Luxemburg-leaning Trot looking for a political home!

[ThePeoplesProf]

Hi comrades. I'm a new member and I'm happy to have finally joined RevLeft! I posted a bit about myself in the Intros section and now I'd like to ask some pretty specific questions regarding some groups I'm considering joining: the ISO mainly but also SAlt and similar organizations. Guidance from comrades in those groups would be greatly appreciated but I'd also be very grateful for any and all sincere and helpful feedback from anyone kind and patient enough to help orient me. :confused: Thank you all in advance!

I've been an ISO "contact" for about a year in the northeast U.S. (I'd prefer not to specify which city I've been organizing in but I might feel ok revealing this via PM to certain folks). I'm not officially a member yet as I personally need to read more Lenin and Trotsky before I can confidently join. But I've been involved in activism and organizing with them for about a year and my politics do very much align with theirs. I'll state right off the bat that it's thanks to the ISO that my class consciousness and radicalization have markedly strengthened in the past year. I'm extremely grateful for the opportunities I've had to engage with such politically articulate and committed comrades and to have been able to read and discuss really important texts and theories with very knowledgeable folks.

I'm stuck however on the question of democratic centralism. By "stuck", I mean that I'm not sure whether I fully feel right supporting Lenin rather than, say, Luxemburg's more democratic and less centralized perspective. To make this reservation a bit more concrete, I have to admit that I've felt, in some ways, alienated by the ISO, its party structure, bureaucracy, seeming lack of transparency (e.g. I have the impression that no one but the leaders know certain specifics, like how many members there are) and especially the way that rank-and-file members put nearly the entirety of their energy into selling the SW paper and recruiting/training new cadre. The endless bickering and at times non-political and uncomradely debates I've witnessed have been off-putting to say the least (and this is an impression shared by a handful of fellow contacts). I do realize of course that one city's branch(es) can't reflect on the entirety of the organization, but it's all I have to work with at the moment.

I'm also not sure how I feel about the way the ISO has on more than one occasion dealt with dissent, i.e. via expulsion. I've read accounts by former members (who either resigned or were expelled) and it all just really gives me pause. I realize that there are some bitter individuals who make non-political attacks on the organization; I know better than to naively believe any old piece I find written about them. One particular account, however, about issues in two east coast cities from before the time I was involved, seems genuine and I find it to be very disturbing. Apparently as a new RevLeft member I'm not allowed to post links yet but if you simply google "ISO whitening" it's one of the top results (ignore the toothpaste ads, of course); it was re-posted in the Politics section of RevLeft, if that's helpful. The comrade who posted that account had apparently been committed to the organization for a few years and then all of a sudden, it was all for naught, and her hard work and contributions were dismissed and so was she in what seems to have been an undemocratic and non-transparent manner. This. just. terrifies. me!

I do realize that the ruling class is extremely well organized and that it will likewise require a highly organized fight back on the part of the working class. I'm more or less convinced of the importance of the most militant workers getting the ball rolling and supporting their fellow workers' struggles and helping them radicalize and get organized (i.e. the notion of the vanguard). But again, I'm not sure if I'm fully Leninist here or if I prefer Luxemburg's more attenuated view of the vanguard. I don't mean to come off as anti-Lenin, however, as I really do appreciate his idea that revolutionary socialists must be a "tribune of the oppressed". Rather than the classic and dismissive response that women, people of color, lgbtq folks, the disabled, immigrants, et al. used to (and sadly sometimes still) hear that our specific issues will somehow be resolved after the revolution if we just focus on the class war (as if it could somehow be considered separately from these issues, in a vacuum), I believe that these oft-marginalized groups need to be at the forefront of our collective revolutionary class struggle. The ISO seems to be down with this view, and I appreciate that. Also, I find Lenin's writings on imperialism to be useful. By the way, I'm still learning about all of this (hence why I'm posting here :confused:) so if anyone could point me to specific readings to improve my understanding, I'd be extremely grateful!

By no means have I ruled out joining the ISO. I guess it would be helpful to me for ISO members who may have at one point had similar reservations to share with me how they eventually got over them. Also, are there any Socialist Alternative comrades who might be able to explain why SAlt might be an organization I should be considering? Both groups are present in my city. I know that without revealing my exact location, it might be difficult for people to suggest other groups for me to consider but does anyone know whether there exist somewhere on the east coast any Trot-leaning groups which are open to Luxemburg's critiques of Lenin, democratic centralism and the notion of the vanguard?

I apologize for not being more direct about where I'm organizing but my reticence has to do with my (perhaps somewhat irrational) fear of getting on the ISO's bad side if I do eventually become a member. I also wouldn't want my comrades to feel like I'm in any way devaluing their indispensable contributions to my political development. Moreover, I hope that ISO comrades in general who might be reading this don't take my post as trash talking the ISO. Far from it! I'm hoping that my reservations and political questions can be addressed so that I feel ready to join. Though with Kshama Sawant's recent victory in Seattle, I must say that I'm intrigued by SAlt and would like to learn how I might fit into that group politically speaking. What are the significant differences between the two (besides the perspectives on how much energy to invest in electoral politics and when)? And finally, are there groups ideologically similar to the ISO and SAlt which don't prioritize paper sales and recruitment quite as highly? I'm looking to get more directly involved in activism and organizing around many local and international issues and I frankly don't know if I'm ready to be burned out selling papers. I think I see the importance of paper sales and hardcore recruitment efforts, but are these the only ways we can be involved as revolutionary socialists in the 21st century?

Thanks once again for your time and patience comrades!

In solidarity,
ThePeoplesProf

[Sabot Cat]

Hello there, and welcome to our forum!

I appreciate your thinking about this issue, and I think you'll get a wide variety of responses from our members. I'll say that I am personally weary of the idea of vanguardism and democratic centralism. Whenever a small political minority (understood to be the vangaurd) has seized the means of production on behalf of the working class through revolutionary warfare, they have never worked to then extend that control to them afterwards. I don't believe this is because of fundamental errors in their ideologies, but because such a method of revolution invariably leads to state capitalism. Once the vanguard takes over the state, they must maintain that power through censorship and an exclusive ownership on the weapons of war. When no one can displace the vanguard militarily, they are free to abuse that intractable position of authority to exploit the proletariat for their own benefit. Thus, as demonstrated by history and in theory, vanguardism leads to state capitalism.

A superior form of revolution in my opinion is that of the general strike and mass protest. The bourgeois relies upon the labor of the proletariat to survive, and for their capital to have value. If enough people were to refuse to work for them, and occupy their factories and workplaces while protesting their reign, they would have to eventually cede power to the workers because their basis of power would be gone. It could become a shooting war if the police and military become involved, but I'm not sure if we would need anything more than a free association of autonomous workers or workers that are seeking autonomy to lead the charge.

[IBleedRed]

I am on and off with the ISO. They're the only "game in town" in my area, but I don't like their politics in general (especially their conclusions about Soviet history). They're not horrible, though.

Get involved with whatever sane, constructive groups you want. If and when a workers' revolution happens, it won't be the ISO or SAlt or any of these groups leading it. Don't get too caught up in sectarianism, it's already a huge problem for the left.

If you're interested, you should look into the IWW. It's a radical union and focuses more on activism in the workplace and community projects, which you might be interested in. Working with a radical union might be more focused and more interesting than working with an overtly political group.

[ChrisK]

Hello there, and welcome to our forum!

I appreciate your thinking about this issue, and I think you'll get a wide variety of responses from our members. I'll say that I am personally weary of the idea of vanguardism and democratic centralism. Whenever a small political minority (understood to be the vangaurd) has seized the means of production on behalf of the working class through revolutionary warfare, they have never worked to then extend that control to them afterwards. I don't believe this is because of fundamental errors in their ideologies, but because such a method of revolution invariably leads to state capitalism. Once the vanguard takes over the state, they must maintain that power through censorship and an exclusive ownership on the weapons of war. When no one can displace the vanguard militarily, they are free to abuse that intractable position of authority to exploit the proletariat for their own benefit. Thus, as demonstrated by history and in theory, vanguardism leads to state capitalism.

A superior form of revolution in my opinion is that of the general strike and mass protest. The bourgeois relies upon the labor of the proletariat to survive, and for their capital to have value. If enough people were to refuse to work for them, and occupy their factories and workplaces while protesting their reign, they would have to eventually cede power to the workers because their basis of power would be gone. It could become a shooting war if the police and military become involved, but I'm not sure if we would need anything more than a free association of autonomous workers or workers that are seeking autonomy to lead the charge.

I'm not too sure you have a full grasp on what vanguard means in the Bolshevik tradition. It does not mean a minority military take over in the name of the proletariat as in the Maoist sense (my apologies if I've mischaracterized Maoism). What it means is the core group of people who pretty much dedicate their lives to the revolution. If anything, the way you describe a revolution is very similar to how I view it, with the only difference being that I think the proletariat must also take over the political structure as happened during the early days of the October Revolution.

[ChrisK]

Hi comrades. I'm a new member and I'm happy to have finally joined RevLeft! I posted a bit about myself in the Intros section and now I'd like to ask some pretty specific questions regarding some groups I'm considering joining: the ISO mainly but also SAlt and similar organizations. Guidance from comrades in those groups would be greatly appreciated but I'd also be very grateful for any and all sincere and helpful feedback from anyone kind and patient enough to help orient me. :confused: Thank you all in advance!

I've been an ISO "contact" for about a year in the northeast U.S. (I'd prefer not to specify which city I've been organizing in but I might feel ok revealing this via PM to certain folks). I'm not officially a member yet as I personally need to read more Lenin and Trotsky before I can confidently join. But I've been involved in activism and organizing with them for about a year and my politics do very much align with theirs. I'll state right off the bat that it's thanks to the ISO that my class consciousness and radicalization have markedly strengthened in the past year. I'm extremely grateful for the opportunities I've had to engage with such politically articulate and committed comrades and to have been able to read and discuss really important texts and theories with very knowledgeable folks.

I'm stuck however on the question of democratic centralism. By "stuck", I mean that I'm not sure whether I fully feel right supporting Lenin rather than, say, Luxemburg's more democratic and less centralized perspective. To make this reservation a bit more concrete, I have to admit that I've felt, in some ways, alienated by the ISO, its party structure, bureaucracy, seeming lack of transparency (e.g. I have the impression that no one but the leaders know certain specifics, like how many members there are) and especially the way that rank-and-file members put nearly the entirety of their energy into selling the SW paper and recruiting/training new cadre. The endless bickering and at times non-political and uncomradely debates I've witnessed have been off-putting to say the least (and this is an impression shared by a handful of fellow contacts). I do realize of course that one city's branch(es) can't reflect on the entirety of the organization, but it's all I have to work with at the moment.

I'm also not sure how I feel about the way the ISO has on more than one occasion dealt with dissent, i.e. via expulsion. I've read accounts by former members (who either resigned or were expelled) and it all just really gives me pause. I realize that there are some bitter individuals who make non-political attacks on the organization; I know better than to naively believe any old piece I find written about them. One particular account, however, about issues in two east coast cities from before the time I was involved, seems genuine and I find it to be very disturbing. Apparently as a new RevLeft member I'm not allowed to post links yet but if you simply google "ISO whitening" it's one of the top results (ignore the toothpaste ads, of course); it was re-posted in the Politics section of RevLeft, if that's helpful. The comrade who posted that account had apparently been committed to the organization for a few years and then all of a sudden, it was all for naught, and her hard work and contributions were dismissed and so was she in what seems to have been an undemocratic and non-transparent manner. This. just. terrifies. me!

I do realize that the ruling class is extremely well organized and that it will likewise require a highly organized fight back on the part of the working class. I'm more or less convinced of the importance of the most militant workers getting the ball rolling and supporting their fellow workers' struggles and helping them radicalize and get organized (i.e. the notion of the vanguard). But again, I'm not sure if I'm fully Leninist here or if I prefer Luxemburg's more attenuated view of the vanguard. I don't mean to come off as anti-Lenin, however, as I really do appreciate his idea that revolutionary socialists must be a "tribune of the oppressed". Rather than the classic and dismissive response that women, people of color, lgbtq folks, the disabled, immigrants, et al. used to (and sadly sometimes still) hear that our specific issues will somehow be resolved after the revolution if we just focus on the class war (as if it could somehow be considered separately from these issues, in a vacuum), I believe that these oft-marginalized groups need to be at the forefront of our collective revolutionary class struggle. The ISO seems to be down with this view, and I appreciate that. Also, I find Lenin's writings on imperialism to be useful. By the way, I'm still learning about all of this (hence why I'm posting here :confused:) so if anyone could point me to specific readings to improve my understanding, I'd be extremely grateful!

By no means have I ruled out joining the ISO. I guess it would be helpful to me for ISO members who may have at one point had similar reservations to share with me how they eventually got over them. Also, are there any Socialist Alternative comrades who might be able to explain why SAlt might be an organization I should be considering? Both groups are present in my city. I know that without revealing my exact location, it might be difficult for people to suggest other groups for me to consider but does anyone know whether there exist somewhere on the east coast any Trot-leaning groups which are open to Luxemburg's critiques of Lenin, democratic centralism and the notion of the vanguard?

I apologize for not being more direct about where I'm organizing but my reticence has to do with my (perhaps somewhat irrational) fear of getting on the ISO's bad side if I do eventually become a member. I also wouldn't want my comrades to feel like I'm in any way devaluing their indispensable contributions to my political development. Moreover, I hope that ISO comrades in general who might be reading this don't take my post as trash talking the ISO. Far from it! I'm hoping that my reservations and political questions can be addressed so that I feel ready to join. Though with Kshama Sawant's recent victory in Seattle, I must say that I'm intrigued by SAlt and would like to learn how I might fit into that group politically speaking. What are the significant differences between the two (besides the perspectives on how much energy to invest in electoral politics and when)? And finally, are there groups ideologically similar to the ISO and SAlt which don't prioritize paper sales and recruitment quite as highly? I'm looking to get more directly involved in activism and organizing around many local and international issues and I frankly don't know if I'm ready to be burned out selling papers. I think I see the importance of paper sales and hardcore recruitment efforts, but are these the only ways we can be involved as revolutionary socialists in the 21st century?

Thanks once again for your time and patience comrades!

In solidarity,
ThePeoplesProf

My time in the ISO taught me that they are very receptive to Rosa Luxemburg's ideas. Also, if you read this article (http://isreview.org/issue/91/new-isr-new-period), you will see that the ISO is currently discussing how to update their strategy for the 21st century.

Anyway, I hope this helps.

[Sabot Cat]

I'm not too sure you have a full grasp on what vanguard means in the Bolshevik tradition. It does not mean a minority military take over in the name of the proletariat as in the Maoist sense (my apologies if I've mischaracterized Maoism).

The Bolsheviks were a political minority in the Russian Republic who seized power violently, as with most revolutions that brought about state capitalist regimes, so I'm not sure where my gap in understanding lies.


What it means is the core group of people who pretty much dedicate their lives to the revolution.

In what capacity?


If anything, the way you describe a revolution is very similar to how I view it, with the only difference being that I think the proletariat must also take over the political structure as happened during the early days of the October Revolution.

Assuming no shooting war: Without capitalists and disproportionate wealth to corrupt the democratic institutions, I see no reason why we would need a regime change if the state being fought against is a representative republic. The workers would have the economic clout and the material basis of power, which means that they can control the political apparatus as well; it would be my hope that the proletariat would help facilitate the rise of direct democracy in the stead of representative republics. However, again, the proletariat should maintain arms and act as their own class militia to prevent the chance of counter-revolution.

[ChrisK]

The Bolsheviks were a political minority in the Russian Republic who seized power violently, as with most revolutions that brought about state capitalist regimes, so I'm not sure where my gap in understanding lies.

The gap appears to be your knowledge of the Russian Revolution. They did not seize power violently. Workers seized control of the political structure and elected the Bolsheviks into power. In fact, it was a multiparty government until all of the other political parties withdrew from the government. For more details I recommend you read Ten Days that Shook the World (http://marxists.org/archive/reed/1919/10days/10days/index.htm) by John Reed, a member of the IWW.


In what capacity?

Varies by material circumstances. Generally by agitation, organizing protests, attempting to spread Marxism and supporting workers actions.


Assuming no shooting war: Without capitalists and disproportionate wealth to corrupt the democratic institutions, I see no reason why we would need a regime change if the state being fought against is a representative republic. The workers would have the economic clout and the material basis of power, which means that they can control the political apparatus as well; it would be my hope that the proletariat would help facilitate the rise of direct democracy in the stead of representative republics. However, again, the proletariat should maintain arms and act as their own class militia to prevent the chance of counter-revolution.

That is a strange assumption. The capitalists have historically fought tooth and nail to maintain their system. The examples of Paris 1871, Russia 1917 and Spain 1936 indicate that they will start a shooting war.

[Le Socialiste]

Thank you for taking the time to write out your concerns and general questions, ThePeoplesProf. Rest assured, your airing of these won’t land you on the ISO’s ‘bad side,’ nor will it put you in poor standing with other members within the organization (at least, it shouldn’t - and anyone, by which I mean members, who thinks otherwise is overreacting). One of the most essential aspects of any group on the revolutionary left is the ability to admit past wrongdoings or theoretical/tactical errors. Such openness helps maintain a transparent and organizational healthiness that is and has been severely lacking in our movement and tradition for many years. I’ll try to address your questions to the best of my own abilities (having been in the ISO for two years now). Others will undoubtedly contribute to this thread over time, some friendly to SAlt and the ISO, others more critical. Either side will have its own merits and insights that’ll warrant further investigation.

Let’s begin with your first point, which had to do with Lenin, Luxemburg, and the question of democratic centralism. I’ll say right off the bat that the ISO counts Luxemburg as a key figure within the revolutionary socialist tradition - and for good reason. I want to focus on the myth surrounding Luxemburg and her own critique of Lenin’s and the Bolshevik’s model though, specifically her supposed rejection of their contribution(s) to the party question. To be clear, the two had their fair share of differences. But it would be a mistake, I think, to counterpose one against the other. I’ve grown rather fond of how August Thalheimer, a revolutionary who knew and worked with both Luxemburg and Lenin, characterized the theoretical and practical relationship between the two: “not Luxemburg or Lenin - but Luxemburg and Lenin.”

While the differences between either revolutionist shouldn’t be understated, there’s a high degree of overlap between Lenin’s and Luxemburg’s respective conceptions of revolutionary organization, as well as the interrelationship between party and class. Both put forward strikingly similar formulations on the organization question; take, for example, Luxemburg’s views surrounding the role of the revolutionary party (from The Mass Strike, the Trade Union, and the Political Party):

“[t]he social democrats are the most enlightened, most class-conscious vanguard of the proletariat. They cannot and dare not wait, in a fatalist fashion, with folded arms for the advent of the “revolutionary situation”, to wait for that which, in every spontaneous peoples’ movement falls from the clouds. On the contrary, they must now, as always, hasten the development of things and endeavor to accelerate events.”

Compare this to what Lenin wrote in What Is To Be Done?, in which it is stated:

“The spontaneity of the masses demands a high degree of consciousness from us Social-Democrats. The greater the spontaneous upsurge of the masses and the more widespread the movement, the more rapid, incomparably so, the demand for greater consciousness in the theoretical, political and organizational work of Social-Democracy.”

We find that the two are more similar than they are different, at least in these respects. Helen Scott, in a talk about Lenin and Luxemburg (2008), elaborates on these similarities:

“. . .they were the figureheads of social democracy’s international Left, sharing an enduring faith in working-class self-emancipation, a commitment to revolution, an understanding of socialists as the tribune of the oppressed, and were principled opponents to imperialism and war. They were frequently allied in the struggle against reformism; they collaborated in Finland after the defeat of the 1905 revolution; they co-authored the antiwar amendment at the Stuttgart congress of 1907; and they famously denounced the Second International’s betrayal in 1914, when the vast majority of parties abandoned international working-class solidarity to support the war efforts of their respective nations.”

Your question heavily revolves around the concerns you might have with democratic centralism, though. I’ll attempt to delve into what this term meant in theory and practice, after which I’ll try to get back to the ISO. It’s no secret that ‘democratic centralism’ has been twisted and distorted beyond basic recognition, particularly in the minds of otherwise well-meaning, radical activists operating in the contemporary era. Let’s first say what democratic centralism isn’t: it is not a mechanistic, top-down model, wherein the decisions of the leadership are handed down to a passive membership and all dissension is silenced.

What it is, however, is a different story: that is, there should be full and democratic discussion amongst all members, resulting in decisions that should then be carried out in a committed, unified way. “Freedom of discussion, unity in action,” if you will. These decisions, then, should be tested in practice, then democratically evaluated or assessed - after which it’ll be continued or revised (or set aside in its entirety), based on practical experience. Paul Le Blanc lends some much-needed context to the term, where he spells out how democratic centralism “was embraced by both Lenin and Trotsky, and by Luxemburg too, who favoured what she called ‘Social Democratic centralism’ and the ‘self-centralism’ of the advanced sectors of the proletariat.” He goes on to mention that, “Any so-called ‘democratic centralism’ representing an undemocratic ‘follow-the-leader’ politics should be rejected.”

This was largely in line with Lenin’s own thinking. In 1906, he commented that "The principle of democratic centralism and autonomy for local Party organizations implies universal and full freedom to criticize so long as this does not disturb the unity of a definite action.” Lenin sought to expand on the democratic aspect of democratic centralism, highlighting that “all theoretical errors and tactical deviations of the Party are most ruthlessly criticized by experience itself, which enlightens and educates the working class with unprecedented rapidity. At such a time, the duty of every Social Democrat is to strive to ensure that the ideological struggle within the Party on questions of theory and tactics is conducted as openly, widely and freely as possible. . .We are profoundly convinced that the workers' Social-Democratic organizations must be united, but in these united organizations, there must be wide and free discussion of Party questions, free comradely criticism and assessment of events in Party life.”

In 1921, well after the initial years of the Russian revolution, Lenin continued to insist that the respective leaderships of communist parties making up the Communist International not go ‘too far in the direction of centralization.’ (It should again be noted that Luxemburg, despite disagreeing with Lenin and other prominent Bolshevik theorists over this or that aspect of organization, continued to reinforce the core argument for a disciplined, democratically centralized party made up of the most militant and class-conscious workers, intellectuals, students, etc.)

Having covered some of the core theoretical and historical basics of democratic centralism (which I’d be happy to talk more about if needed), I’m going to try and transition more toward the ISO as an organization. While the exact number of active, dues-paying members remains somewhat elusive, it’s probably accurate to number the ISO’s membership as somewhat below 1,000 (some estimate that it’s as low as 500). It’s true, I don’t think the national leadership has really come forward with the exact numbers, and I personally think it’d be beneficial for all if we could have an idea of where we are in that regard. On most matters, however, we - the membership rank-and-file - are not kept in the dark. I’m curious as to what you mean by bureaucracy, however, as this is not something I’ve personally encountered in my (admittedly brief) time in the organization. If you could elaborate on what you mean by that, it’d be appreciated. We do have full-time district organizers that see to the day to day needs of different branches, but that’s all that comes to mind atm. As for transparency, that might’ve been an issue in the past (I honestly don’t know, maybe some older members can chime in on that), but I’ve found the ISO to be incredibly transparent regarding perspectives, debates, strategies, etc. Members are free to criticize the organization if they think it has slipped up, made the wrong decision(s), etc.

As for members being expelled, that has and remains a rare exception. It’s true that some members have resigned over the years, but I personally haven’t any insights into why that is. Some who leave the ISO tend to hold a somewhat favorable view of it, even if they don’t feel like it’s something they can be a part of as of now. Others have left on less friendly terms, and I’ve had the pleasure of speaking to a couple of them personally. I’m not saying the people who choose to leave don’t have legitimate grievances - they probably do. Branches, districts, etc. make mistakes. Many have taken stock of these shortcomings, others have acknowledged that there’s definite room for improvement. I will say that, as an organization, we’re in the process of reevaluating our approach(es) to many of these issues, and that puts us in a healthy place (I’d argue).

The district I’m in (Bay Area) has had its share of problems - some personal, mostly political - but it remains a dynamic, open space where disagreements and debate can be aired. That’s vital, I think. Can we generalize that to include the rest of the organization? I don’t know, as I’m not as acquainted with the rest of the national makeup of the ISO as I am with the branches that make up the Bay Area district. Perhaps you could shed a little light on what you’ve seen or experienced in the branch (or branches) you’ve been around. At the end of the day, comrades in the ISO should be able to take criticism (as it undoubtedly exists) without getting defensive. We need to be able to have a comradely exchange of ideas and disagreements, something which I’m personally glad to have experienced in the amount of time I’ve been a member.

I’m not a member of SAlt, but there are plenty of posters on here who are. I will say that I hold a fairly favorable view of their organization, and that they seem like a genuinely revolutionary grouping dedicated to many of the same goals and struggles that we in the ISO are. I think the election of Kshama Sawant to city council in Seattle marks an important step forward for our movement, though much remains to be done and I’m interested to see how SAlt intends to utilize this position as it engages with the struggles and movements playing out in the surrounding area (and the nation as a whole).

That’s it for my first post. Let me know if there are places that deserve more attention or explanation. I know I didn’t go as far into some things as you or I would’ve liked, but hopefully someone else can pick up some of the slack and expand on what’s been written (or offer an alternative/opposing view).

[Le Socialiste]

I am on and off with the ISO. They're the only "game in town" in my area, but I don't like their politics in general (especially their conclusions about Soviet history).

Could you clarify what you mean here? Are you referring to the ISO's - since dropped - position regarding the economic makeup and structure of the Soviet Union? I know we've called it state capitalist in the - very recent - past, but I think we've since dropped the view that people agree with this outlook. Correct me if that isn't what you were talking about, though.

[ChrisK]

Could you clarify what you mean here? Are you referring to the ISO's - since dropped - position regarding the economic makeup and structure of the Soviet Union? I know we've called it state capitalist in the - very recent - past, but I think we've since dropped the view that people agree with this outlook. Correct me if that isn't what you were talking about, though.

What has it switched to?

[Sabot Cat]

The gap appears to be your knowledge of the Russian Revolution. They did not seize power violently. Workers seized control of the political structure and elected the Bolsheviks into power. In fact, it was a multiparty government until all of the other political parties withdrew from the government. For more details I recommend you read Ten Days that Shook the World (http://marxists.org/archive/reed/1919/10days/10days/index.htm) by John Reed, a member of the IWW.

The Bolsheviks never held a majority of the seats in the State Duma, or any high-ranking positions in the Provisional Government, while the Russian Constituent Assembly saw most of the people vote for the Socialist Revolutionary Party before the Bolsheviks forcibly shut it down. I would also note that the Russian Civil War was incredibly violent, with nearly three million causalities.


Varies by material circumstances. Generally by agitation, organizing protests, attempting to spread Marxism and supporting workers actions.


What's the difference between a member of the vanguard, and a class-conscious member of the proletariat?


That is a strange assumption. The capitalists have historically fought tooth and nail to maintain their system. The examples of Paris 1871, Russia 1917 and Spain 1936 indicate that they will start a shooting war.

This is true, and I fear that a shooting war is probably likely...

[ChrisK]

The Bolsheviks never held a majority of the seats in the State Duma, or any high-ranking positions in the Provisional Government, while the Russian Constituent Assembly saw most of the people vote for the Socialist Revolutionary Party before the Bolsheviks forcibly shut it down. I would also note that the Russian Civil War was incredibly violent, with nearly three million causalities.

You should really read that book I linked you to. It clears up the myth that it was the Bolsheviks who shut down the Constituent Assembly. It was the proletariat itself.

I would also note that the Russian Civil War was started by the White Army.


What's the difference between a member of the vanguard, and a class-conscious member of the proletariat?

Active engagement. Not all class-conscious members of the proletariat are actively fighting.

[Le Socialiste]

What has it switched to?

As far as I'm aware, the general 'consensus' has been that it doesn't factor quite as prominently as it might've earlier on (when there actually was a USSR/Eastern Bloc) or in the immediate aftermath of the Soviet Union's collapse. That isn't to say it no longer matters, just that we've grown more flexible around the question (seeing as there are valid points to be made that extend beyond the normal parameters set by those who argue that the USSR was state capitalist). Members are free to draw their own conclusions of course, as well as back them up in conversations with others. I myself believe the Soviet Union and others modeled after it - loosely or otherwise - fall under state capitalism, but that isn't to say there aren't other just as valid critiques out there that one need take account of.

[Queen Mab]

The Bolsheviks never held a majority of the seats in the State Duma, or any high-ranking positions in the Provisional Government

A revolutionary socialist party is not going to take part in bourgeois governments. I think that's a point in their favour. Besides, this was before the summer and autumn of 1917 when working-class support for the Bolsheviks exploded.


while the Russian Constituent Assembly saw most of the people vote for the Socialist Revolutionary Party

1. The Bolsheviks won the overwhelming majority of the working class, virtually wiping out the Mensheviks and moderate socialists.

2. The SRs were split between a pro-Bolshevik Left and anti-Bolshevik Right, with the party machinery in the hands of the right and the majority of peasants supporting the left.


before the Bolsheviks forcibly shut it down.

Well yes, because their slogan was "All power to the Soviets". The Soviets being organs of working class power as opposed to a bourgeois-democratic assembly. Disbanding the Constituent Assembly was one of the big things the Bolsheviks got right.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

The Bolsheviks never held a majority of the seats in the State Duma,

The State Duma of the Provisional Government (which only lasted as far as the establishment of the Directory of the Prov. Gov., after which it was dissolved) was elected during the last years of the empire, using tsarist electoral law. Bolsheviks could only contest the seats assigned to the workers' curia - and note that, by that point, more workers supported the Mensheviks and other remnants of the August Block.


or any high-ranking positions in the Provisional Government,

That is a point in their favor. Communists should not be in bourgeois governments.


while the Russian Constituent Assembly saw most of the people vote for the Socialist Revolutionary Party

Prior to the elections to the Constituent Assembly, the Esers split into the Left, which supported the Bolsheviks, and the reactionary, pogromist Right. Left Esers had the support of most of the peasantry (for example, they had a majority in the peasants' soviets), but the electoral lists were compiled before the split, resulting in a Right Eser majority.

At any rate, the proletariat mostly voted for the Bolsheviks, and that is what is important, in the end. Communists are the party of the proletariat, not a "party of the entire people".


before the Bolsheviks forcibly shut it down.

After the Constituent Assembly refused to recognise the decrees of the Bolshevik-PLSR government on land and peace, the government largely ignored it. It was shut down by the commander of the guards of the Tauride palace, an anarchist, who couldn't listen to the speeches of the Right Esers and Mensheviks any more.

Given the prominence of rightist members of the assembly in the White Movement, it's a pity it was not shut down more violently.


I would also note that the Russian Civil War was incredibly violent, with nearly three million causalities.

Quite frankly, Whiteguard, pogromist and Black-Hundred casualties are irrelevant and should have been higher. As for the rest, well, blame the Whites, including the Constituent Assembly every bourgeois democrat laments, for starting the war.

[IBleedRed]

Could you clarify what you mean here? Are you referring to the ISO's - since dropped - position regarding the economic makeup and structure of the Soviet Union? I know we've called it state capitalist in the - very recent - past, but I think we've since dropped the view that people agree with this outlook. Correct me if that isn't what you were talking about, though.


I should have been more general. I am referring to the ISO's revisionism.

[ThePeoplesProf]

Wow, thanks for the warm welcome and for all of the useful feedback, comrades! You've given me a lot to think through here. Here are just some brief replies to some of your remarks and questions.


A superior form of revolution in my opinion is that of the general strike and mass protest.

While I do have my reservations with vanguardism and democratic centralism, as I stated from the outset, I think I'd need to read much more before I feel confident enough to completely disavow them in favor of the alternatives you've mentioned. If you could suggest any readings I should consider on the general strike and mass protest vs. vanguardism, that would be really helpful.


Don't get too caught up in sectarianism, it's already a huge problem for the left. [...] If you're interested, you should look into the IWW. It's a radical union and focuses more on activism in the workplace and community projects, which you might be interested in. Working with a radical union might be more focused and more interesting than working with an overtly political group.

Thanks for the suggestion! I've been involved in some of their projects in my hometown and at my university and while I don't think I'm fully ideologically on board with them, I find that the work they do is crucial and I'm happy to support it! Moreover, since I'm fighting an uphill battle alongside fellow grad students to build a union at our school (a private, Ivy League behemoth of an exploitative corporation), IWW comrades might be helpful folks with whom to be in touch.

As for sectarianism, I see what you mean on the ground here in France, back home in the U.S., and certainly here on RevLeft... By no means do I want to contribute to it but short of coming up with some sort of loose coalition of various tendencies, I don't see how it's avoidable, especially if one's theoretical and political convictions about organizing are very strong (mine are strengthening but very much still forming at this point).


My time in the ISO taught me that they are very receptive to Rosa Luxemburg's ideas. Also, if you read this article, you will see that the ISO is currently discussing how to update their strategy for the 21st century.

Anyway, I hope this helps.

Thanks comrade; this is definitely useful. I've been able to tell that the ISO values Rosa Luxemburg's important contributions to revolutionary thought and practice; I just need to engage with more reading of Luxemburg and Lenin, both on their convergences and divergences, before I can feel more confident in my understanding of it all. And yes, I attended the Socialism 2013 conference and got a real sense that the ISO is trying to adapt to the 21st century; the question is whether I have the energy to invest in advancing that goal (and whether paper sales and recruitment are the ways to go about it) or whether my efforts, time and energy would be better spent elsewhere.


Thank you for taking the time to write out your concerns and general questions, ThePeoplesProf. Rest assured, your airing of these won’t land you on the ISO’s ‘bad side,’ nor will it put you in poor standing with other members within the organization (at least, it shouldn’t - and anyone, by which I mean members, who thinks otherwise is overreacting).

[...]

That’s it for my first post. Let me know if there are places that deserve more attention or explanation. I know I didn’t go as far into some things as you or I would’ve liked, but hopefully someone else can pick up some of the slack and expand on what’s been written (or offer an alternative/opposing view).

Le Socialiste, I must thank you in particular for your extremely generous and thoughtful post (and for the added reassurance). You've done a fantastic job of addressing most of my concerns and have provided me with some useful follow-up reading to do on Luxemburg and Lenin; I totally agree that they are most productively looked at in conjunction with each other, all the while engaging with the specificity of their disagreements.

The one element I would have liked to see in your response which I don't believe you touched on was the prioritization of SW paper sales. This is one of the biggest reservations I have about joining the ISO. Sure, revolutionary propaganda to counter the insipid brainwashing and lies of the bourgeois mainstream media is important - I do get that - but I've seen my comrades be worked to the bone selling the paper and recruiting new comrades which, in my view, has seemed to predominate over their involvement in the aspects of the ISO that I do value and am excited about like the reading and study groups, the forums, and the direct participation in various struggles on the ground. As far as elaborating on some of my specific experiences organizing with the ISO, I'll follow up with a PM.

If anyone else has advice, reading recommendations, or tips about organizations I should be considering, by all means feel free to post them! Thanks so much for your time and patience, comrades. As a budding revolutionary activist, your help really means a lot to me!

[Le Socialiste]

I should have been more general. I am referring to the ISO's revisionism.

That brings me to my next question, then: in what ways is the ISO 'revisionist?'

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Why not IWW? Why not Zoidberg?

[IBleedRed]

That brings me to my next question, then: in what ways is the ISO 'revisionist?'

Rejecting the historical and theoretical contributions of the pre-Kruschev USSR and Joseph Stalin.

At least, all the comrades in the ISO that I talked to were like that.

[ThePeoplesProf]

Why not IWW? Why not Zoidberg?

I had to look up your Zoidberg reference (can't say I've watched much Futurama; I don't own a t.v.). I'm still not fully sure I get it... :o

As for IWW, I mentioned in my last response that I do organize with them and that I'm looking to work with them more closely given that I'm part of a long uphill battle to unionize fellow grad students. Undoubtedly there's a lot to be gained from engaging with the Wobblies, but as I said, I just don't think the IWW and I really match up ideologically. They like to joke around about my commitment to Marxism. It's one thing to have comradely debates about Marxist theory and practice but I don't get the sense the IWW is the place for that. That said, they're one of the best groups I've encountered in terms of direct involvement with local struggles and organizing. I don't see myself going back to anarchism anytime soon (though I'm glad I did engage with and learn from it when I was younger); right now I'm mainly looking for revolutionary Marxist groups of a Leninist/Luxemburgian/Trotskyist bent.

[Queen Mab]

Rejecting the historical and theoretical contributions of the pre-Kruschev USSR and Joseph Stalin.

To continue the Socratic questioning: what theoretical contributions are these?

[Le Socialiste]

The one element I would have liked to see in your response which I don't believe you touched on was the prioritization of SW paper sales. This is one of the biggest reservations I have about joining the ISO. Sure, revolutionary propaganda to counter the insipid brainwashing and lies of the bourgeois mainstream media is important - I do get that - but I've seen my comrades be worked to the bone selling the paper and recruiting new comrades which, in my view, has seemed to predominate over their involvement in the aspects of the ISO that I do value and am excited about like the reading and study groups, the forums, and the direct participation in various struggles on the ground. As far as elaborating on some of my specific experiences organizing with the ISO, I'll follow up with a PM.

I did leave the topic of SW and paper sales out, true. It wasn't so much intentional as it was I'd already written too much, and didn't want to leave an even longer wall of text than I already had. I'll try to go into SW with this post.

The ISO has traditionally grounded the maintenance and distribution of SW - in its paper format - within the framework established by Lenin and other figures in the Bolshevik faction (and later party); that is, that the role of the revolutionary paper is to "learn, propagandize, and organize." The core of Lenin's argument revolved around the necessity for a militant publication capable of linking together activists in different cities, while generalizing/uniting what were often local struggles:


The role of a newspaper, however, is not limited solely to the dissemination of ideas, to political education, and to the enlistment of political allies. A newspaper is not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, it is also a collective organiser. In this last respect it may be likened to the scaffolding round a building under construction, which marks the contours of the structure and facilitates communication between the builders, enabling them to distribute the work and to view the common results achieved by their organised labour.

With the aid of the newspaper, and through it, a permanent organisation will naturally lake shape that will engage, not only in local activities, but in regular general work, and will train its members to follow political events carefully, appraise their significance and their effect on the various strata of the population, and develop effective means for the revolutionary party to influence these events. The mere technical task of regularly supplying the newspaper with copy and of promoting regular distribution will necessitate a network of local agents of the united party, who will maintain constant contact with one another, know the general state of affairs, get accustomed to performing regularly their detailed functions in the All-Russian work, and test their strength in the organisation of various revolutionary actions.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/may/04.htm

If you've been around the ISO long enough, you'll have run into this quote more than once. It's largely in line with the ISO's understanding of the paper and its role in disseminating the ideas, perspectives, and activities of the movement to a wider audience. With the rise of the internet and a subsequent decline in newspaper sales and circulation (not just on the left, but in mainstream news as well), the effectiveness of a print publication comes into question. In fact, there's been an ongoing debate within the organization regarding the very effectiveness of maintaining a print version of SW. I personally think the newspaper has its uses - it allows one to engage with one's community face to face, as opposed to someone meeting us through some website. It opens up a space for active discussion and debate.

At the same time, though, SW sales have been pretty uneven over the last decade or so (what with the rise of the internet and all). We've also seen that the 'generalizing' aspect of the print version has been superseded by the online one. It makes some sense to maintain both, especially in times of turbulence and unrest (and as the responses of figures like Mubarak, Assad, and others have shown, political leaders won't hesitate to impose restrictions on internet access and other forms of popular media in the event of a revolutionary situation).

I do think the ISO has placed too high a premium on getting members to sell the paper, however. This has been cause for criticism and varying degrees of consternation amongst some members - hence the debate around SW's usefulness. Members shouldn't be guilted into trying to sell more papers than they're used to, if they can at all (I personally struggle with SW sales). Fortunately, I don't think all branches/districts place as much of an emphasis on SW sales as others tend to. My branch and wider district, despite using the SW in everyday outreach and movement work, doesn't pressure members to sell the paper, nor are people who can't sell SW blamed for their so-called 'failures.' Such an atmosphere would undoubtedly cause many members to leave the organization (and I'm sure some have for this very reason). I like to think most of the national organization has moved beyond this unhealthy and ineffective approach, but I'm not sure.

I have to go soon, so I'll comment on recruitment when I have a little more time. Hopefully the above helped.

Edit - I will say that no revolutionary organization should organize all their time around the sale of a paper (some, unfortunately, do). Such publications have their place, but any group that prioritizes the sale of the newspaper above all else is going to have difficulty in reaching the wider working-class, not to mention have trouble in relating to and participating in the struggles and movements that arise (like Occupy, the Arab Spring, etc.).

[ThePeoplesProf]

Thanks again for yet another immensely helpful response, Le Socialiste!

I was actually not familiar with that particular Lenin quotation despite having been a contact for a little over a year now. I appreciate his view and I also appreciate that there's currently a debate around the SW paper version's usefulness and relevance in our current digital age. I wasn't aware this debate was even taking place, however; I've noticed that contacts can once in a while be left out of the loop. You make a really good point about online restrictions and censorship. As for the branches I'm involved in, while they're not necessarily moralistic about the paper sales (and thank goodness for that!), I do still think they prioritize them a bit more highly than they probably should. That said, my ISO comrades are among some of the most reliable and knowledgeable people regarding what's happening locally and around the world and I find SW articles to be, generally, very insightful. And finally, for now, I definitely have noticed (and occasionally experienced) the one-on-one personal aspect of engaging with folks during paper sales and my experiences (as a contact) have been positive. You've given me quite a bit to think about. By all means take your time regarding my recruitment question. I can't thank you enough for your time and patience, comrade.

[Prof. Oblivion]

nevermind

[Art Vandelay]

To continue the Socratic questioning: what theoretical contributions are these?

Or perhaps the more perplexing question, why would he expect a Trotskyist organization to do so?

[Red Shaker]

The problem with the ISO is that they believe that if Trotsky had replaced Lenin rather than Stalin, the revolutionary movement would be in much better shape today than it is. They treat Lenin and Trotsky as demi-gods who had all the right answers. They have no serious criticisms of the line developed by the Bolsheviks other than to say Stalin was a monster. The Russian Revolution was a great accomplishment for the international working class movement. But unless we analyze its weaknesses and figure out how to correct them, communist revolution will not happen.
On another note, it is my impression that the ISO has given up on winning workers to it organization, and concentrates mostly among students and young professions.

[Le Socialiste]

The problem with the ISO is that they believe that if Trotsky had replaced Lenin rather than Stalin, the revolutionary movement would be in much better shape today than it is. They treat Lenin and Trotsky as demi-gods who had all the right answers. They have no serious criticisms of the line developed by the Bolsheviks other than to say Stalin was a monster. The Russian Revolution was a great accomplishment for the international working class movement. But unless we analyze its weaknesses and figure out how to correct them, communist revolution will not happen.
On another note, it is my impression that the ISO has given up on winning workers to it organization, and concentrates mostly among students and young professions.

I'm going to copy and paste from a post I made early last year that somewhat addresses your post, mostly because it doesn't make much sense to rehash what's already been said. I will say the ISO doesn't treat people like Lenin, Trotsky, et al. as infallible figures within the larger movement; indeed, most members retain a number of criticisms. Here's the post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2589897&postcount=6) (do note that this post was made prior to the ISO's altered stance on the matter of state capitalism):


I'd maintain that we're loosely Trotskyist, insofar as we agree with some of Trotsky's analyses but not all of them (like his conclusions on the USSR). So while we seek to interpret, adapt, and put to work some of his works we don't necessarily accept all of them in their totality. In this sense we're not orthodox Trotskists; that is, radicals who uphold and adhere to Trotsky's theories uncritically (or at least strive to preserve them despite their inadequacies).

The ISO is home first and foremost to those who identify Marxism as the overarching framework within which major figures like Lenin, Trotsky, and Luxemburg refined and expanded upon their own contributions. Hence you'll find members who are content in calling themselves Marxists, others Leninists (like myself), and - of course - Trotskyists. We place great emphasis on the practice of drawing from these revolutionary traditions and engaging with them through active praxis. What use is theory after all if it can't be put to the test in the real world? How else would we figure out what works and what doesn't?

As for our organization's 'break' with Trotsky's analysis of the USSR (we assert it was state capitalist), it's not simply a matter of equating the disastrousness of Stalin's policies with capitalism because we find it convenient. Multiple people have attempted to analyze just what exactly the Soviet Union was in terms of its class and economic composition. Some consider it to have been a deformed or degenerated workers' state, or a state where the bourgeoisie had been overthrown but the working-class never held power (despite sections of the economy being nationalized - usually implemented from the top); others argue that it was bureaucratic collectivist, or rather a situation where the state owned the means of production but all surplus (or profit) was distributed amongst the elite party bureaucracy instead of the proletariat; and still others assert that it represented something new entirely, a different model unique to the usual capitalist/communist dichotomy (though what it actually is/was varies wildly depending on who you ask in this case).

The ISO contends that the Soviet Union was state capitalist, and that Stalin represented the solidification and entrenchment of the country's trend in this direction (but wasn't the sole cause). There were numerous reasons for this shift, not least of all the decimation of the nation's economy and working-class base in the aftermath of the civil war. But let's look at it this way: the economic means of production were concentrated in the hands of a small minority of owners for the direct motive of producing surplus-value. While private property was less evident, the basic essence and function of capitalism remained the same, wherein the role of the Stalinist bureaucracy was akin to that of the bourgeoisie - with the social aim of accumulating capital and the production of commodities. The state essentially assumed the entrepreneurial function of the bourgeoisie. The realization of profit(s) were converted by the state into further means of production (i.e. factories, machinery, etc.). The bureaucracy would resemble a workers' state if it were subordinate to the working-class, but it wasn't. This economic productive mode in Russia was the culmination of a variety of objective factors, including economic and political isolation on the world stage that all but forced the revolution's degeneration.

While the ISO did make a strategic shift toward college campuses in the late 1970s/early 80s, there still remains a substantial number of workers within the organization. In my district, the majority of members are, well, workers. Of the 40-50 people in our district, only 10-15 are students (myself included). That said, I think there remains a case to be made for a broader, more direct orientation toward the working-class (which I'd argue the ISO has carried out more recently). What's more, many students work through college - alongside an increasingly unaffordable education, militarization, etc. before entering the ranks of the labor force. Nearly half of all college graduates are unemployed, too. I think it's a mistake for some on the revolutionary left to discount the role and/or place of students under capitalism and austerity. What's necessary is a much-needed intersection of workers' and students' struggles and interests, as they share much in common.

[Brotto Rühle]

I would suggest, very highly, that you avoid joining any organizations at this point. Read Marx and Engels, get a decent comprehension of Marx's Critique, and read OPPOSING views to the ISO, Trotsky, Luxemburg, etc. The ISO is a social democrat organization, with some Marxist rhetoric.

[ThePeoplesProf]

On another note, it is my impression that the ISO has given up on winning workers to it organization, and concentrates mostly among students and young professionals.


...What's more, many students work through college - alongside an increasingly unaffordable education, militarization, etc. before entering the ranks of the labor force. Nearly half of all college graduates are unemployed, too. I think it's a mistake for some on the revolutionary left to discount the role and/or place of students under capitalism and austerity. What's necessary is a much-needed intersection of workers' and students' struggles and interests, as they share much in common.

Le Socialiste, your response gets major finger snaps! I have comrades who in addition to being full-time students crushed by student loan debt also work in fast food, restaurant service, retail and other (sub-)minimum wage jobs all while being actively involved in the Fight for 15 and other living wage and unionization struggles. I also know of graduate students (sometimes ones who are raising children alone or with a partner) who are forced onto food stamps just to get by. And as a graduate student exploited alongside precarious adjuncts, I've been involved in union-building efforts and organizing on my campus to have us be recognized as the employees we truly are by the ruthless corporation that is my university. Anyone bringing up the problematic student/worker dichotomy in the 21st century is surprisingly out of touch with the complex realities of today's working class struggles... Do you have a rebuttal, Red Shaker? Or is your head still in the sand?

That said, I do agree that an exclusive focus on the college and university-attending members of the working class is far from enough. While students have a sizable presence in the branches I've been involved in, I have noticed a sincere effort to reach out to and engage with a broader spectrum of workers.


I would suggest, very highly, that you avoid joining any organizations at this point. Read Marx and Engels, get a decent comprehension of Marx's Critique, and read OPPOSING views to the ISO, Trotsky, Luxemburg, etc. The ISO is a social democrat organization, with some Marxist rhetoric.

I'm abroad for the next few months so I'm not immediately going to be joining anything. I have read much Marx and Engels and other revolutionary theorists over the past eight or so years of my undergraduate and graduate education so far and I'm currently taking part in a Capital reading group. As for the opposing critiques, could you kindly link me to some?

[Le Socialiste]

I'm abroad for the next few months so I'm not immediately going to be joining anything. I have read much Marx and Engels and other revolutionary theorists over the past eight or so years of my undergraduate and graduate education so far and I'm currently taking part in a Capital reading group.

Let me know how that goes, as I'm thinking about going through Capital (after multiple attempts) after graduation. I'm taking a year or so off, so I hope to come away with at least an elementary understanding of it (I acknowledge it requires more than one reading). Is this a reading group in Paris (this seems like a stupid question, but with technology these days you can never be sure)?


As for the opposing critiques, could you kindly link me to some?

Here are some critiques of the ISO, mostly from former members (let me know if you've read them already):

Through which period are we passing? (http://torepeat.wordpress.com/2013/10/31/through-which-period-are-we-passing/)
A Letter to Comrades in the International Socialist Organization (ISO) (http://www.socialistoutpost.com/blog/2013/10/9/a-letter-to-comrades-in-the-international-socialist-organization-iso)
Theory and Practice of Idealism in Trotskyism and the ISO (http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/08/theory-and-practice-of-idealism-in-trotskyism-and-the-iso/)

These critiques were addressed (or at least responded to) in SW, so if you want to read those responses I'll 'edit' them into this post. I will say there are bits and pieces of criticism that ring true to me, and that I think are well-founded and beg greater attention from us within the ISO. Other parts, not so much. I urge you to read through these and others like them, though, if only to get ahold of some alternative or opposing views that aren't as evident in this thread.

I also want to respond to a private message (pm) Red Shaker sent me a little while ago. First off, I chose to mention it in this thread because it pertains to what I said earlier (and have repeated since) about the ISO's position on the USSR. Hopefully Red Shaker doesn't mind, and I apologize for not responding sooner (its been a hectic past few days). Here's the PM:


Give me a link to the ISO's current position on the nature of the Soviet Union from the 1920's to 1990's. I could not find it on their web page.

It would appear I was mistaken in my assertion that the ISO has formally shifted its outlook on the economic makeup and orientation of the Soviet Union. There doesn't seem to be anything in the more recent organizational documents indicating as such; in fact, the the ISO's Where We Stand (http://www.internationalsocialist.org/pdfs/WhereWeStandPamphlet.pdf) pamphlet states outright in its evaluation of China, Russia, et al. that "They are state capitalist regimes."

That said, there has been a move to deemphasize this perspective in light of a general recognition that one's opinion on the USSR needn't impede or discourage membership (provided you're not a Stalinist). In that respect, comments like the following continue to remain true:


As far as I'm aware, the general 'consensus' has been that it doesn't factor quite as prominently as it might've earlier on (when there actually was a USSR/Eastern Bloc) or in the immediate aftermath of the Soviet Union's collapse. That isn't to say it no longer matters, just that we've grown more flexible around the question (seeing as there are valid points to be made that extend beyond the normal parameters set by those who argue that the USSR was state capitalist). Members are free to draw their own conclusions of course, as well as back them up in conversations with others.

So, while there hasn't been a formal 'abandonment' of the theory of Soviet state capitalism (the ISO continues to recognize it, and others modeled after it - whether directly or indirectly - as such) our organization has, over the last couple of years, steadily come to the conclusion that future or potential members needn't adhere to or adopt this outlook as a prerequisite for membership. Hopefully this clears up any misunderstanding or confusion I might've caused.

[MarxSchmarx]

Le Socialist makes some great points, I think they are helpful if you are thinking about he ISO/IS.

If you are still serious about them, I would also highly recommend PMing Jimmie Higgins
http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=9434

They have been involved in the ISO for some time and aren't at all like the ISO people I used to know. In particular, JH is very candid about what it's like to be in the org today. so they will have some useful perspectives.

[ThePeoplesProf]

Hey Le Socialiste. Thanks for the links, comrade. I have nothing but respect for a member of any organization willing to openly share critiques of their own group with a prospective member. Your candor is highly appreciated.


Let me know how that goes, as I'm thinking about going through Capital (after multiple attempts) after graduation. I'm taking a year or so off, so I hope to come away with at least an elementary understanding of it (I acknowledge it requires more than one reading). Is this a reading group in Paris (this seems like a stupid question, but with technology these days you can never be sure)?

As for Capital, yes I've been reading it in Paris (in French) with thirty to forty comrades. It's part of a weekly seminar on Marx where sometimes we devote sessions to unpacking a chapter of Capital while other times we look at other key Marxist theorists (recently there was a session on Rosa Luxemburg), we engage with more contemporary Marxist thought, on Marxism in the 21st century, on a Marxist analysis of current events in the world, etc. It's been a great experience! And what's awesome is that it's not just students but a more diverse group of workers with between a third and a half of the comrades being women and with some comrades of color, too.

I've been supplementing my reading with David Harvey's lectures. Have you heard of his work? I can't recommend it enough! I still can't post links on RevLeft but just search for "Reading Marx's Capital with David Harvey" and you'll find his site; the lectures are completely free and accessible to the public (in true Marxist fashion, of course). He's been teaching Capital for over 40 years! He also published A Companion to Marx's Capital which was inspired by his decades of teaching Marx. Maybe you're already familiar but either way, let me know what you think. :)

[Red Shaker]

In my remarks I did not mean to imply that work in the colleges and universities was not necessary. Most students will join the working class when they finish and others are already working full or part-time jobs. Campus workers, many who are now contract workers for large corporations, are certainly members of the working class. To build a revolutionary movement work has to be done among industrial workers, transportation workers and the military. From my knowledge, and I admit it is limited, the ISO does not seem to doing this or trying to figure out how to do it.

[Geiseric]

In my remarks I did not mean to imply that work in the colleges and universities was not necessary. Most students will join the working class when they finish and others are already working full or part-time jobs. Campus workers, many who are now contract workers for large corporations, are certainly members of the working class. To build a revolutionary movement work has to be done among industrial workers, transportation workers and the military. From my knowledge, and I admit it is limited, the ISO does not seem to doing this or trying to figure out how to do it.

Nearly all of what you said is true, however as socialists we have to consider the present state of consciousness among the working class and direct our work where that consciousness is stronger. Atm that struggle is a defensive one, seeing as the bourgeois are trying to take away things won in the past, such as community colleges and social welfare programs. If socialists can get their heads out of their asses, it is possible to lead a polItical struggle in defense of these things, and move on the offensive once the capitalists balls are cut off.

[ThePeoplesProf]

In my remarks I did not mean to imply that work in the colleges and universities was not necessary. Most students will join the working class when they finish and others are already working full or part-time jobs. Campus workers, many who are now contract workers for large corporations, are certainly members of the working class. To build a revolutionary movement work has to be done among industrial workers, transportation workers and the military. From my knowledge, and I admit it is limited, the ISO does not seem to doing this or trying to figure out how to do it.

Thanks for clarifying this comrade. My apologies for the harsh tone earlier; I really, genuinely believed your comment was coming from a different place. I agree with your assessment and am taking your point strongly into consideration (i.e. with regard to finding a group actively engaged beyond the college/university sphere).

For instance, I really admire the work that Wobblies do and have collaborated with them on several occasions in my area (back in the States) but my issue is that I have a sort of ambivalence... How to put it? The groups I encounter doing awesome work and organizing are not necessarily the groups I align with ideologically/politically... I'm happy to be in solidarity with them but frustrated that the groups I do fit in better with aren't as engaged as I'd like to be. If I could be a Wobbly in practice and an ISO/SAlt member in theory, that would solve my problem, but that's kind of unrealistic. I don't know if I'm making any sense... Does anyone have any advice about this? I'd really appreciate it!

[Geiseric]

Thanks for clarifying this comrade. My apologies for the harsh tone earlier; I really, genuinely believed your comment was coming from a different place. I agree with your assessment and am taking your point strongly into consideration (i.e. with regard to finding a group actively engaged beyond the college/university sphere).

For instance, I really admire the work that Wobblies do and have collaborated with them on several occasions in my area (back in the States) but my issue is that I have a sort of ambivalence... How to put it? The groups I encounter doing awesome work and organizing are not necessarily the groups I align with ideologically/politically... I'm happy to be in solidarity with them but frustrated that the groups I do fit in better with aren't as engaged as I'd like to be. If I could be a Wobbly in practice and an ISO/SAlt member in theory, that would solve my problem, but that's kind of unrealistic. I don't know if I'm making any sense... Does anyone have any advice about this? I'd really appreciate it!

You should work inside of the POI's left wing. That's what I would be doing if I were in France.

[ThePeoplesProf]

You should work inside of the POI's left wing. That's what I would be doing if I were in France.

Thanks comrade. I've been orbiting around the NPA (New Anticapitalist Party) here which has seemed most similar to the ISO at least in its politics. I'll be sure to check out the POI as well...

I'm only here for a few more months, so I'm not necessarily looking to join a party here. There's a pretty awesome website here called Démosphère on which I'm able to find out about daily rallies, protests, demonstrations, films and discussions, etc. on the French Left, so I'm pretty much set as far as that's concerned. It's such a great resource! Is there something similar in English/for the U.S. that I somehow haven't come across yet?

[Geiseric]

Thanks comrade. I've been orbiting around the NPA (New Anticapitalist Party) here which has seemed most similar to the ISO at least in its politics. I'll be sure to check out the POI as well...

I'm only here for a few more months, so I'm not necessarily looking to join a party here. There's a pretty awesome website here called Démosphère on which I'm able to find out about daily rallies, protests, demonstrations, films and discussions, etc. on the French Left, so I'm pretty much set as far as that's concerned. It's such a great resource! Is there something similar in English/for the U.S. that I somehow haven't come across yet?

I haven't heard about anything like that. Some groups hold rallies on the same day as ours just to spite us, and even might hold them down the street, with like 5 people. So I'd be wary at such a website.

[ThePeoplesProf]

I haven't heard about anything like that. Some groups hold rallies on the same day as ours just to spite us, and even might hold them down the street, with like 5 people. So I'd be wary at such a website.

Wow, that's a shame. That hasn't been a problem at all in France as far as I can tell. The left is divided here like everywhere else but it's not petty and bitter like some groups in the U.S. can be. The site I mentioned is a really amazing resource that leftists of all tendencies put a lot into and get a lot out of. Basically all left groups are able to post events about important issues; there's at least a dozen sometimes even two dozen events a day, so of course there's some overlap, but that just goes to show how active the French left is. I understand your wariness but I just wanted to point out that over here it's not at all like what you might think.