next period. They have been constantly peddling for influence in the French trade unions, and have spent a lot of their time on campaigns that basically get left-leaning trade union bureaucrats to sign on to various petitions and calls. They've had a pretty large group in France but little influence elsewhere. In political terms, they've been known for strident anti-feminism among other things. Dave Walters, who's back with the group these days, wrote some really meaty posts on the Leftist Trainspotters list about five years ago that go into a lot of detail on the problems of the Lambertistes.
Strident anti-feminism? Really?
In in any case AFAIK I though their Algerian section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_Party_%28Algeria%29)was the largest, but I might be wrong in that.
The lamberitists in sweden, which were only very few to begin with, seem to have ended up on the wrong side of insane, but do keep in the tradition of essentially building front parties. I don't think they are affililiated to the Fourth International ( ;) ) anymore though.