Differences between CWI and the IMT?

[Red_Jacobin]

What are the differences between the IMT and CWI? Are they Orthodox Trotskyists? What are the pros and cons of each?

[initforthelutz]

IMT broke from CWI in the nineties with IMT supporting entryism in the Labour Party. IMT is orthodox Trotskyist, believing that the Soviet Union was a degenerated workers state. I'm not sure about CWI, since a few of their affiliated parties have taken turns towards democratic socialism, such as Socialist Alternative in the US.

[JaffaRed]

Both are splinter groups from "Militant Labor", who were essentially a Trotskyte faction within the Labor party in the UK. Their positions are quite similar. I know IMT less well but CWI are now deep into the reformist swamp and even support the Democrat Bernie Sanders in the U.S.

Also IMT are less critical of the current Cuban regime than the CWI.

You won't hear either talking openly about communism or revolution, only about militant reform.

[Counterculturalist]

The only significant difference between the two is that the IMT is "entryist" - i.e. their members join social-democratic parties like Labour in England or the NDP here in Canada. The CWI split from IMT over this issue, and doesn't pursue entryism.

I am not involved with either group (nor am I a Trotskyist) so hopefully other users will answer more in depth, but I don't think that there are great theoretical differences between the two groups besides the entryism thing.

Edit: for some reason I thought I was the first to answer, so to keep this post from being completely redundant, I'll ask a question: does IMT have an entryist strategy in the US, and if so, what party do they join? The Greens?

[Red_Jacobin]

I'll ask a question: does IMT have an entryist strategy in the US, and if so, what party do they join? The Greens?

I also am wondering this.

[CyM]

A few people have given this a try without really properly answering.

Militant tendency was the largest trotskyist organization in Europe, outside of Russia. In the 1980's its numbers touched 8000 paid up members. It based itself within the Labour party as the "Marxist wing" of the party which was organized by the trade unions. A "bourgeois-workers' party", as Lenin called it, with an organic link to the workers and a right and left wing.

Militant based itself on Ted Grant's theory that when the class begins to move, it will inevitably do so through its traditional mass organizations: the trade unions and the parties that are linked to them. In the meantime, the Marxists should look to those organizations to find recruits and to prepare for the battles to come.

"The communists do not build parties of their own", as the communist manifesto put it. Stick with the mass of the working class until events teach the workers the need to break with the reformists. No one is interested in a party of three men and their dog.

Win a majority for the ideas of Marxism.

Militant had enormous success on this. They were able to take the majority of the labour youth, and thereby had representatives on the labour NEC. They ended up with three openly revolutionary members of parliament on the Labour name, who ran with the slogan "a worker's MP on a worker's wage". They took the average salary of a skilled worker, and the rest went to the movement.

Militant had more full-time organizers than the Labour party itself and was eventually attacked as a "party within a party". The idea that they didn't talk about revolution is nonsense, they were loud, effective agitators for revolution who were simply everywhere in the 80's and took over everywhere they went.

They even entered Liverpool city council and led a revolt against Thatcher's zero deficit orders, illegally taking a deficit and creating thousands of homes and jobs. Later on, they led the refusal to pay the poll tax, with one of their mps spending time in jail for his boycott. The poll tax campaign brought down Maggie, and Militant led it.

Of course, Kinnock, who was right-wing leader of Labour at the time, wanted Militant out. So a purge was begun, a witch hunt. The group was proscribed, ie banned. The editorial board was expelled, including Ted Grant and Peter Taafe, two of the main leaders. They had a guy following comrades, taking photos of them selling the paper, and then putting them on trial for being members of a "proscribed group".

This was a long, tedious process. And every single trial in front of the NEC was fought tooth and nail and took forever. Unfortunately, in the middle of this, an internal overconfidence had set in. Militant was huge, but it was still not a mass party by any means. But to some in the leadership, they were "this close". To them, if Militant only declared itself a separate party, the masses would flood in.

So the expulsions were kind of seen as a reason to leave. 30 years of work, and they decided to throw it out. Ted insisted that the right-wing leadership must be resisted, and that the tide would eventually turn inside the labour party. Essentially, that a mass "centrist" tendency would emerge. Centrist in the Marxist sense: confused and unclear, vacillating between the openly revolutionary position and the left reformist position. Ted essentially said, they want us out but have no power to carry it out, don't give them what they want without a fight.

The majority went with Peter Taafe, who insisted that the party run candidates against labour. And that they'd win. They lost, but it was still treated as a victory. The former mps also lost, but it was still treated as a victory.

In the end, the debate led to Ted's expulsion. And he took a small minority of what was left of Militant, as well as significant chunks of the international, the Committee for a Worker's International (CWI), and formed the Committee for a Marxist International (CMI). Eventually that became the International Marxist Tendency (IMT).

Now, with the mass influx into labour and the Corbyn uprising within, I can say with confidence: Ted was right all along.

Just imagine what could be achieved now if Militant was still around patiently waiting precisely for this moment.

[VivalaCuarta]

My post (http://www.internationalist.org/hermajestyssocialdemocratspolice0709.html) which demonstrated that the CWI and IMT have fundamentally identical positions on the key question of the capitalist state, where both of them take the side of the bourgeoisie's racist killer cops against the workers, was apparently deleted. By who, I wonder?

[CyM]

Beginning of the expulsions:

https://youtu.be/5m50rq6BgQg

Michael Crick on Militant:

https://youtu.be/Aq_c7ymmpiI

Speaking of Michael Crick. He's a journalist who did an "exposé" on Militant. Very good book about a 150 pages full of factual information from an enemy, which shows just how effective they were as well as how revolutionary their politics actually were.

[CyM]

My post (http://www.internationalist.org/hermajestyssocialdemocratspolice0709.html) which demonstrated that the CWI and IMT have fundamentally identical positions on the key question of the capitalist state, where both of them take the side of the bourgeoisie's racist killer cops against the workers, was apparently deleted. By who, I wonder?

By me. Don't copy paste the entire contents of an unnecessarily long article in a post in learning. It's spam. Criticize in your own words if you wish. But also remember that this is a question about the differences between the CWI and the IMT.

[VivalaCuarta]

By me. Don't copy paste the entire contents of an unnecessarily long article in a post in learning. It's spam. Criticize in your own words if you wish. But also remember that this is a question about the differences between the CWI and the IMT.

Certainly you deleted it because it was "unnecessarily long," and not at all because it exposes your IMT and CWI as cop-loving anti-Trotskyists!

[Sentinel]

What does the matter of the police have to do with the differences between the CWI and the IMT, exactly? They hold the same position on the issue, so how about we stick to the topic in hand ie what separates the two..?

[Fourth Internationalist]

What does the matter of the police have to do with the differences between the CWI and the IMT, exactly? They hold the same position on the issue, so how about we stick to the topic in hand ie what separates the two..?

The thread not only asks what the differences between the two are, but also "Are they Orthodox Trotskyists? What are the pros and cons of each?" VivalaCuarta is answering the second question, and is giving cons for both. A critical view, true, but appropriate given another user's positive posts about it.

[VivalaCuarta]

What does the matter of the police have to do with the differences between the CWI and the IMT, exactly? They hold the same position on the issue, so how about we stick to the topic in hand ie what separates the two..?

I think it answers the OP's questions better than any other post.

What are the differences between the IMT and CWI?

Tactical differences. They have no difference on the fundamental issue of the capitalist state.

Are they Orthodox Trotskyists?

No, they are not Marxists at all. They are reformist social democrats.

What are the pros and cons of each?

It depends on your class point of view. If you don't love cops then it's mostly cons.

[blake 3:17]

Thank you CyM for providing some sanity and historical context.

I've never really been able to get my head around Labour Militant politics. The over emphasis on social democracy and Stalinism I just found weird, but what the heck. The question of deep entrism is a major strategic one. It's not one I would make, but better than some of the ultra left nonsense being spouted.

The Socialist Party I think is folding, but there was tremendous hope in the Scottish Socialist Party. Tragic that Sheridan blew it so bad.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Here is another good article, which talks at length about the IMT and other left groups' anti-Marxist support for Chavez.

http://www.bolshevik.org/1917/no30/no30-Venezuela.html


“Chavez sees the need to ‘deepen’ the revolution. He understands that the revolution cannot stand still. It must move on. He can see that every time he tries to push the process further, the bureaucracy comes up with a thousand and one obstacles. He feels that he cannot make this state machine do what he wants. The only road is therefore to break this machine and build a new one based on the workers.”
—Marxist.com, 9 January 2007


“The strength of Hugo Chávez, and the secret of his success, is that he embodies the revolutionary aspirations of the masses and gives voice to their deep desire for a fundamental change in society. He has awakened millions of people to political life and for the first time has given them hope of a change, a sense of dignity and purpose.

“There are left sectarians, who for some strange reason imagine that they are Marxists, who do not understand this phenomenon.”
—Marxist.com, 29 November 2006

[Sharia Lawn]

Can we be clear on what is meant by "orthodox" in this context?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Can we be clear on what is meant by "orthodox" in this context?

I'm not sure there is a real way to define what is meant by "Orthodox Trotskyism", but I, for simplicity's sake, have generally gone with the notion that it refers to those Trotskyists who view the Soviet Union as a workers state worth defending up until the early 1990's. So no state-capitalists/third campists. But in the context of this question, I don't know if it is asking that or something else.

[Q]

I'm not sure there is a real way to define what is meant by "Orthodox Trotskyism", but I, for simplicity's sake, have generally gone with the notion that it refers to those Trotskyists who view the Soviet Union as a workers state worth defending up until the early 1990's. So no state-capitalists/third campists. But in the context of this question, I don't know if it is asking that or something else.
This was the CWI position indeed. Peter Taaffe, in the late eighties, thought it was impossible for the USSR to disappear anytime soon and soon after anticipated a "red nineties". After the IMT split away, they held the belief up to 1998 (iirc) that Russia was a degenerated workers' state.

Another theoretical pillar of the 'orthodox' Trotskyist movement, the transitional programme, has another checkmark, be it that the CWI (and later also the IMT) tended to focus on the "existing consciousness", which is of course trade unionist under normal circumstances. Hence why other "more pure" trot splinters cry reformism.

Another checkmark can be found in "permanent revolution", be it that in practice they tend to put too much emphasis on the "uneven" part of combined and uneven development. So they end up callng for an independent Scotland, an independent Catalonia and other such nationalist projects that somehow strengthens internationalism.

Last but not least, they tend to religiously follow James P. Cannon, the American Trotskyist who had a huge impact in defining what "orthodox" Trotskyism means in the 1930's, in the way the "party" organisation should be build. Very top-down indeed, pretty much like all trots do.

I'd say they're both very 'orthodox' Trotskyist.

[VivalaCuarta]

The polite term for this is nonsense. Q was a long-time CWI supporter, but evidently learned nothing about Trotskyism before dumping all that baggage and becoming a mainline reformist.


This was the CWI position indeed. Peter Taaffe, in the late eighties, thought it was impossible for the USSR to disappear anytime soon and soon after anticipated a "red nineties". After the IMT split away, they held the belief up to 1998 (iirc) that Russia was a degenerated workers' state.

Trotsky insisted on the unconditional military defense of the Soviet Union because it was a workers state, bureaucratically degenerated. Whatever the CWI might have labeled the USSR in "theory," it was literally on Yeltsin's counterrevolutionary barricades. While Trotskyists hailed the Red Army intervention in Afghanistan against Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan's holy warriors, the CWI joined with all the other social-democrats in calling for the Soviets to get out. So according to CWI anti-Trotskyists, a "workers state" is something that must be destroyed in alliance with U.S. imperialism, the Russian Orthodox church, and Islamist mujehadin.


Another theoretical pillar of the 'orthodox' Trotskyist movement, the transitional programme, has another checkmark, be it that the CWI (and later also the IMT) tended to focus on the "existing consciousness", which is of course trade unionist under normal circumstances. Hence why other "more pure" trot splinters cry reformism.

Again, nonsense. The Transitional Program is a program for workers revolution. The CWI in the U.S. currently enthusiastically campaigns for a candidate of the ruling party of U.S. imperialism, Bernie Sanders.


Another checkmark can be found in "permanent revolution", be it that in practice they tend to put too much emphasis on the "uneven" part of combined and uneven development. So they end up callng for an independent Scotland, an independent Catalonia and other such nationalist projects that somehow strengthens internationalism.

This has nothing to do with the theory and program of permanent revolution, which holds that in countries of belated capitalist development, the tasks of the bourgeois revolution can only be achieved under the dictatorship of the proletariat, which, in order to secure its rule, must also make despotic inroads into the rights of private property, and extend the revolution internationally. It means nothing to talk of permanent revolution when the CWI supports bourgeois parties and capitalist counterrevolution from Mexico to China.


Last but not least, they tend to religiously follow James P. Cannon

LOL! :laugh:

Q, please stick to writing about what you know, whatever that is.

[Art Vandelay]

The IMT split from the CWI in the 90's over the 'open turn' policy. The dispute centered on the nature of social-democratic organizations (like Labor in the UK) that the CWI had imbedded themselves in due to Grant's notion of entryism. Taaffe and the majority argued that social-democratic organizations had swung so far to the right in recent years that their character had fundamentally altered, and as a result entryism into the organizations should no longer be pursued. Grant/Woods argued that this would be tantamount to abandoning 30 years of patient work. What's interesting is that despite the fact that their analysis was faulty (social-democracy was the same as it had always been), ditching entryism into labor was a positive; the CWI took a wrong step in the right direction, so to speak.

Despite what some here will say - and what the likes of Taaffe and Woods would lead you to believe - the difference between the CWI and IMT is rather negligible. Despite the fact that they split over the question of entryism, in practice the groups operate largely the same. In countries where there is a social-democratic organization large and important enough, both the CWI and IMT will imbed themselves in it. If no such organization exists, the CWI/IMT will set about constructing it (a Labor 2.0 if you will), so that in the future they can subsume and liquidate themselves into the party.

What needs to be made absolutely clear to anyone interested in potentially joining either organization, is that in practice neither have anything to do with the politics of Lenin and Trotsky. The Grantite notion of entryism has nothing in common with the approach advocated by Trotsky (entryism in very specific historical circumstances characterized by a leftward swing in the consciousness of the membership of bourgeois workers parties) and is a product of a terribly confused study of the French turn. Their approach to party building reeks of 2nd international reformism, and they undoubtedly have a lot more in common with the old minimum-maximum program than with anything written in the death agony of capitalism and the tasks of the fourth international.

The notion that they have anything to do with 'orthodox Trotskyism' is patently absurd, and anyone who takes a glance at the history of the organizations should be able to see that clearly - a history characterized by ceding to the pressures of their own national bourgeoisie. Orthodox Trotskyists stood for the unconditional military defence of the USSR, while simultaneously calling for a political revolution to oust the parasitic Stalinist bureaucracy; the CWI/IMT served the counter-revolution on Yelstin's barricades. On the topic of China the CWI (potentially the IMT as well, although I cannot be sure) has adopted a stance Trotsky correctly labeled as 'running the film of reformism in reverse' and has resulted in the organization pushing a line that is to the right-wing of the US state department. The IMT's borderline uncritical support for the Venezualan 'revolution' is testament to their theoretical bankruptcy, and the stance of both organizations on cops is absolutely despicable and should be enough to send any serious Marxist running for the hills.


Last but not least, they tend to religiously follow James P. Cannon
No, they do not. Back when I was a member of the CWI, I had begun becoming increasingly interested and influenced by the works of James P Cannon. When I went to the CWI summer school, I was hoping to be able to pick up some of his books at the shop, since they can be quite expensive to order. They didn't have a single copy of a single book. Of course you couldn't walk two feet without bumping into a stall loaded up with works by Grant/Taaffe. I'd be surprised if most of the rank and file of the CWI have even heard of James P Cannon, let alone read any of his work, and the theoretical line pushed by the leadership couldn't be any less influenced by Cannon.

[Realzowi]

I am in the IMT, so I certainly am not neutral. I try however to be objective in answering a few points.

1) The IMT does not do entryism in all countries. For example, in the USA they don't. There they call for the unions to set up a 'mass party of labor', while themselves they do union work and open work.
2) As for JP Cannon, the predecessors of the CWI/IMT in the British section of the Fourth International, they came into conflict with his organisational maneuvers (he tried to force top-down the fusion of all British trotskyist groups) and as a result at least Ted Grant was negative about the (later) Cannon. Still, the IMT bookshop used to sell two works of Cannon. He is neither slavishly followed nor ignored.
3) The position of the CWI on Afghanistan is completely being distorted. There was never any support for the mujahideen. They used to defend the Afghan workers state. However, they were against the Russian invasion as it would lower the consciousness of workers in the West and strengthen the mujahideen by giving them an excuse to present themselves as fighting foreign oppression.
4) As for Yeltsin and the coup, this is where the CWI majority and minority (the later IMT) got into conflict. The majority opposed the coup and supported the Yeltsin camp in order to 'defend democratic gains', while the minority supported neither camp and proposed an independent class position.
5) I don't know the current CWI position on China, but the IMT position is clear. Re-nationalising the commanding heights, this time under workers control.
6) Read any article by the IMT on Venezuela from the last 10 years, to see that we do not uncritically support the Venezuelan revolution, but call for the expropriation of the means of production under workers control and the replacement of the bourgeois state by a workers state.
7) An important difference is that the CWI seeks to gain short term victories and from there build their organisation. For example, the Kshama Sawant campaign or their notion of standing anti-cuts councillors in Britain with TUSC. The IMT almost does not engage in elections. They did it in Pakistan with the last few elections, where only in 2002 they won a seat in the national parliament (they later broke with the MP), and with some local councillors in Brazil. In general, the IMT focuses more on building the tendency with more focus on marxist education.
8) As for the IMT not calling for revolution, that is a ridiculous assertion. The papers of their following sections are called 'revolution' (Italy, Greece, France, French Belgium, Scotland, Denmark, Sweden, South Africa).