How to terminate the militant tendency once and for all

[Alan woods is a windbag]

The so-called 'Militant tendency' were thoroughly exposed as opportunists when they adopted chauvinist positions on a number of different issues. Most notably with regard to the Malvinas conflict in 1982.

I think we can all agree that currently existing offshoots of the aforementioned undesirables, namely the self-styled "committee of the workers international" and equally misnamed "international marxist tendency" must be mercilessly hunted and destroyed like the rats that they are!

Practical question: How do we go about performing this very important task?

[BIXX]

The so-called 'Militant tendency' were thoroughly exposed as opportunists when they adopted chauvinist positions on a number of different issues. Most notably with regard to the Malvinas conflict in 1982.

I think we can all agree that currently existing offshoots of the aforementioned undesirables, namely the self-styled "committee of the workers international" and equally misnamed "international marxist tendency" must be mercilessly hunted and destroyed like the rats that they are!

Practical question: How do we go about performing this very important task?
sure thing buddy.

[Alan woods is a windbag]

I find your glib reply to this rather serious matter cause for concern.

Are you not fully aware of just how chauvinist and opportunist this group was?

[BIXX]

I'm willing to bet that there is no real cause for alarm in regards to this group.

[Alan woods is a windbag]

The fact that sympathisers of these chauvinists are allowed to post here invalidates this forum's claim to be revolutionary (it's what I believe the "rev" in "revleft" is supposed to stand for)

Peter the Taaffe looks like Mr Magoo.

[BIXX]

Answer this question: what actual danger is posed by them?

Second, who even are these people?

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Peter the Taaffe looks like Mr Magoo.
Haha, lol. :laugh:

[Recuperation]

This kind of fratricidal idiocy was perhaps somewhat entertaining in the lull the left found itself in a few years ago but has long outlived it's novelty. Perhaps we should turn you and the militant tendency both into fertilizer? You would at least be of use to the public at that point.

[Ele'ill]

bookmarked

[Alan woods is a windbag]

Alan woods is a creepy old man who lurks around university campuses.

[BIXX]

I mean, you're describing a lot of Marxists when you say that.

[Decolonize The Left]

The so-called 'Militant tendency' were thoroughly exposed as opportunists when they adopted chauvinist positions on a number of different issues. Most notably with regard to the Malvinas conflict in 1982.

I think we can all agree that currently existing offshoots of the aforementioned undesirables, namely the self-styled "committee of the workers international" and equally misnamed "international marxist tendency" must be mercilessly hunted and destroyed like the rats that they are!

Practical question: How do we go about performing this very important task?

You're seemingly calling for murder and barbarism here.... How do you think this will work out on an internet forum? What do you do other than call for other leftists to be persecuted? Why, out of literally all the things that need addressing right now, do you think that this is a "very important task?"

[Alan woods is a windbag]

You're seemingly calling for murder and barbarism here.... How do you think this will work out on an internet forum? What do you do other than call for other leftists to be persecuted? Why, out of literally all the things that need addressing right now, do you think that this is a "very important task?"

Because they support British imperialism. Isn't that evident from the OP?

Also, I couldn't help but notice a rather sanctimonious tone. As a moderator of a forum that allows a platform for racist propaganda defending British colonialism and child abuse fantasies are you really in a position to take the moral high ground?

[BIXX]

Alan woods is a windbag, tell me what you think of the USSR.

[Alan woods is a windbag]

Alan woods is a windbag, tell me what you think of the USSR.

I fail to see what relevancy my opinion of fSU has to with the topic in hand. [although I feel an attempt at a false equivalency is being drawn in order to deflect attention from the issues raised in this thread]

[Excogitatus]

Most notably with regard to the Malvinas conflict in 1982.

If you think supporting Argentina in that instance is any better than supporting the U.K. then you're pretty wrong and inconsistent in your analysis of imperialism. Not to mention, actual territorial imperialism is a bit secondary to the more developed economic imperialism of our age, no?

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Because they support British imperialism. Isn't that evident from the OP?

Also, I couldn't help but notice a rather sanctimonious tone. As a moderator a forum that allows a platform for racist propaganda defending British colonialism and child abuse fantasies are you really in a position to take the moral high ground?
The only thing you mentioned regarding supposed support for British imperialism was "Most notably with regard to the Malvinas conflict in 1982." But in the Militant newspaper of the time, 9/April/1982, they wrote: "Workers can give no support whatsoever to the lunatic adventure now being prepared by the Thatcher government... the Labour Party and the trade union movement could stop Thatcher dead in her tracks. The labour movement must declare that it has no confidence whatsoever in the policies or methods of the British government... Labour must demand a general election in order that a Labour government can support and encourage workers’ opposition in Argentina." The argument of Militant at the time regarding the Malvinas conflict was to encourage the labour movements of both Britain and Argentina to organise to prevent the war.


Like, there's lots of things to criticise Militant for but support for imperialist war is not one of them.

[BIXX]

I fail to see what relevancy my opinion of fSU has to with the topic in hand. [although I feel an attempt at a false equivalency is being drawn in order to deflect attention from the issues raised in this thread]

No, it's relevant. If you hold this (tiny) group in such a regard that you consider them a large threat but hold uncritical or inconsistently critical views of the USSR then it exposes your hatred for the "Militant tendency" as historical role play/drama.

[Jimmie Higgins]

“We must terminate the new fascist movements and rallies” ...makes sense, if the fascists normalize their claims of free-speech, then the will be able to hold rallies and have “protest” actions such as opposing strikers or marching through immigrant neighborhoods with torches and bats.

“We must terminate the union bureaucracy’s hold on the labor movement.” ...ok, I agree, but it’s kind of vague sloganeering. Workshop this and come back with a plan to help build rank and file power and organization.

“We must terminate the militant tendency...” huh? Who?

[Decolonize The Left]

Because they support British imperialism. Isn't that evident from the OP?

No, it isn't. You're just claiming random shit and saying we should kill people over it.


Also, I couldn't help but notice a rather sanctimonious tone. As a moderator of a forum that allows a platform for racist propaganda defending British colonialism and child abuse fantasies are you really in a position to take the moral high ground?

I am not affiliated with any of the parties/groups you're in a huff about, so yes, I can take the moral high ground because you are literally just whining about sectarian shit to a bunch of random people on the internet (if you're this pissed off and serious, I dunno, provide some evidence for your claims?). Also, you didn't answer my other questions so I'll post them again:
- How do you think this murdering of people will work out on an internet forum?
- What do you do other than call for other leftists to be persecuted?

[Alan woods is a windbag]

The origin of my beef with the misnamed "international marxist tendency" is that on another forum I was cyberstalked by someone by the name of teis amundsen, who claimed to be a leading figure within this sect.

One thing I found particularly absurd about this sect was their delusional and false claims of being a significant force within the labour movement.

I find their crude reductionist workerism ridiculous for two reasons:
I) this sect, or it's forerunner the 'militant tendency', never gained any traction whatsoever amongst the industrial working class( in contrast to the Communist Party, which had a very large industrial base)
ii) we live in a post-industrial society where, it could be argued, the workplace is no longer the main arena of class struggle.

[oUltimoMilitanteDeBase]

The origin of my beef with the misnamed "international marxist tendency" is that on another forum I was cyberstalked by someone by the name of teis amundsen, who claimed to be a leading figure within this sect.

One thing I found particularly absurd about this sect was their delusional and false claims of being a significant force within the labour movement.

I find their crude reductionist workerism ridiculous for two reasons:
I) this sect, or it's forerunner the 'militant tendency', never gained any traction whatsoever amongst the industrial working class( in contrast to the Communist Party, which had a very large industrial base)
ii) we live in a post-industrial society where, it could be argued, the workplace is no longer the main arena of class struggle.

first, i fully agree that these pseudo trotskyists were/are chauvinists with regards to the falklands war. there are a myriad other reasons to rebuke the imt and the cwi namely their pabloist tactics and their uncritical support for deformed workers states, iirc. as for your second point, i think its mistaken to claim that the workplace is no longer the main arena of class struggle. while i agree that we need to avoid workerism and trade unionism, like lenin pointed out in what is to be done, that doesnt mean that the workplace is secondary. it's in fact the main platform from which revolutionaries can transform the strictly economic and syndicalist demands that arise spontaneously into revolutionary socialist ones.

[ckaihatsu]

first, i fully agree that these pseudo trotskyists were/are chauvinists with regards to the falklands war. there are a myriad other reasons to rebuke the imt and the cwi namely their pabloist tactics and their uncritical support for deformed workers states, iirc.


*More* casual claims without any evidence -- an article from the IMT distances the organization from any bourgeois-sectarianism regarding that event:





Marxism and War

Alan Woods 17 February 2004




We continue this reply by taking up the question of the 1982 Malvinas/Falklands war, explaining what the real position of the British Marxists was at the time. In answer to Oviedo's blatant distortions Alan Woods explains that they opposed the war as an imperialist war on both sides, and adopted a genuine internationalist position.




http://www.marxist.com/reply-luis-oviedo-malvinas-falklands170204.htm


---





as for your second point, i think its mistaken to claim that the workplace is no longer the main arena of class struggle. while i agree that we need to avoid workerism and trade unionism, like lenin pointed out in what is to be done, that doesnt mean that the workplace is secondary. it's in fact the main platform from which revolutionaries can transform the strictly economic and syndicalist demands that arise spontaneously into revolutionary socialist ones.


Agreed.

[oUltimoMilitanteDeBase]

*More* casual claims without any evidence -- an article from the IMT distances the organization from any bourgeois-sectarianism regarding that event:

interestingly, that article explores argentina's actions, but fails to explore what drove the uk to involve itself in an armed conflict accross the globe to preserve a small colonial holdover on the south american coast. btw, it was imperialism. it was an imperialist war.

"I will take the most simple and obvious example. In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally—in this case I will be on the side of “fascist” Brazil against “democratic” Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy. Under all masks one must know how to distinguish exploiters, slave-owners, and robbers!"
-- Trotsky 1938

- - - Updated - - -

it wont let me post links, but it's from an interview titled Anti-Imperialist Struggle Is Key to Liberation, published on marxists.org

[ckaihatsu]

interestingly, that article explores argentina's actions, but fails to explore what drove the uk to involve itself in an armed conflict accross the globe to preserve a small colonial holdover on the south american coast. btw, it was imperialism. it was an imperialist war.


Your contention is inaccurate -- here are relevant excerpts:





The head of the British delegation Richard Luce replied to the government in Buenos Aires: “in diplomatic language, Luce’s reply meant that Britain was wiling to explore the means whereby Argentina might eventually achieve their goal of sovereignty over the islands, and that, if they were patient, they would get it.” (The Falklands War – the Full Story, published by the Sunday Times, p. 26.)

Galtieri was also convinced that the USA would back him. He had good reason for this belief. He was a close ally of US imperialism. The Junta acted as the jackal of the US imperialists. Argentina was President Reagan’s main ally in South America. Galtieri had gone so far as to send Argentine troops to support the right wing government of El Salvador. They also helped the USA in its fight against the Sandinistas: “Argentina had 500 army men operating mainly out of Honduras on sabotage raids in Nicaragua”, one US official admitted, “It was something they believed in – it was an extension of the dirty war.”

This expresses very clearly the real relation between Argentina and imperialism: not the relation of an oppressed colonial slave but that of a junior partner, a willing accomplice, eager to please by participating in all the crimes of the chief bandit. To present this relationship as the traditional relationship between a colony (or semi-colony) and imperialism simply does not fit in with the facts.




British imperialism did not want a war with the Junta, with which it had excellent relations. A section of the Tory administration wanted to help the Junta by handing over the islands. But the Junta, terrified of the growing revolutionary mood, was in a hurry.

Even when Costa Mendez on March 2nd sent Lord Carrington what amounted to an ultimatum, threatening to break off negotiations unless the British made immediate concessions, no serious measures were taken by London to prevent an invasion. At this stage, the sending of a small task force would probably have been enough to make the Junta think twice. But London’s inaction gave Galtieri the green light to invade. Not once did the British government say to Buenos Aires: “If you invade, we will take action.”

The sending of the task force to the South Atlantic was an imperialist action on Britain’s part, and we denounced it accordingly.




The war placed the US imperialists in a difficult position, since both Galtieri and Thatcher were valued allies. But once Washington’s attempts to get a compromise settlement had broken down, Reagan had to decide and he decided in favour of Britain, a long-standing and ultimately more important ally.

The viciousness of Thatcher and the British imperialists was shown in the sinking of the Belgrano, with the loss of over 368 lives. But the lives of British personnel were of no more interest to them. The fact that they were prepared to send the fleet into the South Atlantic with no air cover was proof of that. Thatcher deliberately ordered the sinking of the Belgrano to sabotage a negotiated settlement, brokered by the Americans, which Costa Mendez was on the point of accepting.




http://www.marxist.com/reply-luis-oviedo-malvinas-falklands170204.htm


---










"I will take the most simple and obvious example. In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally—in this case I will be on the side of “fascist” Brazil against “democratic” Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy. Under all masks one must know how to distinguish exploiters, slave-owners, and robbers!"
-- Trotsky 1938

- - - Updated - - -

it wont let me post links, but it's from an interview titled Anti-Imperialist Struggle Is Key to Liberation, published on marxists.org





The war was a reactionary, imperialist war on the part of Britain, and the duty of the British Marxists was therefore to oppose their own bourgeoisie. For their part, the Argentine Marxists had the duty to oppose the Argentine bourgeoisie and its agents in the Junta. To demand, in this concrete case, that the British Marxists ought to have gone further and supported Argentina is incorrect and an impermissible concession to social chauvinism. In this particular case, there was nothing to choose between the two sides.

The case of the invasion of Iraq was entirely different. Iraq has been invaded and occupied by US and British imperialism on behalf of the giant American corporations that wish to plunder its oil wealth. We therefore immediately took the position of opposing the imperialist war, for the unconditional withdrawal of all foreign troops: let the Iraqi people decide their own future! That is the only possible policy. But what has this got to do with the war of 1982?

While insisting on the right of nations to self-determination, Lenin and Trotsky also fought against nationalist philistinism – especially among the workers of oppressed nations. But all too often national philistinism is just what we find among certain so-called Trotskyists who have never assimilated the essence of the teachings of Lenin and Trotsky. Lenin explained that on all the serious matters, it is class, not national, affiliation that decides.

Just as the bourgeoisie always subordinates the “national interest” to its own class interests, so the proletariat always places the class struggle before the national question. This idea was already expressed by Marx when he wrote that the national question is always subordinate to the labour question. The Argentine bourgeois is far closer to the British imperialists than their own working class. The “anti-imperialism” of the bourgeoisie is a lie and a deception. This is what must be explained. But how can it be explained if the question is always posed in simplistic terms as “Argentina versus Britain”?




http://www.marxist.com/reply-luis-oviedo-malvinas-falklands170204.htm