Unnecessary sectarianism

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

So I am a part of my local branch of the ISO, and in my efforts to try to create an organized left in the region, I have encountered a surprising amount of sectarianism from other Marxists. One wouldn't organize with me because of the position that the ISO took in 1979 during the Iranian Revolution. Another person wouldn't organize with us because we had different views on the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. Although I certainly agree that these historical questions are important, they are pretty irrelevant when it comes to organizing the left in the contemporary Midwest of the USA and shouldn't preclude coalition building. My concern is that this is not just immaturity or misplaced priorities on the part of a few individuals but instead is indicative of broader problems within the left as a whole. What do you think?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Indeed. If one cannot organize with revolutionary anti-capitalist solely because of theoretical positions, especially those which were made decades ago, than it is a problem for the left. For instance, though I dislike Anarchist theory and abhor their positions on certain subjects I do not shriek away from organizing with them; this is because building a soild Leftist force is far more important than petty sect politics.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I agree, I feel like there can be alot of unity between Trotskyist and Anti-Revisionists because both of our movements are based on a rejection of Soviet Revisionism. I feel like if we can convince them to abandon their sectarian hatred of what they term "Stalinism" and start to engage our ideology on it's own terms than perhaps we can get some where

[Ostrinski]

The Soviet Union is dead. Therefore any position toward it is irrelevant with regard to practical organizing. Now obviously if one thinks that the Soviet Union under Stalin was socialist it is somewhat of a different story because it leads me to think that we are not fighting for the same things. However, I'd still be willing to do work with them provided they are not in the majority of whatever project is going on.

The Trotskyist parties are known for their rife sectarianism toward each other which is quite unfortunate. There are thousands of rank and file class struggle militants organized into these parties that are dedicated to socialism but with a bureaucratic party elite running everything and a lack of party democracy sectarianism becomes natural.

I say rank and file party members should move against the countenance of the upper echelons of the parties and build unity with each other. After all, the rank and file membership have more interest in unity than the party bureaucrats who's careers depend against it.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

If the ISO or any organization is in the habit of doing or supporting things that are ridiculous in the eyes of other leftists, why should they be obligated to organize with you? Perhaps they feel that you are part of the problem, and that any cooperation with you would undermine the goal at hand. If the positions the ISO has taken in the past had no bearing on the organization's character, then why did they take them in the first place?

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

If the ISO or any organization is in the habit of doing or supporting things that are ridiculous in the eyes of other leftists, why should they be obligated to organize with you? Perhaps they feel that you are part of the problem, and that any cooperation with you would undermine the goal at hand. If the positions the ISO has taken in the past had no bearing on the organization's character, then why did they take them in the first place?
And there is definitely room for such debate. But when there is concrete struggle taking place, should those debates preclude cooperation? Considering how small the left is in the US, expecting everyone one organizes with to agree on everything seems unrealistic.

[Ravachol]

I dunno, it is my practical experience with the Dutch section of the IST (from which the ISO was expelled/split/whatever) more than their trot politics which drove me away from ever working together with them again, and that was when I was still in a group with MLs mind you.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

And there is definitely room for such debate. But when there is concrete struggle taking place, should those debates preclude cooperation? Considering how small the left is in the US, expecting everyone one organizes with to agree on everything seems unrealistic.

What is the concrete struggle? Presumably it's the struggle for communism, please don't take this as a personal attack, but I don't consider the ISO to be a communist organization so I would definitely be hesitant to enter into any kind of cooperation with them. This goes deeper than all of us being on the left to some degree if we are talking about more than reformist politics.

If you are looking to organize for higher taxes/against social spending cuts, then I don't think you need to rely on leftists for this kind of agitation. They may even be a hindrance to your public image. But if you're looking for revolutionary agitation, then yeah you're going to at least have to find people that agree with your definition of revolutionary agitation.

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

What is the concrete struggle? Presumably it's the struggle for communism, please don't take this as a personal attack, but I don't consider the ISO to be a communist organization so I would definitely be hesitant to enter into any kind of cooperation with them. This goes deeper than all of us being on the left to some degree if we are talking about more than reformist politics.

If you are looking to organize for higher taxes/against social spending cuts, then I don't think you need to rely on leftists for this kind of agitation. They may even be a hindrance to your public image. But if you're looking for revolutionary agitation, then yeah you're going to at least have to find people that agree with your definition of revolutionary agitation.

I only brought up my involvement with the ISO to give background for my examples. I encountered similar attitudes before I was affiliated with any organization, and I definitely have noticed them from people within the organization as well.

A great example of concrete struggle happening locally was the disastrous public transit worker strike over the summer. It lasted only a day and received little solidarity even from the local activist community before they were forced to cave.

[sixdollarchampagne]

With respect for the members of the ISO, it is one of the more curious features of that organization, at least in the southern New England college town where I used to live, that they thought that discussing political differences between the ISO and other tendencies, at the public forums the ISO had there, was "sectarian." and they even suggested that I stop going to their forums.

If the ISO were a mass party of labor, then, maybe disagreeing with them could be described as "sectarian," but I really don't think that their relative weight on the minuscule and largely Democrat-loyal US left, as the biggest frog in a very small pond, makes them a predominant political force, and political disagreements and discussions, even sharp ones, can lead to a clarification of views.

Speaking concretely, I hope it will always be remembered that the ISO leadership hailed Obama's first election in 2008 as "transformative." That one position shows just how great the distance is between the ISO and any politics that could be considered revolutionary. The ISO state-caps are so far to the right that subjective revolutionaries (in other groups) are understandably reluctant to work with them. From where I sat, when I lived in New England, the local ISO sure looked like cheerleaders for the Democrats (they served as volunteer publicists when a Democrat on the City Council made a trip to Honduras, and they also organized buses to take people to the Democrat pre-election "One Nation" rally in DC years ago), but maybe the ISO in other places is somewhat different).

[Leftsolidarity]

So I am a part of my local branch of the ISO, and in my efforts to try to create an organized left in the region, I have encountered a surprising amount of sectarianism from other Marxists. One wouldn't organize with me because of the position that the ISO took in 1979 during the Iranian Revolution. Another person wouldn't organize with us because we had different views on the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. Although I certainly agree that these historical questions are important, they are pretty irrelevant when it comes to organizing the left in the contemporary Midwest of the USA and shouldn't preclude coalition building. My concern is that this is not just immaturity or misplaced priorities on the part of a few individuals but instead is indicative of broader problems within the left as a whole. What do you think?

And those reasons for not working together are stupid. I'm definitely not a fan of the ISO and view a lot of their politics as trash but if (and it's happened) the ISO wants to work together on something in which there is common ground, it should be done. There is a lot of justified resentment towards the ISO from other Leninists, though, so don't be shocked if that continues.

[Le Socialiste]

Sectarianism on the left is an unfortunate reality that has as much to do with history as it does theory. This is particularly pronounced amongst Trotskyist organizations, specifically those with an (in)formal sense of programmatic fetishism; that is, defense of "the program" above all else - irrespective of shifts in the conditions or motions of the working-class. For many, it becomes a matter of defending the fundamentals of communism rather than, as Duncan Hallas said, "applying them in actual working-class struggles."

The tendency for most Trotskyist groups to move towards splits, factions, and such finds its basis in Trotsky's own vacillations throughout his exile (1929-40). Though these are traceable to materially concrete shifts or changes in the Soviet Union, the Comintern, and elsewhere, they remain heavily influential for groups today who are unwilling (or unable) to assess specific strains of Trotsky's thought in context. Naturally, the general decline and stagnation of workers' movements - wherein acts of militancy were considered a rarity until more recently - has resulted in this emphasis on "the program," a fetish that has continually resulted in the splintering and isolation of the left. (Or, at least, those on the left who would otherwise be of like mind.)

For example, I could really care less if another organization's membership happened to agree with another one that yes, the USSR was not 'socialist' - but rather a degenerated workers' state than state capitalist. The ISO's stance on the subject, for instance, happens to bring it into some direct 'theoretical differences' with other Trotskyist camps. This needn't preclude it from coordinating actively with said groupings, and vice versa. In fact, my experience with the ISO has so far been just that: constant engagement with other left (or more specifically, Trotskyist) organizations that disagree with us on some of the fundamental points of Trotskyism, in an assortment of different efforts and coalitions aimed at a wider issue or movement. Sometimes things progress smoothly, sometimes they don't. I'd rather not waste time going into detail on all of it, in part because my thoughts on the subject are constrained by what I've seen and experienced in the U.S./Bay Area. I will say that much of what I've experienced had less to do with anything concretely theoretical, but instead came down to petty factional loyalties in which the group one belonged to dictated one's relationships with others outside that organization's circle.

The ISO, like many other revolutionary organizations, has its shortcomings. What I find strange is how these become such focal points for others on the left. I couldn't tell you how many times I've been harassed by folks due to my activity in the ISO. It's unfortunate that a few organizations make a point of singling us out, like the SEP (which is an extreme example). In the Bay Area, for instance, two of the major (but regrettably smaller) orgs in the Bay Area have made points of targeting the ISO for arguably ridiculous reasons - reasons they've had to retract on multiple occasions, on account of being untrue. And these are groups that are more theoretically and 'ideologically' close to us! One attacks us for not supporting the goal of a national labor party 24/7, another because we're "secret Democrats," etc. It's ridiculous, and more often than not, unnecessary.

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

The way I see it just an excuse to not work together. Because that is exactly what you said, OP. I have been refused unit because 'my party' (I'm not even a member, just a sympathizer) was part of the Comintern. Well, it is almost 2013 and, I don't intend to point the finger to anyone, these small Trotskyst groups insist in fighting over something that was extinguished nearly 60 years ago.

This sectarianism only makes the left weaker and weaker.

[Let's Get Free]

There are far too many people concerned with 'ideological purity,' however there is no such thing.

[The Idler]

True but there are also too many people trading away political principles (the basis of practice) under the guise of unity but in reality for the prospect of increased support. Failed strategies are more likely to deter the class.

[blake 3:17]

Getting hung up on the IST's positions on international issues from 30 years ago makes very little sense.

The priority should be on socialist strategy today and creating new organizations which can win real change.

[Manic Impressive]

All I see in this thread is people who should know better making crappy excuses for their organizations anti working class politics. Putting the party's interests above those of the class, THAT'S SECTARIANISM.

[Le Socialiste]

All I see in this thread is people who should know better making crappy excuses for their organizations anti working class politics. Putting the party's interests above those of the class, THAT'S SECTARIANISM.

Which organization(s) are you referring to here? Who's advocating putting party interests above class? Instead of writing what I've quoted above, why don't you expand on some of your 'points' here? I know I would appreciate it.

[Skyhilist]

If the ISO or any organization is in the habit of doing or supporting things that are ridiculous in the eyes of other leftists, why should they be obligated to organize with you? Perhaps they feel that you are part of the problem, and that any cooperation with you would undermine the goal at hand. If the positions the ISO has taken in the past had no bearing on the organization's character, then why did they take them in the first place?

OP is not saying that they should be forced to organize with him/her. He/she is just saying that the reasons for these people not organizing with him he feels are pretty trivial and stupid and perpetuate the division of the left... which I happen to agree with personally.

[Ostrinski]

With regard to Trotsky and the culture of sectarianism, splits, et al. in the Trotskyist tradition: one has to admit, though, that it has gotten worse since then and and is worse than Trotsky himself. Take for example the issue of the SWP (US) that split in half over the issue of the Winter War. Trotsky of course supported the Soviet Union's actions during the Winter War but obviously many in the 4th International did not.

It led to a split from the SWP (Schacthtman and co.) that founded some other party that died out in the 60's. However, even though Trotsky derided those that opposed the Soviet Union's actions in the Winter War as "the petite bourgeois opposition" (which was pretty routine treatment for all of Trotsky's opponents on any issue), he still didn't see it as an issue worth splitting over.

Now compare that with what Trotskyism has degenerated into with regard to split/sect culture. Splits happen all the time over much less. My guess is that it's because Trotsky died before the conclusion of World War II and thus never had the opportunity to correct any mistakes he might have had beforehand and develop new perspectives, and also because of how much weight Trotsky's positions had on the 4th International after he died, which ensured that every divergence in opinion was seen as a cataclysmic break.

[Le Socialiste]

It's true, unfortunately. Trotsky's attempts to seek out and preserve the 'authentic' traditions of the communist movement amidst such unfavorable conditions imposed outstanding limitations on Trotskyism as a wider theoretical continuation of the strategy, tactics, and doctrine of Lenin and the early Comintern. While he was aware of these and the degenerative effects they'd have, he also contributed to them in ways that exacerbated them. These distortions, while more or less evident, have certainly come to the fore historically and in recent years. Part of the issue, at least amongst what constitutes the left in the U.S., is the lack of sizable activity amongst both workers and their more class-conscious counterparts. Despite recent developments - which should be noted and appreciated within their proper contexts - the left (and perhaps Trotskyist groups in particular) has reacted to the absence of a workers' movement with turns emphasizing the importance and significance of theoretical and programmatic 'purity'. A general lack of experience (both in terms of theoretical and practical activity) amongst today's left has produced a predominantly ultra-leftist interpretation of the current period and all the pieces and factors within it, contributing further to the sectarianism that runs through our movement.