Bruce Wallace Expelled from CWI

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Some of you may already know that recently Bruce Wallace was expelled for questioning the CWI's line on the cause of economic crisis which holds underconsumptionist underpinnings while Wallace on the otherhand is a proponent of the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to decline as the central cause of capitalist crisis. In this article the CWI responds to Bruce Wallace's views.

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/17458/20-09-2013/the-causes-of-capitalist-crisis-reply-to-andrew-kliman

A fair amount of the content of this article can be summarized by this half a minute video:



fw7Ct01AsE8



The CWI later expelled him and provided a letter explaining their rationale

http://69.195.124.91/~brucieba/2014/02/13/bruce-wallace-suspended/

The content of which is summarized thusly:


http://boingboing.net/features/northkorea/?traitor=Bruce+Wallace


The Weekly Worker also wrote an interesting reply on the political ramifications of the expulsion

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/998/cwi-a-bureaucratic-farce

So in short, another day for the bureaucratic left

If anyone could provide more information about the actual economic issues at hand in the debate then that'd be appreciated since I'd like to familiarize myself with Wallace's and Kipman's perspective

[Alexios]

This is pretty funny. I'm not sure why they seem to think expulsion is a punishment though. Who'd want to pay those monthly membership fees?

[Jolly Red Giant]

1. Bruce Wallace has not been expelled from the CWI, he has been suspended from membership of the Socialist Party Scotland. Bruce Wallace has the normal right of appeal (the same as any other member) to the SPS and has indicated that he intends to follow this route.
2. Bruce Wallace has not been suspended for questioning the CWI's line on the cause of economic crisis - as has been outlined in the letter sent to Bruce Wallace by the SPS NC, he has been suspended for failing to carry out the the democratic decisions of the party as outlined by the motion agreed by the National Committee on 19th January 2014. These matters relate specifically to the approach he has taken of publicly attacking the leadership of the SPS and of the CWI and individual members of the CWI on the internet in what the SPS NC states (and in which I agree with) is carried out in a derogatory and chronic ultra left fashion. Even the most cursory look at his blog would demonstrate that this is an accurate assessment of the approach of Bruce Wallace
Whatever the merits of Bruce Wallace's arguments about the analysis of the CWI on the cause of the current economic crisis, he has completely undermined any support he could generate for his position by the approach he has adopted of 'I know more than you do and I am going to denigrate you if you don't agree with me' (my view)

[Sentinel]

Indeed, it needs to be stressed here that the suspension was not simply due to having ideological disagreements with the majority position - but rather the way he went on about it. Members of the CWI are allowed to, and often do disagree with each other and with specific positions that have been agreed upon.

In fact we take pride in having a tradition of internal debates. We are, however, expected to follow established, democratic guidelines and rules for how to handle such.

Now, people may disagree with the CWI:s interpretation of the concept of democratic centralism. But from the OP here one gets the impression that disagreements and questioning aren't allowed, so it needs to be pointed out that this isn't the case.

[Q]

In fact we take pride in having a tradition of internal debates. We are, however, expected to follow established, democratic guidelines and rules for how to handle such.
Yes, the fact that Bruce took the debate publically, on his personal blog and on Facebook, put him into trouble. The particular attitude comrade Wallace has didn't help his case either, but doesn't in itself give the whole picture as comrade Steve Dobbs from West London branch is also suspended (http://socialismiscrucial.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/steve-dobbs-suspended-from-socialist-partycwi/). Presumably others of the 'group of 11' are to be suspended too.

[Delenda Carthago]

I agree with CWI on this one.

[Art Vandelay]

YABM, all you've done here is dispel disinformation (Wallace hasn't been expelled), post two stupid links (one to a John Stewart clip, the other the a fake news generator), then post links which contradict both your thread title and what you've stated here, before topping it off with a jab at the 'bureaucratic left.' This is essentially trolling and I have no idea why, as a Maoist, you seem so interested in trot groups.

Nevertheless if your interested in the economic arguments underpinning this debate within the CWI, you could check out Wallace's blog, or some of Andrew Kliman's work.


Whatever the merits of Bruce Wallace's arguments about the analysis of the CWI on the cause of the current economic crisis, he has completely undermined any support he could generate for his position by the approach he has adopted of 'I know more than you do and I am going to denigrate you if you don't agree with me' (my view)

That's really the worst part about all of this. I'd love for this debate to have gone in a different direction. Earlier on, I had made some rather futile attempts at helping to steer the debate in a comradely manner, but it was really no use. I've also read the 'group of 11's' document and its quite well put together and touched on the transitional program, echoing certain things I had been raising independently within my own branch.

In Wallace's defence however, he was far from the only individual engaging in less than desirable behaviour. Some of the reactions and trolling from rank and file members was simply sad.


Indeed, it needs to be stressed here that the suspension was not simply due to having ideological disagreements with the majority position - but rather the way he went on about it. Members of the CWI are allowed to, and often do disagree with each other and with specific positions that have been agreed upon.

I'd agree with this. I've had a few points of contention with our recent U.S. campaigns, as well as our interpretation of the transitional program, that I have been continually raising within my branch since I got back from helping out in the states and a open and honest (as well as continuing debate) has been encouraged.


Yes, the fact that Bruce took the debate publically, on his personal blog and on Facebook, put him into trouble. The particular attitude comrade Wallace has didn't help his case either, but doesn't in itself give the whole picture as comrade Steve Dobbs from West London branch is also suspended. Presumably others of the 'group of 11' are to be suspended too.

The facebook group was awful and it didn't take me long to lose interest/any hope for it being a place capable of facilitating productive discussion. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out though. I really don't see the entire 'group of 11' being suspended.

[FSL]

Some of you may already know that recently Bruce Wallace was expelled for questioning the CWI's line on the cause of economic crisis which holds underconsumptionist underpinnings while Wallace on the otherhand is a proponent of the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to decline as the central cause of capitalist crisis.
He's right in his disagreement, they're right to expell him.

[Art Vandelay]

He's right in his disagreement, they're right to expell him.

Bruce Wallace has not been expelled from the CWI.

[FSL]

Bruce Wallace has not been expelled from the CWI.

He should have been, rules are rules.


Also just read their answer:

Kliman's obsession with defeating anything to do with 'underconsumption' is a prejudice and will not stand up to any serious examination.

The claim that 'underconsumption' can play no part in a Marxist analysis of the crisis is rooted in a misreading of Marx, as well as the current evidence that is to hand.

He seems to be suggesting 'Keynesian ideas' will automatically lead to reaction, as in the past, if they are adopted by the bourgeois.

The fact that the Socialist Party through its journals - Militant in the past and now The Socialist and Socialism Today - has consistently argued against Keynesian ideas as a long-term solution to the problems of capitalism counts for nothing as far as Kliman and Wallace are concerned.


We have argued in a transitional manner for an increase in government expenditure in order to boost housing, education, workers' share of income, etc. We have also demanded nationalisation of the banks and the finance sector.


"We are against keynesianism as long-term solution but actually wage political struggle in its favor as a short-term solution"

And they call themselves communists? That Bruce guy should just leave.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

He should have been, rules are rules.


Befehl ist Befehl.

This guy has been part of CWI for years now, that the CWI has such a knee-jerk response to any kind of public debates or criticism is really telling of their sectarian politics.

[Art Vandelay]

He should have been, rules are rules.

Also just read their answer:

"We are against keynesianism as long-term solution but actually wage political struggle in its favor as a short-term solution"

And they call themselves communists? That Bruce guy should just leave.

Are you suggesting that waging political struggle for reforms is synonymous with considering keynesianism a 'short term solution' to the capitalist crises?

[FSL]

Are you suggesting that waging political struggle for reforms is synonymous with considering keynesianism a 'short term solution' to the capitalist crises?

I'm suggesting that what the CWI is doing is indistinguishable from what any random center/center-left bourgeois party or think tank might be doing.

People will read a cwi pamphlet because they're curious or fed up or whatever. In that pamphlet they'll see "government spending!", "tax the rich!", "greedy bankers!".


They have heard all these things a million times before.
Not one of these things work (exactly because it's a production and not a consumption crisis). The rich won't be taxed, the state might borrow some money if it can and the workers are going to pay that back. A state-owned bank will just subsidise loans for business, pretty much resulting in the same situation as with increased government spending.

And they all have nothing to do with socialism. If you get someone to listen to you, you should at least tell him something that might help him.

The surest, in fact the one and only, way to achieve some positive "reforms" or to stop some negative ones is through building a class-concious movement that might actually scare capitalists a tiny bit.

[FSL]

Befehl ist Befehl.

This guy has been part of CWI for years now, that the CWI has such a knee-jerk response to any kind of public debates or criticism is really telling of their sectarian politics.

How do you view a party? He's been there for many years, fine, and he disagrees with them on something extremely important. Why should he want to stay there if he can't convince the rest?
Why should the rest keep him if he's publicly attacking them?

They're not married, parties are supposed to be made up by more or less like-minded individuals to function. You see some people leaving parties or some parties splitting over really petty, personal issues, this is quite important though. It's a good reason to leave a party if you think their whole politics regarding the economy is wrong and it's a good reason to be expelled from a party when you are attacking it through facebook...



Many small parties that try to be "antisectarian" end up ridiculous. There is a party in Greece, the New Left Current that has some of its most prominent members casually praising the egyptian revolution, the ukrainian riots even Abe's unorthodox monetary policies in Japan. Surely, some sectarianism would do them no harm.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

How do you view a party?


The organisation of the working class as a class.

[FSL]

The organisation of the working class as a class.

If the working class organized itself in a party, that party would be pretty racist and conservative overall.

That's why a communist party isn't made up by the working class in general but by the class-concsious and militant parts of it. And that's why expelling people when necessary is almost as important as getting more people to join.


Not that the cwi has a better chance of becoming something like a communist party if they expell this particular guy. They lost that train from the get-go.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

If the working class organized itself in a party, that party would be pretty racist and conservative overall.

That's why a communist party isn't made up by the working class in general but by the class-concsious and militant parts of it. And that's why expelling people when necessary is almost as important as getting more people to join.


Not that the cwi has a better chance of becoming something like a communist party if they expell this particular guy. They lost that train from the get-go.

No that's why we must use education and agitation to raise ourselves to a position where we as a class can seriously challenge capital.

There is no sense in at one point accepting a party-line and then kicking everyone out who is not in full agreement with it. Apparently in the head of the sectarian all the ideas will be universal truth forever and situations obviously won't change overtime and it's unthinkable that the party-line is ever wrong, nope kick all dissenters out. :rolleyes:

[FSL]

No that's why we must use education and agitation to raise ourselves to a position where we as a class can seriously challenge capital.

There is no sense in at one point accepting a party-line and then kicking everyone out who is not in full agreement with it. Apparently in the head of the sectarian all the ideas will be universal truth forever and situations obviously won't change overtime and it's unthinkable that the party-line is ever wrong, nope kick all dissenters out. :rolleyes:

The racist suggests that everyone reads the protocols of the elders of zion as a part of their education. Should we kick him out?


The party should form a collective opinion on something instead of just being agnostic (which is the easiest way out). Members will probably need to not be in complete disagreement with said opinion for the party to actually function.

Does truth exist? Does science exist? Will it be correct at some point to say that you can cure capitalism's crises by increasing demand?
And certainly if the party line is wrong it stands a better chance being fixed and faster. The party being the cummulative mind of a number of workers instead of just one guy who knows best.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

The racist suggests that everyone reads the protocols of the elders of zion as a part of their education. Should we kick him out?


The party should form a collective opinion on something instead of just being agnostic (which is the easiest way out). Members will probably need to not be in complete disagreement with said opinion for the party to actually function.

Does truth exist? Does science exist? Will it be correct at some point to say that you can cure capitalism's crises by increasing demand?
And certainly if the party line is wrong it stands a better chance being fixed and faster. The party being the cummulative mind of a number of workers instead of just one guy who knows best.

Where did I say it needed to be agnostic? I'm for unity around the acceptance of a programme, but such a programme becomes meaningless if it is not open for discussion.

[Art Vandelay]

FSL, I don't think you understand my position on the matter. I happen to be in agreement with much of the group of 11's analysis, have had conversations with them including Mr.Wallace, have arrived at some of the same conclusions independently, heard the jokes about being a 'gromit' (heh get it?), have had discussions with comrades who disagree, etc. I've read the internal documents and I'm aware of the line of thought on the underconsumption/LTTRP, you don't need to spell it out for me. You said this however:


"We are against keynesianism as long-term solution but actually wage political struggle in its favor as a short-term solution"

Which infers that the CWI (as if it was entirely monolithic) sees keynesianism as a short term solution to the capitalist crises. You also said this:


I'm suggesting that what the CWI is doing is indistinguishable from what any random center/center-left bourgeois party or think tank might be doing.

Then I don't think you are very aware of what the CWI has been up to, specifically in the states. Again, I have my disagreements with my party's line, but how many bourgeois political parties are out there militantly defending homes which have been foreclosed on, or mobilizing entire communities and workers in grassroots campaigns, building that 'class conscious movement' you speak of?

Regardless the reason Mr.Wallace has chosen to stay within the CWI, is to fight for a political orientation he believes will return the organization, to what he views as, genuine Marxism. Simple as that really.

[Five Year Plan]

2. Bruce Wallace has not been suspended for questioning the CWI's line on the cause of economic crisis - as has been outlined in the letter sent to Bruce Wallace by the SPS NC, he has been suspended for failing to carry out the the democratic decisions of the party as outlined by the motion agreed by the National Committee on 19th January 2014. These matters relate specifically to the approach he has taken of publicly attacking the leadership of the SPS and of the CWI and individual members of the CWI on the internet in what the SPS NC states (and in which I agree with) is carried out in a derogatory and chronic ultra left fashion. Even the most cursory look at his blog would demonstrate that this is an accurate assessment of the approach of Bruce Wallace
Whatever the merits of Bruce Wallace's arguments about the analysis of the CWI on the cause of the current economic crisis, he has completely undermined any support he could generate for his position by the approach he has adopted of 'I know more than you do and I am going to denigrate you if you don't agree with me' (my view)

I'm curious: has there actually been an internal debate on the cause of the crisis within the rank and file, with a vote taking place to express the overall position of the group? Or is this just a case of "Peter Taaffe, our democratically elected leader, says the crisis is caused by underconsumption, so you can't say otherwise publicly"?

I hope you see the difference between these two things, and wonder which is actually the case.

[FSL]

Where did I say it needed to be agnostic? I'm for unity around the acceptance of a programme, but such a programme becomes meaningless if it is not open for discussion.

All programmes are open for discussion. CWI adopted their programme after discussion (and judging from what I've seen most of their members are very happy with this conservative keynesian nonsense).
What then? If you don't like the programme and hate the organization for voting it, what's your next step?
Calling them out on facebook?
Just leave.

Maybe someone in that position doesn't simply choose to leave so that he could -after they expell him- use that as well against them.
And this is where it starts getting childish.

[The Idler]

Can't the leaders handle being publicly verbally attacked? Why should someone be suspended for verbally attacking the leaders or a political position even if it is the majority one?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

1. Bruce Wallace has not been expelled from the CWI, he has been suspended from membership of the Socialist Party Scotland. Bruce Wallace has the normal right of appeal (the same as any other member) to the SPS and has indicated that he intends to follow this route.
2. Bruce Wallace has not been suspended for questioning the CWI's line on the cause of economic crisis - as has been outlined in the letter sent to Bruce Wallace by the SPS NC, he has been suspended for failing to carry out the the democratic decisions of the party as outlined by the motion agreed by the National Committee on 19th January 2014. These matters relate specifically to the approach he has taken of publicly attacking the leadership of the SPS and of the CWI and individual members of the CWI on the internet in what the SPS NC states (and in which I agree with) is carried out in a derogatory and chronic ultra left fashion. Even the most cursory look at his blog would demonstrate that this is an accurate assessment of the approach of Bruce Wallace
Whatever the merits of Bruce Wallace's arguments about the analysis of the CWI on the cause of the current economic crisis, he has completely undermined any support he could generate for his position by the approach he has adopted of 'I know more than you do and I am going to denigrate you if you don't agree with me' (my view)

In other words while disagreeing with the CWI establishment he neglected to at the same time, kiss their ass and was "suspended." In plain English, he was "questioning the CWI's line on the cause of economic crisis," and was suspended and you (and others) are buying into the CWI, PR party spin. Of course, they'd say that, why wouldn't they. Even if hypothetical he disagreed and was suspended, do you honestly think the party would admit this and or use such phrasings/framings as such? Of course not. Do you think they'd say "oh yeah guys he can't be on the club cuz he tots disagrees"? Noooooo.

The fact the whole "ultra left," scarlet letter shit is also mentioned is hilarious. Tbh, this whole thing is stupider than all living fuck. Wow.

"Yo, your doing to much, your like way aggro, much ultra left, so suspended."

[FSL]

FSL, I don't think you understand my position on the matter. I happen to be in agreement with much of the group of 11's analysis, have had conversations with them including Mr.Wallace, have arrived at some of the same conclusions independently, heard the jokes about being a 'gromit' (heh get it?), have had discussions with comrades who disagree, etc. I've read the internal documents and I'm aware of the line of thought on the underconsumption/LTTRP, you don't need to spell it out for me. You said this however:



Which infers that the CWI (as if it was entirely monolithic) sees keynesianism as a short term solution to the capitalist crises. You also said this:



Then I don't think you are very aware of what the CWI has been up to, specifically in the states. Again, I have my disagreements with my party's line, but how many bourgeois political parties are out there militantly defending homes which have been foreclosed on, or mobilizing entire communities and workers in grassroots campaigns, building that 'class conscious movement' you speak of?

Regardless the reason Mr.Wallace has chosen to stay within the CWI, is to fight for a political orientation he believes will return the organization, to what he views as, genuine Marxism. Simple as that really.
I'll answer for the bold part.

The two bourgeois parties that preside over this great humanitarian disaster in Greece is your answer. ND and Pasok.
They have "militantly defended homes" and have refused to repeal the law that protects families with one home from banks.

Why? Is it because they are too radical and too pro-people to do such a thing?
No, it is because banks themselves don't want to be flooded by houses that they won't be able to sell or that will have to sell very cheaply.
See, it is extremely possible that sections of the bourgeois class itself push forward such meaningless reforms. We don't have foreclosures and tent cities here. But do you know what we have? Syriza (of which the local cwi used to be a part and is still very close to) that claims there is a very people-friendly government in the states, making many extremely positive reforms. So why is the cwi in the states doing anything when the people the cwi in Greece indirectly admires are in charge?


The answer is rather simple: in both countries the cwi will defend keynesianism. And it will try to defend that part of keynesianism still not found in the specific country. It will pose as anti-Obama in the states because people there actually see how great his keynesianism is. It will be pro-Obama here because people don't see it. It will fight against foreclosures in the states and in favour of introducing food stamps here and the result will be a capitalist hell in both countries.


Lastly, what you said isn't a class-conscious movement. Of course it's a good thing that people are against foreclosures. But they'd be against them without the cwi. They don't need help to realize that someone taking their home is bad. That's just trade-unionism though, it's not the movement we're looking for.

People need to realize what the banks are, who owns them, what their part in the economy is, why would they be doing exactly the same thing directly or indirectly if they were state-owned etc.
If people understood these things or understood them to some extent, then they'd be much more militant in fighting against foreclosures.

A positive reform isn't the goal, it's the consequence of us fighting for our goal.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

YABM, all you've done here is dispel disinformation (Wallace hasn't been expelled), post two stupid links (one to a John Stewart clip, the other the a fake news generator), then post links which contradict both your thread title and what you've stated here, before topping it off with a jab at the 'bureaucratic left.' This is essentially trolling and I have no idea why, as a Maoist, you seem so interested in trot groups.

My entire post was scarcely 3 sentences long and cited three different articles, one was directly from the CWI, the other was a CWI document prefaced by Bruce Wallace, and the other was a CPGB article. If all I've done is dispel misinformation then well that implies the majority of the sources which come from the CWI are disinformation. The only input from my side is that I restated what happened, he was expelled due to differences on line. Whether he was suspended or expelled or not is a matter of semantics.

And yes I did post some humorous links. Why? Because I read a large portion of the CWI article and it accuses Bruce Wallace of not believing in deformed worker's state theory and not being a Trotskyist because he.......was a part of the SWP once and was influenced by a Kliman. The level of absurd misrepresentations in that article is worthy of parody. The letter itself suffers less from this but admittedly I did chuckle a bit when I pared it with that denunciation generator. Because dry leftist politics are boring and humor makes it all the more stomachable.


And why am I so interested in "trot groups". Because in the west where we can essentially assume that the main stream Communist parties are social democrats, Trotskyism has become the official banner of "official revolutionary socialism". All the biggest groups in Europe and in America are Trotskyist and Trotskyism is one of the most significant current in working class politics. It would be proportionally incorrect if I didn't follow them in some way or another. And you know my politics. The few times FRSO has come up I've said not a single nice word about them, and even though there are only 2 impossbilists on this board everytime they rear their head I always try to engage them and at this point I almost feel bad for the lads since they are such a small group and haven't done anything in praxis which is particularly offensive, they just have a bad theory. But the CWI and other such groups represent the bulk of our tiny left, and the insular politics of the left are the only thing we can really control so of course I am going to try to discuss these matters.


To be honest I'm not particularly invested in the entire scandal. I was just posting this to learn about the actual economic issues at hand here. Unfortunate that those are not being discussed properly in this thread

[FSL]

I was just posting this to learn about the actual economic issues at hand here. Unfortunate that those are not being discussed properly in this thread
Judging from my experience, the cwi does tend to adopt an "underconsumptionist" stance when it comes to what cause the crisis. This is important because it will also point to what you consider to be the way out.


Practically, it means you don't really propose anything different from keynesian economics. Keynes suggested that the crises in capitalism are cause by a lack of demand. So if you increase the wages or government spending and support for the poor (as these people tend to use a greater part of their income for consumption) you will do away with crises.

The US did follow a similar policy after 1929 but had another recession in 1937 iirc. After the second world war there was too much room for american capital in Europe (after all it was the need of german capital to expand that caused the war), so this period became sort of a "golden age" and vindicated keynesianism.
In practice the american economy soon had very little growth and stubbornly high inflation and keynesianism was abandoned in the 80s.



Keynesianism or the underconsumption theory totally overlook that in capitalism what's important isn't producing something but producing something at a profit.
It's extremelly silly when you hear people suggesting that to end the crisis, wages need to be raised. The crisis ends when the profit rate becomes acceptable to capitalists and this usually means that wages have been pushed down quite a bit.



In practice keynesianism or fighting underconsumption can mean only a few things
--->state deficits that add to the national debt and that workers will pay down the road
--->some form of subsidy that ends in the pockets of capitalists. Either their interest expense (by increasing money supply) or some of their capital expense (by subsidising investment in certain sectors, for example in renewable energy).

What it would promise to do, ie build a more egalitarian society where capitalists and workers can coexist happily without any sort of crisis disrupting that paradise, this it cannot deliver.


When you realize that it's the capitalists' profit that rules above all in this economic system you can probably go to the next step and see that the only way out of the crisis is either with workers hungrier than before or with workers in power.

[Q]

I'm curious: has there actually been an internal debate on the cause of the crisis within the rank and file, with a vote taking place to express the overall position of the group? Or is this just a case of "Peter Taaffe, our democratically elected leader, says the crisis is caused by underconsumption, so you can't say otherwise publicly"?

I hope you see the difference between these two things, and wonder which is actually the case.
Both positions are a tad unnuanced. It can't be said that comrade Taaffe is a tinpot dictator. But on the other hand, there hasn't been much of a discussion about this issue (if any) within the structures of the CWI. Presumably for lack of time. Surely we can have improvement here.

Also, I'm a little puzzled as to why a vote needs to take place at such a level. Did we decide about gravity through a vote? I think not. Scientific inquiry is rather a process, never ending, always having a feedback loop from life itself.

[Five Year Plan]

Both positions are a tad unnuanced. It can't be said that comrade Taaffe is a tinpot dictator. But on the other hand, there hasn't been much of a discussion about this issue (if any) within the structures of the CWI. Presumably for lack of time. Surely we can have improvement here.

Also, I'm a little puzzled as to why a vote needs to take place at such a level. Did we decide about gravity through a vote? I think not. Scientific inquiry is rather a process, never ending, always having a feedback loop from life itself.

Generally, in democratic centralist organizations, wide-ranging and comprehensive discussions are held on an issue if that issue to have the force of the "party line" such that people can be suspended or expelled for public disagreement on the issue. Imposing the centralism aspect, without first ensuring the democratic process, results in something Marxists call bureaucracy, which can be highly damaging to an organization's internal life and the work it might help to accomplish in the movement.

If members of an organization feel they aren't in the position to have a free exchange of ideas internally, it only seems logical that they would seek to open the process for support from outside the group.

[Art Vandelay]

words

Your claim that the CWI in Greece 'indirectly admires the people in charge' in the U.S., due to their work in SYRIZA, is total nonsense bordering on slander. How you even make that claim is beyond me. Regardless, the situation in Greece is far different from the situation in the U.S. and you cannot simply equate the defence of foreclosed homes by bourgeois political parties in Greece, with the work that the CWI has been doing in the states. There is a difference between what you describe and socialist alternative in the U.S. organizing and mobilizing entire communities to militantly defend/reclaim homes. I also never claimed that this movement was class conscious, the entire point is that the development of class consciousness doesn't manifest itself magically overnight. Showing to people that when the state comes to kick them out of their house, that communists will be the ones with them defending it, however, is important.


Whether he was suspended or expelled or not is a matter of semantics.

No its not. Bruce Wallace is still a member of the CWI.

[SHORAS]

What a joke of an organisation, let's all hope it goes down with the SWP. :)

[Sentinel]

Generally, in democratic centralist organizations, wide-ranging and comprehensive discussions are held on an issue if that issue to have the force of the "party line" such that people can be suspended or expelled for public disagreement on the issue. Imposing the centralism aspect, without first ensuring the democratic process, results in something Marxists call bureaucracy, which can be highly damaging to an organization's internal life and the work it might help to accomplish in the movement.

If members of an organization feel they aren't in the position to have a free exchange of ideas internally, it only seems logical that they would seek to open the process for support from outside the group.


Yeah, we do have democratic discussions on the perspectives of the organisation on a regular basis. Perspective documents are read and discussed in the branches, ratified by congresses on national level and the world congress on an international level.

As for this issue brought up by Wallace, I could swear I heard that it was actually discussed separately and specifically. Not sure of the details as I am in Sweden, but perhaps a comrade in Britain can clarify.

I think they had a debate in the form of a series of articles in either Socialism Today (theoretical paper of the England & Wales section) or the internal bulletin.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Your claim that the CWI in Greece 'indirectly admires the people in charge' in the U.S., due to their work in SYRIZA, is total nonsense bordering on slander. How you even make that claim is beyond me.

For what it's worth, I've spoken to Greek communists - both from the KKE and the TOE (Trotskyist Group of Greece), and even one fellow from the EEK, bless him, and that is pretty much how they described the CWI section, Xekinima. I know this is anecdotal evidence, but it seems to be the opinion of a good portion of Greek communists.

[The Idler]

Generally, in democratic centralist organizations, wide-ranging and comprehensive discussions are held on an issue if that issue to have the force of the "party line" such that people can be suspended or expelled for public disagreement on the issue. Imposing the centralism aspect, without first ensuring the democratic process, results in something Marxists call bureaucracy, which can be highly damaging to an organization's internal life and the work it might help to accomplish in the movement.

If members of an organization feel they aren't in the position to have a free exchange of ideas internally, it only seems logical that they would seek to open the process for support from outside the group.
I can accept no discussion or democracy is bad, but suspending a member for loudly and publicly saying Taafe and the others in charge are stupid and wrong on an economic matter (yes, even if Taafe's policy has majority support) is worse.

[FSL]

Your claim that the CWI in Greece 'indirectly admires the people in charge' in the U.S., due to their work in SYRIZA, is total nonsense bordering on slander. How you even make that claim is beyond me. Regardless, the situation in Greece is far different from the situation in the U.S. and you cannot simply equate the defence of foreclosed homes by bourgeois political parties in Greece, with the work that the CWI has been doing in the states. There is a difference between what you describe and socialist alternative in the U.S. organizing and mobilizing entire communities to militantly defend/reclaim homes. I also never claimed that this movement was class conscious, the entire point is that the development of class consciousness doesn't manifest itself magically overnight. Showing to people that when the state comes to kick them out of their house, that communists will be the ones with them defending it, however, is important.

How is it nonsense bordering in slander? Syriza is a party that admires Obama and his policies, its leader misses no opportunity to praise him. The greek section of cwi has its members participate in Syriza. In the upcoming elections for the european parliament they will vote for Syriza.

Oh I'm sure you could say "but the cwi people would wish someone more radical was in charge!". Yeah and many democratic party people would wish Obama himself wasn't so easygoing with republicans. That's what's nonsense, talking about what you wish would happen, instead of what you are actually doing.



Class consciousness doesn't manifest itself by chance either. The workers shouldn't just have you protect them but I'm sure you didn't mean it like that. But let's say you do help organize them and gain their respect. Then they'll listen to what you have to say. If what you say to them is "greedy bankers" nonsense, if you only talk about -bourgeois- government spending, are you helping them become class consious?

If you present the crisis to them as a bankers problem, if you present it to them as a fiscal problem, you aren't doing anything worthwhile. Just read any publication, read reuters or bloomberg, even they will have at least one editorial saying the same things.

In the end, that's no way to build a worthwhile movement. The best case scenario is that they tail some social democrat who promises exactly what you've proposed and watch their lives inexplicably continue to get worse.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What a joke of an organisation, let's all hope it goes down with the SWP. :)

If it's in relation to Left Unity, then I'm very tempted to agree with you. :)

[Art Vandelay]

For what it's worth, I've spoken to Greek communists - both from the KKE and the TOE (Trotskyist Group of Greece), and even one fellow from the EEK, bless him, and that is pretty much how they described the CWI section, Xekinima. I know this is anecdotal evidence, but it seems to be the opinion of a good portion of Greek communists.

It is anecdotal evidence. Unless someone can point to me to a situation in which the CWI in Greece has publicly stated that they admire the Obama administration, or to an example where they have said as such in their party publications, then I'm going to call it out for what it is. A shoddy piece of logic/argumentation, that merely stems from the CWI's work in SYRIZA. I have no clue who the EEK are and have never heard of the TOE, then again I don't claim to be an authority on recent developments in Greece, given the fact that I'm Canadian, but I surely won't just be taking the KKE (a party with a documented history of handing over fellow radicals to cops) on their word.


How is it nonsense bordering in slander? Syriza is a party that admires Obama and his policies, its leader misses no opportunity to praise him. The greek section of cwi has its members participate in Syriza. In the upcoming elections for the european parliament they will vote for Syriza.

Oh I'm sure you could say "but the cwi people would wish someone more radical was in charge!". Yeah and many democratic party people would wish Obama himself wasn't so easygoing with republicans. That's what's nonsense, talking about what you wish would happen, instead of what you are actually doing.

The reason why its nonsense, is you are using a Trotskyists organization practice of the tactic of entryism, as a justification for saying they are in agreement with the organization's leadership. Its not very hard to understand the mental gymnastics you have to undergo, to come to that conclusion. It would be the equivalent of me, accusing the IMT of being admirers of Canada's official opposition party's political line (as opposed to dissenters), simply due to their involvement in the Canadian NDP.


Class consciousness doesn't manifest itself by chance either. The workers shouldn't just have you protect them but I'm sure you didn't mean it like that. But let's say you do help organize them and gain their respect. Then they'll listen to what you have to say. If what you say to them is "greedy bankers" nonsense, if you only talk about -bourgeois- government spending, are you helping them become class consious?

On this note, we are in total agreement. As I said earlier, I have my disagreements with our recent U.S. campaigns and our interpretation of the transitional program and this touches upon a ongoing discussion within the CWI. I can only speak to the situation in North America, but with our recent campaigns and efforts, we have begun a discussion with many people who were traditionally alienated from radical politics. Our job is to now sharpen and concretize the working class's understanding of their collective relationship to the means of production, as well as their understanding of their antagonistic relationship with capital.

[Q]

Generally, in democratic centralist organizations, wide-ranging and comprehensive discussions are held on an issue if that issue to have the force of the "party line" such that people can be suspended or expelled for public disagreement on the issue. Imposing the centralism aspect, without first ensuring the democratic process, results in something Marxists call bureaucracy, which can be highly damaging to an organization's internal life and the work it might help to accomplish in the movement.
What you didn't address was my example on gravity: Why would we at all have theoretical or political discussions behind closed doors? If we're talking about strategical or tactical issues, I agree that internal discussion can be very valid, but having a 'party line' on gravity (to use that example again) is just plain nonsense.


If members of an organization feel they aren't in the position to have a free exchange of ideas internally, it only seems logical that they would seek to open the process for support from outside the group.
That seems to be obvious, I agree.

[FSL]

It is anecdotal evidence. Unless someone can point to me to a situation in which the CWI in Greece has publicly stated that they admire the Obama administration, or to an example where they have said as such in their party publications, then I'm going to call it out for what it is. A shoddy piece of logic/argumentation, that merely stems from the CWI's work in SYRIZA. I have no clue who the EEK are and have never heard of the TOE, then again I don't claim to be an authority on recent developments in Greece, given the fact that I'm Canadian, but I surely won't just be taking the KKE (a party with a documented history of handing over fellow radicals to cops) on their word.



The reason why its nonsense, is you are using a Trotskyists organization practice of the tactic of entryism, as a justification for saying they are in agreement with the organization's leadership. Its not very hard to understand the mental gymnastics you have to undergo, to come to that conclusion. It would be the equivalent of me, accusing the IMT of being admirers of Canada's official opposition party's political line (as opposed to dissenters), simply due to their involvement in the Canadian NDP.

That's why I said "indirectly". You can think whatever you want but if a radical participates in a democratic campaign in the states(even if he doesn't really like their candidate), what he's doing is participating in a democratic campaign in the states. That he's only doing so because he views democrats as the "lesser evil" and whether he tries to "pull everyone there to the left" is basically a non-issue.
The result if he succeeds will be a democratic president. And that's all his actions have achieved.

I'd consider any organization practicing entryism as being admirers of the party they are trying to steer in the right direction.
You campaign for that party, you vote that party, you're saying that this party could be the tool for a better world. Whether you're dissenting in the internal discussions concerns very very few.


And look at this: in Canada and Greece the CWI can support and practice entryism in the "official opposition parties" and these parties I'm sure are in very good terms with the Democrats in the US.
Why doesn't the CWI do the same in the US with the democrats?
Because the democrats govern making it much harder to sell the keynesian fairytale. These policies are already being applied and all you can do is support the same things but "turned up to 11".
Krugman does that more successfully.

[Art Vandelay]

I'd consider any organization practicing entryism as being admirers of the party they are trying to steer in the right direction.
You campaign for that party, you vote that party, you're saying that this party could be the tool for a better world. Whether you're dissenting in the internal discussions concerns very very few.

Well we can discuss the tactic of entryism, but its probably a topic for a different thread. Regardless there are 3 possible outcomes of the tactics, (1) potentially push the organization to the left, while solidifying a revolutionary faction, (2) use it as a platform for critical support, while appealing to the rank and file from a revolutionary standpoint and denouncing the leadership and their orientation, or (3) it fails.


And look at this: in Canada and Greece the CWI can support and practice entryism in the "official opposition parties" and these parties I'm sure are in very good terms with the Democrats in the US.

The CWI does not practise entryism in Canada, the International Marxist Tendency does.


Why doesn't the CWI do the same in the US with the democrats?
Because the democrats govern making it much harder to sell the keynesian fairytale. These policies are already being applied and all you can do is support the same things but "turned up to 11". Krugman does that more successfully.

Because the situation isn't a viable opportunity to practice entryism and since the 90's the CWI has predominantly sought to create independent revolutionary organizations.

[Five Year Plan]

What you didn't address was my example on gravity: Why would we at all have theoretical or political discussions behind closed doors?

In light of your known political sympathies, I am not sure whether you're asking me why it is necessary to have a debate at all, or whether it is necessary to have a debate "behind closed doors." If you're asking the first question, I could easily point out that all Marxism is supposed to entail the application of a historical materialist dialectical social-scientific method, and is in that sense, supposed to amount to "science." Does this mean that we don't have debates on issues, and just let some grand poobah at the head of the organization do the science, since we don't vote on what's scientifically accurate, after all?

If you're asking the second question, as if you are siding with opening debate so as to make it non-internal, I am confused about why you'd have a problem with a member violating the organization's discipline by publicly criticizing the leadership's position on the causes of the economic crisis.


If we're talking about strategical or tactical issues, I agree that internal discussion can be very valid, but having a 'party line' on gravity (to use that example again) is just plain nonsense.Gravity is a disingenuous example, since the debate we're talking about in the CWI isn't about whether class struggle is driving force in history or any other fundamental tenet of Marxism. It's about a far more specific issue that doesn't rise to the level of an abstract covering law. It's a debate over how to apply those laws and ideas and methods to a specific concrete situation. This is also different than a tactical maneuver of a kind that wouldn't make sense to discuss group-wide (e.g., the decision of whether the Bolsheviks should seize power from the provisional government), which doesn't rise to the issue of a "line" question at all and is purely about applying the line to a specific situation, rather than developing the line by applying Marxian methodology to an ongoing concrete social phenomenon. I would be open to hearing why it doesn't make practical sense to have an internal debate on the underlying causes and mechanisms driving the crisis. I just can't imagine one.

It would be one thing if the debate has already recently taken place democratically, a decision made, and the results of the process presented to potential recruits as part of the organizational line expected to be upheld going forward until the issue is revisited after enough time has passed to test its accuracy. Sentinel seems to recall this is what happened, and I accept that at face value. It's another thing, though, to defend disciplining a member for questioning a specific party of the group's line that he had no role whatsoever in debating or formulating, discussion about which is being actively suppressed, and which is far more specific than a law-of-gravity truism of Marxism.

[Forward Union]

I am by no means a member of any organisations associated with the CWI, never have been and have never applied for membership. But I don't really see the controversy.

An organisation which is exclusively political must maintain its tactical and theoretical unity, otherwise its just a blob of amorphos individuals. They didn't deny him citizenship or impose any material infractions on him, they simply suspended his membership. When you join an organisation they admit you normally on the assumption that you support the organisation. That doesn't mean never disagreeing with it. It means bringing those disagreements up within it, in a constructive manner, using the structures and mechanisms provided. This is literally true of any organisation from the Republican party to the local girl scouts club.Actually this is better than within informal consensus organisations when individuals are muscles out in a kind of unofficial or social manner. These kinds of informal power structures are much harder to identify and/or correct.

[SHORAS]

When you join an organisation they admit you normally on the assumption that you support the organisation. That doesn't mean never disagreeing with it. It means bringing those disagreements up within it, in a constructive manner, using the structures and mechanisms provided.


This means if you discuss outside the organisation you are forced to lie. How is that of any use to anyone?

[Forward Union]

This means if you discuss outside the organisation you are forced to lie. How is that of any use to anyone?

I don't understand the criticism

[Art Vandelay]

I am by no means a member of any organisations associated with the CWI, never have been and have never applied for membership. But I don't really see the controversy.

An organisation which is exclusively political must maintain its tactical and theoretical unity, otherwise its just a blob of amorphos individuals. They didn't deny him citizenship or impose any material infractions on him, they simply suspended his membership. When you join an organisation they admit you normally on the assumption that you support the organisation. That doesn't mean never disagreeing with it. It means bringing those disagreements up within it, in a constructive manner, using the structures and mechanisms provided. This is literally true of any organisation from the Republican party to the local girl scouts club.Actually this is better than within informal consensus organisations when individuals are muscles out in a kind of unofficial or social manner. These kinds of informal power structures are much harder to identify and/or correct.

You're the first ultra-left to make a sensible comment in this entire thread. The picture being painted of this being an example of an individual who dared to question the party line being suspended, solely for that reason, is simply false. Its quite clear, to someone like myself who has been involved in some of internal discussions, that most here don't really have any conception of the issue at hand. The suspension was not caused by being a proponent of LTTRPF, but the way in which this entire situation has been handled. If the campaign to have the party line changed, on the cause of the capitalist crises, had been gone about differently, I don't think we'd be having this discussion right now. There are certain aspects of the CWI's line that I don't agree with, I've consistently raised them, am attempting to win people over to my point of view, etc...and the organization has encouraged me to do so.

[The Idler]

You're the first ultra-left to make a sensible comment in this entire thread. The picture being painted of this being an example of an individual who dared to question the party line being suspended, solely for that reason, is simply false. Its quite clear, to someone like myself who has been involved in some of internal discussions, that most here don't really have any conception of the issue at hand. The suspension was not caused by being a proponent of LTTRPF, but the way in which this entire situation has been handled. If the campaign to have the party line changed, on the cause of the capitalist crises, had been gone about differently, I don't think we'd be having this discussion right now. There are certain aspects of the CWI's line that I don't agree with, I've consistently raised them, am attempting to win people over to my point of view, etc...and the organization has encouraged me to do so.
What are these aspects of the CWI line you don't agree with, or am I too ultraleft to understand?

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

It is anecdotal evidence. Unless someone can point to me to a situation in which the CWI in Greece has publicly stated that they admire the Obama administration, or to an example where they have said as such in their party publications, then I'm going to call it out for what it is. A shoddy piece of logic/argumentation, that merely stems from the CWI's work in SYRIZA. I have no clue who the EEK are and have never heard of the TOE, then again I don't claim to be an authority on recent developments in Greece, given the fact that I'm Canadian, but I surely won't just be taking the KKE (a party with a documented history of handing over fellow radicals to cops) on their word.

EEK, the Workers' Revolutionary Party, are the remnants of the Healyites in Greece, as you can probably tell by their name. The TOE, who I think number in the dozens, but have a very good line, were formerly Morenoites and are now Sparts.

This is circumstantial evidence, of course, but gauging the opinion of experienced members of the socialist movement is always useful. Particularly since they know things that have never been published - e.g. the extreme nationalism and homophobia of the Yugoslav Lambertists.

As for the KKE, well, let's be honest, the CWI isn't squeaky-clean either. In any case, I broadly agree with FSL - Wallace has no business being in the CWI; he obviously considers the Keynesianism/FRoP issue to be serious enough to warrant a breach of discipline, on which I agree with him, so he should consider it serious enough to split.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

You're the first ultra-left to make a sensible comment in this entire thread. The picture being painted of this being an example of an individual who dared to question the party line being suspended, solely for that reason, is simply false. Its quite clear, to someone like myself who has been involved in some of internal discussions, that most here don't really have any conception of the issue at hand. The suspension was not caused by being a proponent of LTTRPF, but the way in which this entire situation has been handled. If the campaign to have the party line changed, on the cause of the capitalist crises, had been gone about differently, I don't think we'd be having this discussion right now. There are certain aspects of the CWI's line that I don't agree with, I've consistently raised them, am attempting to win people over to my point of view, etc...and the organization has encouraged me to do so.

Why was he suspended?

[Art Vandelay]

This is circumstantial evidence, of course, but gauging the opinion of experienced members of the socialist movement is always useful.

I agree that gauging the opinion of experienced members of the socialist movement is indeed useful, but I hope you understand that I'm not just going to take the word (of someone I've never spoken to before), who is passing on second hand information, when it clashes with my own experience within the organization.


In any case, I broadly agree with FSL - Wallace has no business being in the CWI; he obviously considers the Keynesianism/FRoP issue to be serious enough to warrant a breach of discipline, on which I agree with him, so he should consider it serious enough to split.

Wallace has been a member for over 40 years and knows he has like minded comrades within the organization. I think he's in a good position to gauge whether or not he should leave.


What are these aspects of the CWI line you don't agree with, or am I too ultraleft to understand?

I didn't call you an ultra-left and for clarifications sake I don't use the term as a slur. Most people I know whose politics would accurate fit that label, embrace the term. Regardless, I alluded to some of my disagreements on the first page and don't really see any reason to discuss them with randoms on the internet, when they are things that I am currently actively debating within my branch.


Why was he suspended?

For the manner in which this has all been handled. Organizations have internal avenues through which members are to direct their criticisms/concerns. Now maybe Wallace feels like those structures have failed him, this I don't know, but that is how a democratic centralist organization functions. It was simply a breach of party discipline, not a matter of having a differing economic analysis. Now I can see why one would feel pushed to such measures, if they felt they were being unjustly silenced, but breaching party discipline does warrant action. Again, I think Forward Union's post is really relevant when it comes to this matter. To be fair though, there are other folks within the organization whose behavior has been absolutely ridiculous when it comes to how they've been interacting with Wallace. I remember early on I posted a Foucault quote, in an attempt to steer the debate in a comradely manner and was pretty quickly dismissed because 'rah rah this is a polemic! rah rah.' Its a pity really and I wish this would of all been handled in a much different fashion, by a few different individuals.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I'm curious: has there actually been an internal debate on the cause of the crisis within the rank and file, with a vote taking place to express the overall position of the group? Or is this just a case of "Peter Taaffe, our democratically elected leader, says the crisis is caused by underconsumption, so you can't say otherwise publicly"?

I hope you see the difference between these two things, and wonder which is actually the case.
In the UK, there was internal debate within branches with the documents of both factions at hand and regional debates where members of the 'group of 11' were asked to come and present their views and members supporting the other side a rebuttal. In my branch we didn't spend a huge amount of time on the discussion but we ensured it was discussed when the documents were first published (partly because not many members were actually that interested and partly because we've been inundated with local organising) and we sent delegates to the regional debate who then reported back and we discussed it again.


I can accept no discussion or democracy is bad, but suspending a member for loudly and publicly saying Taafe and the others in charge are stupid and wrong on an economic matter (yes, even if Taafe's policy has majority support) is worse.
I'm pretty sure Taafe is more than used to people slandering him and he's got thick enough skin but some rank and file members of Wallace's branch (which for all reports Wallace hadn't even turned up to for a year or so until he initiated this debate) felt he was attacking them personally on his blog and on facebook and complained to ask for him to at least remove their names which he refused to do.

---
Unofficially amongst my immediate comrades in my branch the assumption is that the group of 11 are frustrated with the way the workers' movement is going (or isn't going, as it were) and feel that if only the CWI had the right slogans that we'd be in Paris 68 again, or whatever. But you can't just magically jump in as a party with a few banners and a handful of leaflets describing the correct reasons for the economic crash and suddenly have a revolution on your hands, all we can really do is create a support structure to defend what few gains the working class still has left and when the movement does build try to ensure it's channelled into a positive direction.

[Creative Destruction]

1. Bruce Wallace has not been expelled from the CWI, he has been suspended from membership of the Socialist Party Scotland. Bruce Wallace has the normal right of appeal (the same as any other member) to the SPS and has indicated that he intends to follow this route.
2. Bruce Wallace has not been suspended for questioning the CWI's line on the cause of economic crisis - as has been outlined in the letter sent to Bruce Wallace by the SPS NC, he has been suspended for failing to carry out the the democratic decisions of the party as outlined by the motion agreed by the National Committee on 19th January 2014. These matters relate specifically to the approach he has taken of publicly attacking the leadership of the SPS and of the CWI and individual members of the CWI on the internet in what the SPS NC states (and in which I agree with) is carried out in a derogatory and chronic ultra left fashion. Even the most cursory look at his blog would demonstrate that this is an accurate assessment of the approach of Bruce Wallace
Whatever the merits of Bruce Wallace's arguments about the analysis of the CWI on the cause of the current economic crisis, he has completely undermined any support he could generate for his position by the approach he has adopted of 'I know more than you do and I am going to denigrate you if you don't agree with me' (my view)

amazing.

this is why democratic centralism sucks.

[The Idler]

I'm pretty sure Taafe is more than used to people slandering him and he's got thick enough skin but some rank and file members of Wallace's branch (which for all reports Wallace hadn't even turned up to for a year or so until he initiated this debate) felt he was attacking them personally on his blog and on facebook and complained to ask for him to at least remove their names which he refused to do.


I've not heard that Wallace has been asked to remove names and refused. Has this been written somewhere?

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I've not heard that Wallace has been asked to remove names and refused. Has this been written somewhere?
Not sure, it might have been internal but I'll try and find something to quote properly.

[Art Vandelay]

I'm pretty sure Taafe is more than used to people slandering him and he's got thick enough skin but some rank and file members of Wallace's branch (which for all reports Wallace hadn't even turned up to for a year or so until he initiated this debate) felt he was attacking them personally on his blog and on facebook and complained to ask for him to at least remove their names which he refused to do.

I'm fairly certain Wallace has some health problems, which would limit his ability to take part in regular meetings in person.


amazing. this is why democratic centralism sucks.

How enlightening.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Just a couple of quick comments


This means if you discuss outside the organisation you are forced to lie. How is that of any use to anyone?
No - this is incorrect - there has been the odd occasion over the past 30 years where I have felt strongly in disagreement with official CWI policy. UI expressed my disagreement within the organisation - in public the approach was easy - I kept my mouth shut.


What are these aspects of the CWI line you don't agree with, or am I too ultraleft to understand?
Again, you misunderstand the approach. If I have any disagreements with the CWI then I express them within the CWI. I will argue my point of view and whether I win or not I will accept the democratic decision of the CWI (at branch, national or international level). If I feel strongly enough about an issue and I feel that the CWI of fundamentally in error then I will form a faction and see if there is support for my views among the wider membership who are willing to work for the CWI at the same time as trying to change the position of the CWI. That is how it works - the CWI has rules and as a member you must accept the rules.

Last point - the CWI is not perfect - the CWI makes many mistakes. I have been a member of the CWI for more than 30 years. I am a member of the CWI because I believe the CWI is the most likely organisation to build a revolutionary party. I will remain a member of the CWI as long as I feel it can play that role.

[Per Levy]

No - this is incorrect - there has been the odd occasion over the past 30 years where I have felt strongly in disagreement with official CWI policy. UI expressed my disagreement within the organisation - in public the approach was easy - I kept my mouth shut.

first rule of the CWI is: you do not talk about the CWI.


Last point - the CWI is not perfect - the CWI makes many mistakes. I have been a member of the CWI for more than 30 years. I am a member of the CWI because I believe the CWI is the most likely organisation to build a revolutionary party. I will remain a member of the CWI as long as I feel it can play that role.

so the CWI exist now for 40 years and has not yet been able to "build a revolutionary party" anywhere, so what makes you think that the CWI is able to "build a revolutionary party" in your lifetime?

[Jolly Red Giant]

first rule of the CWI is: you do not talk about the CWI.
Am I not talking about the CWI now. I will happily debate any issue about the CWI that you care to raise



so the CWI exist now for 40 years and has not yet been able to "build a revolutionary party" anywhere, so what makes you think that the CWI is able to "build a revolutionary party" in your lifetime?
I have no idea if the CWI will become a mass revolutionary organisation within my lifetime. This does not mean it will not happen - just that I cannot predict the future.

And maybe you can point out which organisation has created a mass revolutionary party in the past 40 years?

[SHORAS]

Am I not talking about the CWI now. I will happily debate any issue about the CWI that you care to raise

No not really, only in a very superficial and boring way. Can you disagree with the organisation you are a member of in public?