Joining an Organization

[Peoples' War]

My becoming a member of the International Socialist Tendency was not some decision I had made just based on some readings of Tony Cliff, and knowing the SWP/IST history. In fact, I am not a proponent of the "permanent arms economy" nor do I find Cliff's analysis of the Soviet Union to be very thorough, or complete. On the Soviet question, I find myself influenced heavily by the Johnson-Forest Tendency, and use Cliff's "analysis" as a supplement. My decision was made after checking out various other organizations, and finding that the politics of the IST suited me better than, say, the IMT or ICFI.

I have respect for what these organizations do, what they stand for, but I cannot come to terms with the IMTs support of Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian revolution as some partial revolution that needs defending, nor do I view entrism as a valid tactic. When it comes to the IST, my personal experience is that of avoiding sectarian bickering, something I've noticed my comrades in the IMT take part in quite a bit, especially at the IST. I cannot come to terms with the waste of time the ICFI's "SEP" does, by running for office in the USA, and how absurd I feel when I look at the man campaigning for president. Recently, for no reason, the wsws changed it's view on China from capitalist, to DWS...something I found rather weird.

To be quite honest, I would love nothing more than to have an actual mass workers' party. Not some Kautskyist party of all sorts of reformists, revisionists, etc. but a party of true revolutionary militant workers. A vanguard of educated and class conscious workers. Regardless of whether they believe the USSR was a DWS, BC or State Cap. A party which debates on the issues, rather than split and split and split.

The IST, IMT, ICFI all share the same end goals. All usually take the same stance on issues of importance, from my experience and reading.

I am not an IST dogmatist, some sectarian who will refuse to collaborate or work with someone of another international. Unlike the IST, I consider myself a Leninist and not a Trotskyist, though I respect the man and his ideas.

Basically, what criticisms do any of you have regarding this? Why is it, I'm asking comrades of the IMT and ICFI, we find sectarian bickering winning the day as opposed to united action?

[Prometeo liberado]

None of this means a thing if you can't connect with people on the street. All the theoretical, is China this or that, don't mean shit to someone who just can't understand why the price of milk keeps going up and her benefits are about to go away. Bickering over ideological scraps of scraps, year after year. Getting next to nothing done. That's what I think.

[RevoTO]

I'm surprised you feel that IMT does a lot of "sectarian bickering". We do criticize other groups politically but you wont find us at a rally or demonstrations constantly arguing with other groups.

I think you may associated our politically position (we are generally opposed to many of these united left parties) to a sectarian attitude. Our orientation puts us directly in working class struggles. The reason we are opposed to attempts to artificially unite the left is because we see it as pointless and usually takes the form of ignoring political differences in an attempt to work together which hardly ever works. There has to be political unity before organization unity. Groups cannot work together properly while ignoring political differences it will usually manifest in a frustrations, lack of getting anything done (in a attempt to avoid differences) and eventually a split. We are in favour of alliances but it must be principled.

[Drosophila]

A lot of the IMT's sectarianism emerges out of Britain, party because of the support for entryism there.

I don't see any real reason why the IMT, IST, CWI, etc. can't be united. The "Degenerated workers state theory vs. state capitalist theory" debate isn't really a central focus of any party besides the ICL.

[DaringMehring]

A lot of the IMT's sectarianism emerges out of Britain, party because of the support for entryism there.

I don't see any real reason why the IMT, IST, CWI, etc. can't be united. The "Degenerated workers state theory vs. state capitalist theory" debate isn't really a central focus of any party besides the ICL.

You already named one --

entryism.

Join Lutte Ouvriere (UK Workers Fight, USA The Spark) instead.

[Peoples' War]

You already named one --

entryism.

Join Lutte Ouvriere (UK Workers Fight, USA The Spark) instead.
Though, if we operate as factions withn a wider party, there is no reason the IMT cannot partake in entryism, with being open to taking criticism from those who oppose it.

[Geiseric]

Your description really sounds close to the Fourth International ICR. We're made up mostly in the U.S. at least of militant working class latinos.

[Drosophila]

You already named one --

entryism.


That doesn't warrant a worldwide split.

[DaringMehring]

That doesn't warrant a worldwide split.

When some people want to form a permanent faction within a bourgeois party, and others do not, then... yeah, it does.

That is not some historical quibble from 100 years ago, that is a question of practical activity and mindset. The type of person who wants to form a left-wing or left-faction within the Democrats/UK Labor/PSOE/PS/etc. is a different person to the one who wants to build a revolutionary alternative.

[Drosophila]

When some people want to form a permanent faction within a bourgeois party, and others do not, then... yeah, it does.

That is not some historical quibble from 100 years ago, that is a question of practical activity and mindset. The type of person who wants to form a left-wing or left-faction within the Democrats/UK Labor/PSOE/PS/etc. is a different person to the one who wants to build a revolutionary alternative.

The IMT doesn't support entry into the Democratic Party of the USA. Besides entryism in some affiliates, the politics of the IMT and other Trotskyist organizations are almost entirely identical.

[Ostrinski]

The IMT doesn't support entry into the Democratic Party of the USA. Besides entryism in some affiliates, the politics of the IMT and other Trotskyist organizations are almost entirely identical.Actually, I think the ultra left Cliffites and the quasi Stalinist types like the Sparts represent one of the biggest inter tendency differences on the left.

[DaringMehring]

The IMT doesn't support entry into the Democratic Party of the USA. Besides entryism in some affiliates, the politics of the IMT and other Trotskyist organizations are almost entirely identical.

Compared to everybody else, all the tendencies that came out of the workers movement are "almost entirely identical." So in some sense we should all be each others comrades from the anarcho-syndicalist to the Stalinist.

But -- in terms of important practical questions, there are some important questions like attitude toward bourgeois elections & politics, that can't be glossed over.

I'd like to see a revival of a broad-umbrella type party, overcoming the CIA/FBI's work to divide us, and the sectarianism spawned by rival "socialist" nations, but... on what basis?

I've often thought that simply using the original constitution of the Communist Party USA from 1919 would be a good basis. The Party back then did a lot of great things and grew strongly. Does anyone else thing this idea is worthwhile? Some parts are obviously outdated, but, maybe, it could be updated and form a good basis... (text is http://www.marxists.org/history/usa/parties/cpusa/1919/09/0907-cpa-constitution.pdf)

[theblackmask]

I don't see any real reason why the IMT, IST, CWI, etc. can't be united.

The answer to this is a simple one...power. Everyone wants to be their own little Lenin, and be at the top. Hierarchical organizations give some people power over others. When some people feel that they do not have enough power, they split and form their own organizations so that they don't have to listen to those they don't agree with, and get a little slice of power for themselves. Repeat this process over decades and decades, and you end up with the irrelevant alphabet soup that is today's Left.

[Peoples' War]

Actually, I think the ultra left Cliffites and the quasi Stalinist types like the Sparts represent one of the biggest inter tendency differences on the left.
Hahaha, what? Ultra-left Cliffites? You're taking the piss.

I mean, the Sparts are another question, on many issues, but I wouldn't oppose them being a faction within a wider vanguard.

[Drosophila]

Actually, I think the ultra left Cliffites and the quasi Stalinist types like the Sparts represent one of the biggest inter tendency differences on the left.

The only thing ultra-leftist about the IST is their rejection of degenerated workers state, which no one cares about in the real world anyway (except for the Sparts).

[RevoTO]

Some interesting comments so far, I think a position on working in mass organizations could be grounds for a split because it represents a very different approach to activism. There are also other differences between these groups and I would not see it accounting to much.

I would not call IST ultra-left quite the opposite in my opinions.

[Lucretia]

The IST has a *very* different approach to party building than other Trotskyist groups. It places a lot of emphasis on what some here have criticized as "movementism" instead of pushing a clear and concrete political program (transitional or socialist). The result is that IST groups tend to recruit on the basis of rather vague principles that can be interpreted in multiple ways by different constituencies in the party (hence, the criticism that it recruits on the basis of multiple "programs" depending on who the potential recruit is). It also results in a kind of strategic fuzziness in the sense that the IST groups will fight for reforms without really connecting those reforms to a broader vision of revolutionary politics or proposals (again, besides boilerplate slogans about "workers fighting back", etc.). What this means in terms of the internal life of the party is that it recruits a lot of members who quickly cycle in and out, and who sometimes unwittingly pursue political practices that are indistinguishable from what liberals are doing in the same movements that the IST intervenes in. It also makes effective internal discipline, education, and cohesion difficult to achieve.

There are strengths and weaknesses to this approach, but it's certainly going to make any kind of merger with other Trotskyist tendencies highly problematic.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Compared to everybody else, all the tendencies that came out of the workers movement are "almost entirely identical." So in some sense we should all be each others comrades from the anarcho-syndicalist to the Stalinist.

But -- in terms of important practical questions, there are some important questions like attitude toward bourgeois elections & politics, that can't be glossed over.

I'd like to see a revival of a broad-umbrella type party, overcoming the CIA/FBI's work to divide us, and the sectarianism spawned by rival "socialist" nations, but... on what basis?

I've often thought that simply using the original constitution of the Communist Party USA from 1919 would be a good basis. The Party back then did a lot of great things and grew strongly. Does anyone else thing this idea is worthwhile? Some parts are obviously outdated, but, maybe, it could be updated and form a good basis... (text is http://www.marxists.org/history/usa/parties/cpusa/1919/09/0907-cpa-constitution.pdf)

Well, it's not a bad basis for building a revolutionary party, but, I would guess, incomplete. For example, we have had past ninety years to witness what popular frontism can do to defeat revolutions. I will try to read it before I comment further. But the growth of the CP in the USA at that time had everything to do with the Russian Revolution and little to do with any formal document parties of CI produced.

[Peoples' War]

The IST has a *very* different approach to party building than other Trotskyist groups. It places a lot of emphasis on what some here have criticized as "movementism" instead of pushing a clear and concrete political program (transitional or socialist).I haven't noticed this as of yet. My membership has been short so far, and I am by no means a conformist within the party. I'm a fan of Jim Higgins, and an opponent of Permanent Arms Economy and Deflected Permanent Revolution. I am not particularly fond of Cliff... from what I have read about him from Higgins, he was an ass.


The result is that IST groups tend to recruit on the basis of rather vague principles that can be interpreted in multiple ways by different constituencies in the party (hence, the criticism that it recruits on the basis of multiple "programs" depending on who the potential recruit is).Maybe, but from what I could tell from reading different works, by visiting the websites of different internationals, I don't see it. Perhaps you can be more specific?


There are strengths and weaknesses to this approach, but it's certainly going to make any kind of merger with other Trotskyist tendencies highly problematic.If they're approach is precisely as you say, which I have not noticed myself -- though I am a young member, then I still don't believe this prevents unity. It may mean no unity within a party, but within the wider struggle, a unity in action as opposed to the independent nature of most internationals.

As I said, I'm no conformist with the IST/SWP, and I hope comrades in the IMT, ICFI, or what have you, do not judge me as a conformist or "cliffite".

[Lucretia]

I haven't noticed this as of yet. My membership has been short so far, and I am by no means a conformist within the party. I'm a fan of Jim Higgins, and an opponent of Permanent Arms Economy and Deflected Permanent Revolution. I am not particularly fond of Cliff... from what I have read about him from Higgins, he was an ass.

I don't really have much interest in the personal intrigues of these figures. For what it's worth, I think Cliff's analysis of state capitalism in Russia was pretty much spot-on. The permanent arms economy was embraced by IS folks, but the analysis was pioneered by Mike Kidron, not Tony Cliff.


Maybe, but from what I could tell from reading different works, by visiting the websites of different internationals, I don't see it. Perhaps you can be more specific?It's very simple to see whether the group recruits on the basis of a single, clearly spelled out political program. Try finding such a program on the group's web site, or ask any cadre what their political program is. See what their response is. It will be as slippery and amorphous as the recruitment tactics that are used.


If they're approach is precisely as you say, which I have not noticed myself -- though I am a young member, then I still don't believe this prevents unity. It may mean no unity within a party, but within the wider struggle, a unity in action as opposed to the independent nature of most internationals.What you are saying is precisely the point, the party has no unity with itself. Like a chameleon, it blends with and has unity with the leading - usually liberal - elements of the movements it participates in. This is what helps the group attract so many members ... and lose so many members.


As I said, I'm no conformist with the IST/SWP, and I hope comrades in the IMT, ICFI, or what have you, do not judge me as a conformist or "cliffite".No, I'm not really into judging you as a person. I am making pretty well informed political judgments of IS party building strategies.

[Crux]

The answer to this is a simple one...power. Everyone wants to be their own little Lenin, and be at the top. Hierarchical organizations give some people power over others. When some people feel that they do not have enough power, they split and form their own organizations so that they don't have to listen to those they don't agree with, and get a little slice of power for themselves. Repeat this process over decades and decades, and you end up with the irrelevant alphabet soup that is today's Left.
Decades? Try since the emergence of the worker's movement and forward. So yeah this is nothing new. But I also think that is an enormous oversimplification. tactics and strategy matters. the differences are there and the differences are very real. re-alignments do not come out of wishful thinking and new rifts will appear with the ebb and flow of the movments, just as much as new re-alignments. The idea to "unite for unity" is I think overrated, any kind of unity needs a practical basis. A new mass-party could undoubtly be such a thing, but again this is not a question of IST+CWI+IMT or what have you. Differences will remain, although they might be different differences or new differences.

Really, we are not weak because we are divided, we are divided because we are weak. There's a difference.

[Manic Impressive]

Don't think anyone else has mentioned them yet but you should really check out the ICC or ICT. They tend to hold forums where you can go and debate. The last one I went to had a wide range of positions from anarchists to IMT and IBT Trots.

[Mather]

Decades? Try since the emergence of the worker's movement and forward. So yeah this is nothing new. But I also think that is an enormous oversimplification. tactics and strategy matters. the differences are there and the differences are very real. re-alignments do not come out of wishful thinking and new rifts will appear with the ebb and flow of the movments, just as much as new re-alignments. The idea to "unite for unity" is I think overrated, any kind of unity needs a practical basis. A new mass-party could undoubtly be such a thing, but again this is not a question of IST+CWI+IMT or what have you. Differences will remain, although they might be different differences or new differences.

Really, we are not weak because we are divided, we are divided because we are weak. There's a difference.


I agree.

There are some fundamental differences that cannot be bridged, such as revolution over reformism, recognising the nature of the of the bourgeois state and recognising the working class as the sole revolutionary class to name a few. Less fundamental (usually tactical) differences can and should be resolved within the organisation. A healthy culture of democracy within any revolutionary organisation is essential if such differences are to be debated and resolved, otherwise splits and sectarian faction fights become inevitable. This applies to any revolutionary organisation, be it anarchist, marxist or trotskyist.