Criticisms of the IMT/ICC/PoWR?

[JimmyJazz]

I don't mean to put OI, Leo/Devrim, Nothing Human Is Alien and others on the spot, but I am interested in what specific criticisms people have of the IMT, ICC, Party of the World Revolution and other international Marxist orgs. There seems to be a bit of hostility towards each one of them, but the only criticism I have heard is that they are sectarian-and I'm not sure whether this is a criticism of the tendencies themselves or just their adherents on this board.

A lot of the organizing that the IMT is doing, like the solidarity protests in Pakistan, is pretty impressive. I don't know nitty gritty details of what they are doing in Bolivia and Venezuela, but it appeals to me that they are at least working where the action is.

I know virtually nothing about the ICC.

I've read stuff from the PoWR already from NHIA's sig links, I kind of liked it, but I don't know much about what actions they are actually taking. I don't really understand the exact nature of their relationship to their sister group, the MFJE.

Basically I'm trying to get the scoop on any international organizations that are are actually organizing. How do they compare against each other, and what reasons might a Western Marxist have for joining a nationally based party rather than one of these international tendencies.

[Bilan]

I don't know two much about the IMT or PoWR but I find the stuff onthe ICC website quite influencing and interesting.

[Devrim]

I know virtually nothing about the ICC.

The ICC's website is here:
http://www.internationalism.org/


How do they compare against each other, and what reasons might a Western Marxist have for joining a nationally based party rather than one of these international tendencies.

We would say that the main difference between the communist left, and these tendencies is our internationalism. For us the communist left is the only Marxist tendency (along with some anarchists) which never betrayed internationalism.

The rest of the left, be it Trotskyist, Stalinist, Maoist,.. all support different bourgeois factions in imperialist wars.

Devrim

[Random Precision]

A lot of the organizing that the IMT is doing, like the solidarity protests in Pakistan, is pretty impressive. I don't know nitty gritty details of what they are doing in Bolivia and Venezuela, but it appeals to me that they are at least working where the action is.

Well, first of all the IMT has a tendency to grossly exaggerate what work they are doing. Typically if one of their members lives within 50 miles of a large demonstration they'll claim they had a leading role in it. This is a problem shared by their sister tendency, the CWI (and might I add that both have equally disgusting lines on the national question).

But as I've said elsewhere, my main problem with the IMT is its blatant reformism. They work inside bourgeois parties as a principle (not a tactic) and of course call on the working class to support those parties without reservation- and then at some point in the future they supposedly take over the party. In fact this is the only real strategy that I can say for sure that they do have. Also we can see this in their uncritical support of left-populists like Chavez and Morales.

[Led Zeppelin]

Typically if one of their members lives within 50 miles of a large demonstration they'll claim they had a leading role in it. This is a problem shared by their sister tendency, the CWI

Can you please cite one source of this happening with any CWI chapter? I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm just curious to know what the circumstances were and in which chapter it occurred.


(and might I add that both have equally disgusting lines on the national question).

What is this "disgusting line on the national question" which the CWI has? How is it any different from the line which Lenin and Trotsky had?

Please note that I directed this question at Random Precision, I am not interested in arguing with Left-Communists or anarchists on this.

[The Feral Underclass]

The IMT are a punch of rabid nutters. PotWR I know nothing about and ICC, meh. The ICC are ok, but I find their stuff a little too leftist sometimes. The stuff on the website can be quite presecriptive and dense.

[Devrim]

The ICC are ok, but I find their stuff a little too leftist sometimes. The stuff on the website can be quite presecriptive and dense.

What do you mean by leftist here?

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

i agree the icc needs to do some work in their writing, but there is nothing leftist about it lol

[Hit The North]

The IMT are a punch of rabid nutters. PotWR I know nothing about and ICC, meh. The ICC are ok, but I find their stuff a little too leftist sometimes. The stuff on the website can be quite presecriptive and dense.

Is a 'punch' the correct collective noun for a gathering of rabid nutters?

[The Feral Underclass]

Is a 'punch' the correct collective noun for a gathering of rabid nutters?

Yes. Yes it is.

[Hit The North]

Thought so.

[JimmyJazz]

Well, first of all the IMT has a tendency to grossly exaggerate what work they are doing.

After making this thread I took a closer look at those Pakistan protests; there seemed to be about 10 people at each one. :lol: Still, it's more than I'm currently doing.


But as I've said elsewhere, my main problem with the IMT is its blatant reformism. They work inside bourgeois parties as a principle (not a tactic) and of course call on the working class to support those parties without reservation- and then at some point in the future they supposedly take over the party. In fact this is the only real strategy that I can say for sure that they do have. Also we can see this in their uncritical support of left-populists like Chavez and Morales.

Interesting, thanks.

I am curious what you mean by "uncritical", though.


PotWR I know nothing about

They aren't very big, but I thought this (http://www.powr-prm.org/whowillsave.html) was a good summary of most of what I've learned in the last year. I'm very attracted by the idea of an international party and wonder what reasons people might give for joining a national one instead--at least in a time and place like the USA today, when national revolution is pretty much not going to happen unless there's a huge crisis.

[black magick hustla]

The idea of an internationally centralized world party was a left communist idea. We are also for a communist party centralized internationally.

The problem is that we think parties emerge organically from struggle. You can just make a party and then put yourself in front of the revolution. Otherwise it is not really a vanguard.

[OI OI OI]

But as I've said elsewhere, my main problem with the IMT is its blatant reformism.Coming from the mouth of someone who supports the IS.

Firstly, the IMT is not reformist. If that it was so I would be restricted on revleft long time ago:lol:
Seriously the IMT stands for the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisieand the creation of a workers state democraticaly run by the workers themselves with ellected and recallabe officials.

I know that because us new members learnt it like a poem as it was repeated every meeting:P




. They work inside bourgeois parties as a principle (not a tactic) and of course call on the working class to support those parties without reservation- and then at some point in the future they supposedly take over the party.We work inside workers parties in order to not isolate us from the masses.
Wether or not you agree with this tactic you cannot accuse us of reformists because that is not true .

You are being dishonest by saying that.
And for a long time I have tolerated this idiocy of yours. Just stop saying unfounded stupidities.



Also we can see this in their uncritical support of left-populists like Chavez and Morales.Again the same lies.

When Teis has answered to the criticism very well and with examples in the Trot thread you continue talking about the same myth without backing up your statements.

That makes you a coward at least as you don't aknowledge your mistake but instead you continue spreading false shit.

Sometimes I wonder why I waste time on revleft talking to people like you.


I smash his stupidities here if anyone is interested.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/random-precision-imt-t90002/index.html






Jimmy Jazz
After making this thread I took a closer look at those Pakistan protests; there seemed to be about 10 people at each one. :lol: Still, it's more than I'm currently doing.You are mistaken my friend.

There were 1000 people in one of those cities in the protest.

And that was pics of 10 cities at least where we have a total of some thousands of people combined.



Jimmy Jazz
Interesting, thanks.

I am curious what you mean by "uncritical", though.Well his accussations about Morales and Chavez are blatant lies .

They have been answered in the Trot thread by Teis and Faceless very well and I can make a post about how criticaly we support Chavez and not uncriticaly.

Now about the reformist thing its just a blatant lie because his organization fell into reformism long time ago and now he is sad and accuses us for the same thing:lol:

Actually he is really pathetic now that I think of it




Just to se how Pathetic RP is:


Yea, the IST minority section in the US became Left Turn, which then dropped socialist pretenses and now is just a "anti-capitalist" volunteer magazine of the same name.

The majority became the International Socialist Organization, which just parrots the British SWP line even though they are not affliated.

The best part is both organizations said they were more left-wing when they split.That is what he supports

[OI OI OI]

The IMT are a punch of rabid nutters. PotWR I know nothing about and ICC, meh. The ICC are ok, but I find their stuff a little too leftist sometimes. The stuff on the website can be quite presecriptive and dense.

Can you please not flame just because your admin?

Just because half of the anarchists smell like shit and the other is a bunch of lunatics that doesn't mean that the whole left is like you.

[nuisance]

Can you please not flame just because your admin?

Just because half of the anarchists smell like shit and the other is a bunch of lunatics that doesn't mean that the whole left is like you.
wow asking someone not to flame while in the process of flaming a whole political group is a real good way to get your point over.
:cool:

[The Feral Underclass]

Can you please not flame just because your admin?

I'll flame the IMT all I want, thanks.


Just because half of the anarchists smell like shit and the other is a bunch of lunatics that doesn't mean that the whole left is like you.

A very facund opinion.

[sixdollarchampagne]

The IMT backs, for instance, the PPP party in Pakistan, which represents the interests of large landowners, making it, I would think, a feudalist party. When the masses, of whom the IMT talks constantly, were on the streets in Pakistan, after the murder of Benazir Bhutto, the PPP refused to lead the masses in a struggle to impose the resignation of the military dictator, which demonstrates that the IMT's telling the people of Pakistan to support the PPP was a big error.

The IMT also backs the completely bourgeois PRD in Mexico. So yes, they are absolutely comfortable in bourgeois parties.

The point about the IMT is that it never develops -- it will always be an entrist tendency; it has no exit strategy. Grant specifically rejected the opportunity to build new parties, and from now till kingdom come the Grantists, IMT'ers, will be making excuses for the pro-war, pro-capitalist, pro-repression British Labour Party.

The reason for this is that Grant says, on page 128 of his woefully misnamed _History of British Trotskyism_ that the Labour Party could have instituted socialism in 1945, if it had wanted to. In other words, socialism comes, not from a workers' revolution, but from left-talking reformists in a bourgeois parliament. But, of course, it doesn't. So, yes, the Grantists are reformists, to the marrow of their bones.

[OI OI OI]

The IMT backs, for instance, the PPP party in Pakistan, which represents the interests of large landowners, making it, I would think, a feudalist party. When the masses, of whom the IMT talks constantly, were on the streets in Pakistan, after the murder of Benazir Bhutto, the PPP refused to lead the masses in a struggle to impose the resignation of the military dictator, which demonstrates that the IMT's telling the people of Pakistan to support the PPP was a big error.


First mistake. The IMT does not back the PPP. It calls for the PPP to adopt its original socialist program. And this (you poor tactician) is to expose its leadership to the eyes of the supporters and gain support for the IMT section.

Second mistake. We don't tell people to support the PPP. And certainly after all the fuss with buttho and the right turn of the PPP now we changed our tactics which won us hundreds of new activists and now we do more open work condemning the PPP every time as the people seem to lost their illusions on it.



The IMT also backs the completely bourgeois PRD in Mexico. So yes, they are absolutely comfortable in bourgeois parties.

No. It calls on the PRD to adopt a socialist program again to expose the leadership.



The point about the IMT is that it never develops -- it will always be an entrist tendency; it has no exit strategy. Grant specifically rejected the opportunity to build new parties, and from now till kingdom come the Grantists, IMT'ers, will be making excuses for the pro-war, pro-capitalist, pro-repression British Labour Party.

First of all the turn to open work in Pakistan demostrates that you are mistaken(our tactics change as conditions change something you can never understand ).

Now aboutthe labour party that is a lie and I don't understand why people prefer to be dishonest . Maybe because they can make no genuine criticism:rolleyes:?





The reason for this is that Grant says, on page 128 of his woefully misnamed _History of British Trotskyism_ that the Labour Party could have instituted socialism in 1945, if it had wanted to. In other words, socialism comes, not from a workers' revolution, but from left-talking reformists in a bourgeois parliament. But, of course, it doesn't. So, yes, the Grantists are reformists, to the marrow of their bones

Provide a full quote as it is evident that you take things out of context or your small brain can't understand the things you read so you distort them...






















And now to those who go on and talk about building a mass party by being sectarian to the already existing workers parties.


How many mass influential parties did you ever build that way?

[Bilan]

Can you please not flame just because your admin?

Just because half of the anarchists smell like shit and the other is a bunch of lunatics that doesn't mean that the whole left is like you.

Would you stop spamming the board with your sectarian drivel? It's annoying.
And if you can't take criticism...suck it up.

[OI OI OI]

Would you stop spamming the board with your sectarian drivel? It's annoying.
And if you can't take criticism...suck it up. __________________

hmmm.

is The IMT are a punch of rabid nutters criticism?

Only then I "flamed" because of what a "responsible" admin wrote.

I am in the IMT and certainly being characterized a nutter makes me want to respond.

But if you read what I wrote to "criticisms" by other members you ll see that I try to be polite.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm not going to engage you in this discussion. Please stay on topic or your posts will be trashed and you will receive another verbal warning.

[OI OI OI]

I'm not going to engage you in this discussion. Please stay on topic or your posts will be trashed and you will receive another verbal warning.

I will not continue here.

I wrote something on your wall .

I expect you to take it seriously and stop flaming/provoking

[JimmyJazz]

First mistake. The IMT does not back the PPP. It calls for the PPP to adopt its original socialist program. And this (you poor tactician) is to expose its leadership to the eyes of the supporters and gain support for the IMT section.

I don't know the PPP but you have to admit this is a pretty kooky tactic in general. People don't care about the past program of a party when they join. There's a reason white power people aren't trying to infiltrate the Democratic Party to return it to its original pro-slavery program.

[Comrade B]

Got to say this seems a little like you guys have thrown out a few baseless insults at the IMT and it is kind of ridiculous to accuse him of flaming everytime OI gets pissed off.

I know a little about the ICC, used to read their news stuff, but I disagreed with too much of it, a bit too sectarian for me.
They tend to be anti-union from what I have seen, and highly opposed to nearly every other communist organization or leadership.

[OI OI OI]

I don't know the PPP but you have to admit this is a pretty kooky tactic in general. People don't care about the past program of a party when they join. There's a reason white power people aren't trying to infiltrate the Democratic Party to return it to its original pro-slavery program. __________________

Says JimmyJazz who has managed to organize millions of workers!

Oh c;mon man.Seriously now.

The IMT recruited hundreds of new militants thanks to this tactic.

People initialy moved throught heir traditional party the PPP.

When it got discredited the IMT started doing more open work(flexible tactics).

While in the whole period of work in the PPP the IMT has been criticizing the bureaucratic bourgeois leaderhsip and exposing them through calling them to go back to their original socialist program.

JimmyJazz I suggest you go in Pakistan with your own ideas and build a tendency of 5 000 militants. And when you come back with empty hands you will understand tactics better.

As Lenin said "We are firm in principle but flexible in tactics"

Mild in manner, bold in content , says Marx.


Either way I m fed up arguing about that.

Most people here haven't organized a tendency of 2 people and their dog.(I am not saying all)

and then they have the guts to criticize and trying to win a debate as classical arm chair revolutionaries.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Sorry I didn't reply to this thread earlier. I wasn't aware of its existence.

Have you read Organization, guidelines and methods of work of the Party of World Revolution (http://powr-prm.org/guidelines.html)?

It explains our outlook, what we do and how we are organized.

At the moment we are working on strengthening and expanding our locals in New York City, Kampala (Uganda), Central & Western Equatoria (Sudan), and Puerto Plata (Dominican Republic), hashing out some political and theoretical questions, preparing publications and upgrading our website, and intervening in strikes, demonstrations, etc.

We differ from the other organizations mentioned in strategies, tactics, organization outlook and composition.

[Junius]

I'm not in the ICC, but am sympathetic to its positions


They tend to be anti-union from what I have seen,

Most Left Communists are 'anti-union.'

(This depends on what you define as union, however)


and highly opposed to nearly every other communist organization or leadership.

I don't think this is true - they recently supported a Russian anarchist group (I forget the name) which put out an internationalist position regarding the conflict there.

The Italian Left were also expelled from the Comintern for defending Trotsky's position against Stalin's 'socialism in one country.' Many of our comrades were killed for that.

They have gotten in conflicts with other Left Communist groups, however.


I know a little about the ICC, used to read their news stuff, but I disagreed with too much of it, a bit too sectarian for me.

If defending internationalist positions is sectarian, so be it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ The main problem with left communism is its effective stance on keeping socialist ideas AWAY from worker movements (i.e., refusal of the merger formula implied by Marx and Engels and detailed by Kautsky).


I don't think this is true - they recently supported a Russian anarchist group (I forget the name) which put out an internationalist position regarding the conflict there.

Other than the class-struggle anarchist aversion to the party question, I can't see why class-strugglist anarchists can't work with "authoritarian Marxists" within the same class party.