Ist

[Art Vandelay]

What, if any, broader implications does the recent happenings with the SWP, have for the IST?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Is the SWP the largest of the IST groups and do they have a big role (organization wise) in the IST?

I think it is necessary to know that before being able to judge what effects it will have.

[Art Vandelay]

I am fairly certain that the SWP was indeed the largest IST presence among the 27 countries that they can be found in. As to the organization role of the SWP, I think its impossible to know; from wikipedia:


Unlike many international tendencies the IST has no formal organisational structures and has only ever made one publicly known decision, which was to expel the US International Socialist Organization (ISO) from its ranks

The reason I am asking is cause I'm planning on joining a party. While I have theoretical differences with nearly every party in existence, the only possible way to help create a revolutionary Marxist party, would be to fight for one from the inside. I'm considering the IST and the CWI's branches in my country, but figured this would be something important to consider.

[Sasha]

I would go for the CWI, the IST are a cheap fuck...

[Art Vandelay]

I would go for the CWI, the IST are a cheap fuck...

Any elaboration? I've been leaning to the IST, mainly due to the fact that they seem to have a larger presence in my country, but this won't be the deciding factor for me. To begin with I was thinking CWI.

[BOZG]

Is the SWP the largest of the IST groups and do they have a big role (organization wise) in the IST?

I think it is necessary to know that before being able to judge what effects it will have.

I would be almost certain that it's the biggest group and that it is the heart of the IST. What impact the scandal will have on the IST as a whole is hard to say?

They have lost their section in Serbia while members in other sections have openly criticised the British CC whereas the Canadian section has chosen to not have a position. I honestly think that the show will go on as the IST is a very lose International. It is far closer to being a paper international than to an International along the lines of the Second or Third Internationals.

It tends to be more of a solidarity group made up of parties with similar programmes rather than a world party with sections in different countries if you get what I mean. And I have always got the impression that there is a culture, pushed from the leadership, to see other sections as sister parties but entirely independent of each other - i.e. It's not your place to comment on or criticise what another section does.

Quite a lot of the pro-CC comments that I've read over the past few weeks certainly confirm my suspicion and the decision of some sections to not have a position on the scandal etc. is also indicative of this.

[Art Vandelay]

I would be almost certain that it's the biggest group and that it is the heart of the IST. What impact the scandal will have on the IST as a whole is hard to say?

They have lost their section in Serbia while members in other sections have openly criticised the British CC whereas the Canadian section has chosen to not have a position. I honestly think that the show will go on as the IST is a very lose International. It is far closer to being a paper international than to an International along the lines of the Second or Third Internationals.

It tends to be more of a solidarity group made up of parties with similar programmes rather than a world party with sections in different countries if you get what I mean. And I have always got the impression that there is a culture, pushed from the leadership, to see other sections as sister parties but entirely independent of each other - i.e. It's not your place to comment on or criticise what another section does.

Quite a lot of the pro-CC comments that I've read over the past few weeks certainly confirm my suspicion and the decision of some sections to not have a position on the scandal etc. is also indicative of this.

This is the impression I had been getting through my research as well. The CWI seems to have a much better, centralized, organizational structure; my only worry is the issue this could have for internal democracy. As for the IST, it seems thataffiliations seem to operate almost as affinity groups, as opposed to an actual international. The fact that they chose not denounce what has been taking place in the SWP, is pretty damming. I'm not sure if I can be involved with a group which sits in silence while that type of behavior is taking place within the organization.

[Sasha]

Any elaboration? I've been leaning to the IST, mainly due to the fact that they seem to have a larger presence in my country, but this won't be the deciding factor for me. To begin with I was thinking CWI.

Pro's: easy to get into, experienced
cons: high turnover, insincere, no principles, will leave you with a massive hang-over
Hence "cheap fuck"

[BOZG]

This is the impression I had been getting through my research as well. The CWI seems to have a much better, centralized, organizational structure; my only worry is the issue this could have for internal democracy. As for the IST, it seems thataffiliations seem to operate almost as affinity groups, as opposed to an actual international. The fact that they chose not denounce what has been taking place in the SWP, is pretty damming. I'm not sure if I can be involved with a group which sits in silence while that type of behavior is taking place within the organization.

Affinity groups is the perfect phrase for the IST.

As for democracy in the CWI, as far as I'm concerned, it is one of those cases where centralisation allows for far superior democracy because there are very clear and open channels for democracy. The International Executive Committee, made up of delegates from each section, meets one a year while regional ECs meet in between. There are often visits made by members of the International to the different sections and each others conferences. During election campaigns, we encourage each other to send people - for assistance but also as a way of building comradeship, sharing experiences. There is an annual summer school which provides "ordinary" members can meet and discuss and take part in the debates regardless of what section it applies.

[Lucretia]

The IST isn't really an international organization, as noted above. To the extent that there is any "organization," it is highly bureaucratized (under the 'leadership' of the SWP), much like the SWP itself is bureaucratized, as evidenced by the goings-on of the past two months. It's odd, though, that you are choosing between these two groups as, from what I can tell, they are very very different programatically. IST groups really don't have a program at all, at least not a formally written one, but rather engage in a kind of "movementism" where they careen from movement to movement, depending on whichever one is heating up at the present moment, in hopes of culling participants into their own ranks. If you don't mind your head spinning from all the abrupt strategic reversals, you might want to consider trying them out.

The CWI is much more conventionally Trotskyist, and as part of this still maintains the unconscionable "deformed workers state" line, though I think their variation on it is idiosyncratic. Their tradition also indicates a highly questionable approach to entryism (deep entryism in times of low struggle), a traditional that was only recently abandoned by the CWI on the basis that, e.g., the British labour party is no longer a labor party (which, IMO, is quite wrong) -- it continues to be a petty bourgeois labor party the same as it always has been, even if it has moved farther to the right to reveal its true colors.

I guess it all really depends on what views and practices you consider most important in a party.

[Art Vandelay]

The IST isn't really an international organization, as noted above. To the extent that there is any "organization," it is highly bureaucratized (under the 'leadership' of the SWP), much like the SWP itself is bureaucratized, as evidenced by the goings-on of the past two months. It's odd, though, that you are choosing between these two groups as, from what I can tell, they are very very different programatically. IST groups really don't have a program at all, at least not a formally written one, but rather engage in a kind of "movementism" where they careen from movement to movement, depending on whichever one is heating up at the present moment, in hopes of culling participants into their own ranks. If you don't mind your head spinning from all the abrupt strategic reversals, you might want to consider trying them out.

The CWI is much more conventionally Trotskyist, and as part of this still maintains the unconscionable "deformed workers state" line, though I think their variation on it is idiosyncratic. Their tradition also indicates a highly questionable approach to entryism (deep entryism in times of low struggle), a traditional that was only recently abandoned by the CWI on the basis that, e.g., the British labour party is no longer a labor party (which, IMO, is quite wrong) -- it continues to be a petty bourgeois labor party the same as it always has been, even if it has moved farther to the right to reveal its true colors.

I guess it all really depends on what views and practices you consider most important in a party.

The reason I am choosing between the two, is due to the fact that they seem to be the only parties in my country with any presence. There is a Maoist party with a little bit of support and some M-L parties, but quite obviously none of them interest me.

The entryism has since been abandoned in the CWI (from what I read) which is definitely a plus for them, since that tactic is a dead end as far as I'm concerned. I also don't support the DWS theory, as it is generally known, so that may be a bit of an issue, however I know that Q is a member of the CWI and mine and his politics are relatively similar. I'm not all too concerned with that however, as I stated above, the whole purpose of this for me is to democratically fight within an organization for my convictions.

The fact that the IST is highly bureaucratizated under the SWP makes me no longer interested in them. That party is a sinking ship and should be abandoned.

[Lucretia]

The reason I am choosing between the two, is due to the fact that they seem to be the only parties in my country with any presence. There is a Maoist party with a little bit of support and some M-L parties, but quite obviously none of them interest me.

The entryism has since been abandoned in the CWI (from what I read) which is definitely a plus for them, since that tactic is a dead end as far as I'm concerned. I also don't support the DWS theory, as it is generally known, so that may be a bit of an issue, however I know that Q is a member of the CWI and mine and his politics are relatively similar. I'm not all too concerned with that however, as I stated above, the whole purpose of this for me is to democratically fight within an organization for my convictions.

The fact that the IST is highly bureaucratizated under the SWP makes me no longer interested in them. That party is a sinking ship and should be abandoned.

That's fine about entering the organization to fight for your views. Just keep in mind that it is a Leninist party, and that you'll be expected to toe the line publicly on such things as DWS theory if you don't manage to get a majority to your side (which would be highly unlikely, since most people who reject DWS would probably choose another organization).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Problem with both IST and CWI is that they have the ideological purity of a mongrel dog.

I mean seriously, I know people have a disdain for theoretical purity and so on, but it is important to at least have some knowledge. It's well known that the SWP membership are largely (but not totally, of course!) clueless about Trotskyist theory, and my dealings with the SPEW (CWI in England and Wales) lead me to conclude similarly about them.

I don't understand the purpose of either party, tbh. They seem to operate in a total vacuum and seem to exist only because nobody will take the decision to disband them.

[BOZG]

Problem with both IST and CWI is that they have the ideological purity of a mongrel dog.

I mean seriously, I know people have a disdain for theoretical purity and so on, but it is important to at least have some knowledge. It's well known that the SWP membership are largely (but not totally, of course!) clueless about Trotskyist theory, and my dealings with the SPEW (CWI in England and Wales) lead me to conclude similarly about them.

I don't understand the purpose of either party, tbh. They seem to operate in a total vacuum and seem to exist only because nobody will take the decision to disband them.

It would of course be much better to maintain absolute ideological purity, refuse to entertain anyone until they have read the collected works of Lenin in their original and join the ranks of the numerous irrelevant sects. Yes, that's a good idea.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It would of course be much better to maintain absolute ideological purity, refuse to entertain anyone until they have read the collected works of Lenin in their original and join the ranks of the numerous irrelevant sects. Yes, that's a good idea.

I wasn't talking about absolute ideological purity, but like, i've known comrades in the IST and CWI who don't know what permanent revolution is, or don't understand what a market is.

It's not their fault, it's the fault of the organisation and points to a huge failure of the latter.

[Art Vandelay]

Well if this is something that I notice in my section, it is an issue that I can raise and hopefully try to help correct among the comrades in my area. I'm not that well read when it comes to theory, but despite having lots more learning to do, I do have a decent grasp.

[blake 3:17]

The American ISO seems to have done better since leaving the IST.

Given how easy it is to communicate internationally these days, I am less convinced of the need for micro-Internationals to tell people what to think.

[Art Vandelay]

The American ISO seems to have done better since leaving the IST.

Given how easy it is to communicate internationally these days, I am less convinced of the need for micro-Internationals to tell people what to think.

I could agree with this sentiment during a non-revolutionary period; however during any revolutionary upsurge, I feel the need for tight co-ordination and centralization would increase.

[Aurora]

I'm not all too concerned with that however, as I stated above, the whole purpose of this for me is to democratically fight within an organization for my convictions.

Well if this is something that I notice in my section, it is an issue that I can raise and hopefully try to help correct among the comrades in my area.
This is a very admirable attitude to have.

If you do contact the CWI make sure the comrade you talk to about membership explains your rights and responsibilities as a member and ask about the democratic procedure within the party.

[Art Vandelay]

This is a very admirable attitude to have.

If you do contact the CWI make sure the comrade you talk to about membership explains your rights and responsibilities as a member and ask about the democratic procedure within the party.

Thanks for the tips. I have applied to join over their website, but a CWI member on the board has let me know that it would probably be best to try and contact my countries branch directly, so at the moment I'm trying to locate a # or email address to speed the whole process up.

[BOZG]

I wasn't talking about absolute ideological purity, but like, i've known comrades in the IST and CWI who don't know what permanent revolution is, or don't understand what a market is.

It's not their fault, it's the fault of the organisation and points to a huge failure of the latter.

There can never be enough resources and emphasis put on political and theoretical development and I would doubt that there is a single branch or branch leadership in the CWI that doesn't discuss political education and the need to theoretically arm our comrades on a regular basis. But I think you underestimate what a task that is.

By the very nature of our relatively open recruitment policy, there is probably a significantly large number of people with a relatively low level of political consciousness.

I don't make any apologies for that - I'd much rather work alongside people who know fuck all about anything but who can potentially be developed, particularly through their involvement in actual struggles, than have an exclusionist policy that demands a particular level of ideological purity before joining. I will leave that to the sects.

They have all the time in the world to focus on theoretical education because they're entirely removed from struggle and from any actual interaction with workers - something which provides a far better basis for political development than sitting around discussing ideas in a purely abstract form.

You can feel free to criticise the pace we do it at but it's certainly not a conscious dismissal of theory.

As for it "not being their fault", my experience is that in some cases it actually is. I'm not blaming people for having a particular level of development but with some people, it's like hitting your head off a brick wall. Sometimes no matter how hard you try, some people just don't get it. That doesn't mean that they lose their affinity for socialism or at least for what their understanding of socialism is - some do of course - but they're just very hard to develop or to encourage to develop. I know people who have been active on the left for decades, would consider themselves Marxists but they're as theoretically shit as they were 20 years ago despite an enormous amount of energy and work being spent on trying to theoretically arm them. Nonetheless I'm happy to continue working alongside them. Maybe you think we should just kick them out though.

[Red Enemy]

The IST as an organization does not operate on democratic centralism, and therefore each group in the IST are, for lack of a better word, autonomous of one another.

A leading member of the IS in Canada, for instance, has expressed to me his concern for lack of internal democracy in the SWP, among other things.

[The Idler]

The IST as an organization does not operate on democratic centralism, and therefore each group in the IST are, for lack of a better word, autonomous of one another.

A leading member of the IS in Canada, for instance, has expressed to me his concern for lack of internal democracy in the SWP, among other things.
Is expression of concern incompatible with democratic centralism?

[Red Enemy]

Is expression of concern incompatible with democratic centralism?
No, this isn't what I meant.

The point is that if the IST operated in a democratic centralist fashion, with the SWP at it's head, then it would go to show that the internal democracy issues would be throughout the IST.

However, since the IST as an organization does not have that, you don't have the problems across the board.

[blake 3:17]

Is expression of concern incompatible with democratic centralism?

Apparently in this case it is. Is 'democratic centralism' anything much more than a bit of jargon? And who determines the centre? From my experience of the IS it has been the SWP leadership who've been 'the centre' and others were free to babble on but it would essentially be ignored.

My worst experiences with IST nonsense was in the late 90s around a whole set of issues, domestic and international. The problem I could see was that the line was being dropped from Daddy England and a whole lot of very good activists felt compelled to follow it, not because it was right, but because Daddy said so.

One of the biggest fights we had was over the nature of the Left response to the barbaric attacks on Serbia by NATO. While acknowledging the ethnic/national oppression of peoples in the former Yugoslavia, the IST line was to not allow that discussion to take place. In retrospect, the best position would have been openly admit that the situation was complicated, but that the most vital thing we could do was to oppose imperial aggression against Milosevic and let the peoples of the region sort it out themselves.

Callinicos and the IST have attacked the idea of 'permanent factions', but why not support a multi-tendency approach? In terms of practical political and social struggle, I've often worked better with people who were 'different' ideologically. The narrow scholasticism of splitting over abstract issues is not what the radical Left needs or what our movements need.