Defeat Labour in a poll - you can help!

[Saorsa]

My organisation, the Workers Party of New Zealand, is running several candidates for the Victoria University of Wellington Student's Association, including for the President of said Association. The rival Presidential candidate is a Young Labour hack who's engaging in a campaign of smears and character asassination, and he wants to strip back the Association and hand key aspects over it to the University in order to meet a budget deficit created largely by the 2006 President, another Labourite, who spent 22k on painting the VUWSA van black and tinting it's windows.

There's currently a poll up on the website of Salient, the student newspaper, asking people to vote on which candidate they support for President. Sonny Thomas, the Labourite we're running against, has put out a call on various email lists for people to vote for him in said poll and make him look really popular, so we responded with the same thing. Currently Jasmine Freemantle, the Workers Party candidate, is winning 133 votes to 126, but I was wondering how I could help to widen the lead.

Then I thought - you guys! Who better to turn to than my Revleft associates!

So, please take a minute out of your day to go to www.salient.org.nz, and scroll down the page until you see the small poll on the right hand side asking Which VUWSA Presidential candidate do you support?

And when you get there, don't forget to vote for Jasmine Freemantle. Voting in the poll doesn't necessarily mean you endorse the Workers Party and our politics, it just means you want to see a right-wing Labourite with a neo-liberal agenda lose a poll to a revolutionary socialist.

(http://www.revleft.com/vb/www.salient.org.nz)
Smash the Labourite scum! (http://www.revleft.com/vb/www.salient.org.nz)

[Bilan]

139 - 122 ;)

[Yehuda Stern]

Ah, sorry, history (in Israel especially) teaches me that while it is somewhat satisfying to see a social-democrat defeated, Stalinists are hardly a good alternative.

I would say "good luck," but you know.

[Saorsa]

Ah, sorry, history (in Israel especially) teaches me that while it is somewhat satisfying to see a social-democrat defeated, Stalinists are hardly a good alternative.

We're not a Stalinist organisation! :ohmy: The WP contains both pro-Mao types and pro-Trotsky types, which gives us the joy of being attacked as both Stalinists and Trotskyites! Come on, just one vote? Trotsky would want you to. :(

[Yehuda Stern]

No, I think Trotsky would not. I think Trotsky would really find it amusing that people who formed a party with Stalinists call themselves Trotskyists.

[BobKKKindle$]

No, I think Trotsky would not. I think Trotsky would really find it amusing that people who formed a party with Stalinists call themselves Trotskyists.

The Trotskyist strategy of entryism is based on working alongside activists who do not hold revolutionary views, with the objective of gaining support within a party organization and eventually changing the ideological orientation of the party by taking control of the leadership. It is unclear whether Trotsky would have supported collaboration in this specific case, but Trotsky would certainly not be oppossed to the principle of joining an organisation comprised mainly of non-trotskyist elements, when conditions permit entryism.

[Saorsa]

Well, most of them don't call themselves Trotkyists, and would describe themselves as more pro-Trotsky Marxist-Leninists (or post-Trotskyists, as one comrade put it). They support Trotsky over Stalin, and think Trotsky's theories were generally spot on on the USSR and so on, but they see the Trotskyist movement as being a near complete failure and don't see the historical divisions that arise from the Stalin vs Trotsky issue as being relevant or necessary today.

[Colonello Buendia]

I voted, even though you know, elections are bourgeois to the core...:tt2:

[Yehuda Stern]

The way Alastair describes it, it sounds less like entryism and more like outright collaboration. Though entryism into a small group of reformists, without a trace of leftwards-moving workers, is a questionable tactic at best, and a ridiculous excuse for opportunism at worst.

[Andy Bowden]

I vote for the tankie :lol:

She seems to be getting quite a lot of support on that poll, I hope its indicative of the situation on campus. What programme are you standing her on, is it catching students attention etc?

[Led Zeppelin]

Some people can be so petty it's hardly believable.

We're talking about a fucking internet poll here, jeeze.

I voted for her.

Out of curiosity, who are the other candidates besides the Labour one?

[Winter]

Ah, sorry, history (in Israel especially) teaches me that while it is somewhat satisfying to see a social-democrat defeated, Stalinists are hardly a good alternative.

Trotskyists are so sectarian they can't even fathom working with other Socialists who don't abide by the "lord and savior" Trotsky, even if that means voting in an internet poll for crying out loud. Sad stuff.

Oh, and Alastair, 159-126! W00t.

[Yehuda Stern]

Trotskyists are so sectarian they can't even fathom working with other Socialists who don't abide by the "lord and savior" Trotsky, even if that means voting in an internet poll for crying out loud.

I fully expect this sort of off-hand attitude to political support from your sorts, but please, spare me the 40s-style chastising.

[reddevil]

i voted for your lot.
on the subject of stalinist-trotskyist collaboration- it isn't the 1930s anymore. it is perfectly fine for us to cooperate, although it should be done from a position of mutual understanding and healthy criticism of the other's viewpoint. for instance, i think the western left needs to establish mor links with the opposition inside china, who are mostly new leftists aka maoists. there are a few liberals aswell.

[RHIZOMES]

I fully expect this sort of off-hand attitude to political support from your sorts, but please, spare me the 40s-style chastising.

You're one to talk! :lol:

[RedScare]

I voted, it's up to 164.

[Yehuda Stern]

on the subject of stalinist-trotskyist collaboration- it isn't the 1930s anymore.

Quite correct - the old incentive for sometimes collaborating with Stalinism, that is, its base among advanced workers, no longer exists. Therefore there is even less basis for even a completely principled collaboration between Trotskyist and Stalinist groups, which is certainly not what you or others here are suggesting.

[RHIZOMES]

Quite correct - the old incentive for sometimes collaborating with Stalinism, that is, its base among advanced workers, no longer exists. Therefore there is even less basis for even a completely principled collaboration between Trotskyist and Stalinist groups, which is certainly not what you or others here are suggesting.

Wait. Am I reading this correctly? Are you saying, there was incentive for working with "Stalinists" when Stalin was still in power... while you Trots were actually engaged in a struggle with "Stalinism"... yet now that the USSR doesn't exist anymore, Trotsky and Stalin both have been dead for over half a century, there is no incentive?

So you shouldn't divide yourself from the rest of the left... when the reason for you dividing from the left is still in power and influencing the rest of the left, yet WHEN THAT REASON HAS BEEN DEAD FOR 55 YEARS... you should. This... makes no sense. :confused:

[Devrim]

What he is saying is that at the point in history when the Stalinists had massive influence within the working class, it was possible for Trotskyists to try to enter those sort of parties to try to win workers in them to their positions.

Now, however, that Stalinism has virtually non-influence whatsoever in the vast majority of countries, especially in the West, there is no point in doing so.

To put it in very simple terms. The Small Trotskyist groups practised entryism in bigger parties. What would the point be of an organisation like the English SWP practising entryism in a tiny group like the NCP?

I don't agree with him, but it is a simple point to understand.

Devrim

[RHIZOMES]

What he is saying is that at the point in history when the Stalinists had massive influence within the working class, it was possible for Trotskyists to try to enter those sort of parties to try to win workers in them to their positions.

Now, however, that Stalinism has virtually non-influence whatsoever in the vast majority of countries, especially in the West, there is no point in doing so.

To put it in very simple terms. The Small Trotskyist groups practised entryism in bigger parties. What would the point be of an organisation like the English SWP practising entryism in a tiny group like the NCP?

I don't agree with him, but it is a simple point to understand.

Devrim

I do understand it, I'm simply stating the logic in it is flawed. In regards to Leninist groups (I know you consider all of them anti-worker Devrim but bear with me :tt2:), "Stalinism" nowadays strikes me as no more than a historical position rather than an actual theoretical distinction. There was a theoretical distinction back when Stalin was still in power and it was a battle between Stalin's idea of socialism and Trotsky's idea of socialism, but today it's nothing more than historical interpretation. Despite our historical differences, we all have the same view on New Zealand today. We are all Marxists. In fact I've only ever heard 3 members including me ever say something positive about Stalin. :lol: The rest seem more ambivalent, including the pro-Mao elements in the party. And that's why I say "Stalinism" in brackets nearly all the time, because it's mostly a meaningless buzzword.

Yehuda Stern really makes me see what SACT meant when he told me a lot of Leninists seem more like history majors than revolutionaries. :lol:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I too would like to know about the other options. I already voted for her, though - but what is she supportive of? In terms of college politics and the bigger image?

Sean Conners and Wu sound astute to me. :p

[RHIZOMES]

I too would like to know about the other options. I already voted for her, though - but what is she supportive of? In terms of college politics and the bigger image?

Sean Conners and Wu sound astute to me. :p


This is what it says on the Jasmine Freemantle for Prez Facebook group:


VUWSA is the student assoication representing the 20,000 students at Victoria University. Jasmine is standing for the position of VUWSA President for 2009.

Jasmine is standing on the following policies:

- Maintaining and building student clubs, NOT SELLING THEM OFF
- Accountability with student money
- Fighting for a Universal Student Allowance

Jasmine the most experienced candidate for VUWSA President. She has been a member of the VUWSA Executive, a rep group President, a member of the Publications Committee, and a Faculty Delegate. Outside of the University she has been Chair of the Aro Valley Pre-School (which her 4 year old son attends), a committee member on the Aro Valley Community Council, and on the executive of various community organisations.

Jasmine is primarily standing to opposing the Rogernomic style policies in the 'Change Proposal' recently released by VUWSA. VUWSA has long stood for ‘student control of student affairs’. VUWSA does need changes, but the changes proposed in the ‘Change Proposal’ if implemented would be a move in the wrong direction. Last year students voted overwhelmingly against the right wing A-Team ticket and their policies to attack student clubs and other VUWSA services. In 2008 these services are under threat once again. A vote for Jasmine is a vote against these attacks.Don't know much about the other options though. other than Sonny Thomas, who is a complete hack who is trying to do everything to get elected.

[RHIZOMES]

This may provide insight too:

http://www.salient.org.nz/blog/fear-and-loathing-on-the-campaign-trail-vuwsa-elections-%e2%80%9809#comment-362474



Students. That is what the S in VUWSA stands for. Yet I look at the campaign posters, the news stories in Salient, the candidates’ Facebook pages and the positions the candidates have taken and see little mention of students.
So far, the two main candidates have engaged in personal attacks (As I write this, mud is flying back and forth on the Salient blog). William Wu has been silent and when it was pointed out to Sean Connors that he was running the most mature campaign out of all the presidential candidates, he replied: “Oh. That’s sad.” His response muffled slightly by the panda suit he was wearing.
In 1899, the body that eventually evolved into VUWSA was born. It was born of the need to co-ordinate the various clubs that had sprung up among the students of Victoria College. The Hockey and Tennis clubs, the Debating Society and others became affiliated to the Association and grants were given to them so they could train and compete.
Later on, the Association decided to become more involved in student life and advocated for health checks, built a gymnasium, the Student Union building (SUB), and in cases even paying the legal fees of students who were arrested during capping pranks. It funded SMAD, Spike, Salient and other student publications. It has lobbied for better facilities for students; it has fought against the curtailing of academic freedom. One time it even stopped hypnotism in the SUB.
The point is that VUWSA has played an important role in the lives and bettering the lives of students for 109 years. It is my hope that it will continue to do so into the future. But the fumbling bumbling nature of the presidents for the past while has crumbled support for the current system and has increased support for voluntary student membership of student associations. This would be a death knell for Salient in its current format and the number and diversity of clubs that make up a kind of university civil society.
Nothing that the current presidential candidates have to offer has anything to do with students. The adversarial nature of the competition for president has devolved into this horrible competition where ego and ignorance battle to win less than 10 per cent of the student population’s vote. And we wonder why students are apathetic.
Having just been to the Candidates Forum that was at Mount Street Bar and Café just now (don’t be surprised if you didn’t know about it, I didn’t either till about 3 PM) my views have been consolidated. The arguing between Jasmine and Sonny, and their supporters in the Workers’ Party and Young Labour, respectively, detracted from the proceedings. It highlighted the need for a professional side to VUWSA that would not put VUWSA in financial jeopardy at the whim of any potential communist or neo-liberal president who may take the reigns of power.
The stakes at VUWSA are so low. With a budget of about two million dollars it’s not exactly a global corporation. The ways in which they can use that money are even more limited by the constitution and the bare reality of operating a non-profit incorporated society. It is often said that politics gets dirtier as the stakes get lower and this campaign is reminiscent of a documentary entitled Rats in the Rafters. In ten years time I doubt that anyone that is currently enrolled will still be a student, yet it is the future students that the decisions today are going to effect. We need to take a holistic, well researched approach to any change, just as we need people on the exec who are willing to put party lines and ego aside to work for what is best for students.

How VUWSA can look forward in the future
It may sound silly but I think we should get rid of the president’s position. Look at the people who are attracted to the position: egotists with insatiable self images that no matter how much fuck-uppery they perpetrate call for MORE ATTENTION! So we get rid of the president’s role on the exec what do we do then? Well currently the prez is also the CEO of VUWSA. Among NZ student associations, we are alone here. There is no professional input but the musings of the muppets we vote in who change every year. So firstly appoint a VUWSA manager. Sonny has already proposed this change for Salient, but has not suggested it for the exec. Perhaps because it means relinquishing “power” in the president’s role, perhaps not. But for positive change, a VUWSA business manager needs to become a serious consideration.
The proposed manager would be kept in check by the exec, who would then hopefully work as a team (Jackson pisses himself laughing at this point) for students. Because that is what VUWSA is about. STUDENTS.
Another thought that comes to me as I sit in the Salient office: elections should be held in the 2nd of 3rd week of the second trimester with nominations opening in the week before 1st trimester ends. This would allow for adequate coverage by Salient, advertising from the candidates, candidate debates (that students actually know about), and not be in the lead up to exam period so you might get more student involvement.
So a parting cry: Instead of firing shots at each other these people should be working together. Either way the vote goes the next week, the losers will still be students and the winner will still be their representative. The candidates need to engage with students more. They need to find out what they want; they need to get them involved and not just through the websites, not just through Facebook but by actually going out and talking to students in the quad. By going to the Karori, Pipitea and Te Aro campuses and seeing what the students there want. They need to find a consensus, and they need to work for students. That was the spirit in which the students association of Victoria was founded and that is the spirit in which it should continue.
I don’t mean this as an attack on any of the current candidates. I just wish they would work together because “united we stand, divided we fall.”

Note: I will be posting up video (hopefully it came out properly) of the candidates onto Salient TV later on tonight. Please watch them!

[Yehuda Stern]

Stalinism is simply a reformist tendency which uses Marxist rhetoric, unlike social-democracy, which is explicitly reformist. When I speak about Stalinism, I speak not just about Stalin's person or his regime, but of all the Marxist-Leninist / Maoist / Hoxhaist / Anti-Revisionist / What-Have-You groups. In this sense the debate is not historical but is very concrete.

To underline both this point and my former one, the Israeli CP used to have a pretty large base among Palestinian workers. In the past, up to the 70s I'd say, it may have been worthwhile to try and work inside that party at times - again, only if a left-wing developed there - but seeing as now the party is a small group of Arab intellectuals, plus an even smaller group of Jewish intellectuals, which refers to itself as a patriotic Israeli party, which supports the continued existence of the Zionist state - I have no reason to have anything to do with it. I am sure the same can be said of your group in Australian terms.

Point to understand - Marxists don't rule out working with other left parties because of their bloody history. This was the mistake of the KPD in the 1930s which Trotsky criticized with regards to social-democracy. We do, however, rule out working with small reformist groups when all it brings us is a few more votes here and there. That's just plain opportunism.

[Bilan]

Stern, give it a rest, would you?

[Devrim]

In regards to Leninist groups (I know you consider all of them anti-worker Devrim but bear with me :tt2:),

Just for the record we consider Lenin to have been at one stage in his life a great revolutionary. We don't consider that 'Leninist' groups are automatically 'anti-worker'. We think that certain polices (i.e. support for anti-working class nationalist gangsters) followed by the vast majority of them are.

Nevertheless, I understand that there are serious differences between different left groups. If you take the example of the IMT, and the CWI one of them believes that it is possible to work within the Labour party, and one doesn't. Can their be a unity between these two positions?


Despite our historical differences, we all have the same view on New Zealand today.

As I understand it a view that accepts electorialism. What would you say to people who didn't accept that? Join us anyway?



Yehuda Stern really makes me see what SACT meant when he told me a lot of Leninists seem more like history majors than revolutionaries. :lol:

I am probably one of the few people on these boards who doesn't have a university education. However, I did pick up enough from real life to realise that history is of prime importance to the working class movement.

Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

Stern, give it a rest, would you?

Sorry, no deal.


Can their be a unity between these two positions?

Actually, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one - back in the days of the healthy Fourth International, such disagreements were solved by having one group follow one tactic and the other following another for a short and pre-set period, so that it could be seen which tactic was correct. If the IMT and CWI were truly Bolshevik organizations, a split over such a secondary tactical question would never have occurred.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Nevertheless, I understand that there are serious differences between different left groups. If you take the example of the IMT, and the CWI one of them believes that it is possible to work within the Labour party, and one doesn't. Can their be a unity between these two positions?

Sure: just "de-principle" the question of entryism, such that, within the larger organization, those who feel that entryism is a valid tactic (or pseudo-strategy, in the case of Grantites :rolleyes: ) can enter while maintaining membership within the larger organization.


Actually, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one - back in the days of the healthy Fourth International, such disagreements were solved by having one group follow one tactic and the other following another for a short and pre-set period, so that it could be seen which tactic was correct. If the IMT and CWI were truly Bolshevik organizations, a split over such a secondary tactical question would never have occurred.

For this revolutionary Marxist to finally express explicit agreement with the Trotskyist Yehuda Stern is definitely something! :lol:

[Yehuda Stern]

What revolutionary Marxist?

Anyway, I would have to say that this tactic of having two groups is tentative - no International with any real principles should accept having more than one permanent section in any country.

[RHIZOMES]

Stalinism is simply a reformist tendency which uses Marxist rhetoric, unlike social-democracy, which is explicitly reformist. When I speak about Stalinism, I speak not just about Stalin's person or his regime, but of all the Marxist-Leninist / Maoist / Hoxhaist / Anti-Revisionist / What-Have-You groups. In this sense the debate is not historical but is very concrete.

Calling a brick a spade does not make the brick a spade. All Workers Party activists are revolutionaries who believe the state has to be overthrown by force and replaced with a socialist society. You are calling them "reformist" because they think Stalin was the better leader of a socialist state 55 to 86 years ago, and you're saying that division isn't purely historical?


To underline both this point and my former one, the Israeli CP used to have a pretty large base among Palestinian workers. In the past, up to the 70s I'd say, it may have been worthwhile to try and work inside that party at times - again, only if a left-wing developed there - but seeing as now the party is a small group of Arab intellectuals, plus an even smaller group of Jewish intellectuals, which refers to itself as a patriotic Israeli party, which supports the continued existence of the Zionist state - I have no reason to have anything to do with it.

Uh-huh, what does this have to do with "Stalinism"? Your gripe with that party is that they're a small group of intellectuals.


I am sure the same can be said of your group

Not really, we're mostly unionists, student activists and low-paid workers. We have a few "intellectuals" sure, but that's hardly a majority nor does the presence of a few intellectuals hurt the party. They play a pivotal role as do the unionists, student activists and the rank-and-file members. And We don't support the New Zealand capitalist imperialist state or NZ nationalism in any form. Plus we're the largest revolutionary leftist group in the country. Assuming we're like the party you mentioned because we're both "Stalinists" (When in reality that's only a section of the party), is completely non-materialist and assumes correlation implies causation.


in Australian terms.

We're in New Zealand, not Australia. I can see where you confusion comes from though, especially with that bridge that connects the two countries. :lol:


Point to understand - Marxists don't rule out working with other left parties because of their bloody history. This was the mistake of the KPD in the 1930s which Trotsky criticized with regards to social-democracy. We do, however, rule out working with small reformist groups when all it brings us is a few more votes here and there. That's just plain opportunism.

Calling a brick a spade...


As I understand it a view that accepts electorialism. What would you say to people who didn't accept that? Join us anyway?

Definitely not. I address this further down. Also our electorialism is not reformism, we are taking on Lenin's suggestion that communists should participate in parliaments as long as the working masses sees them as legitimate, and propagandize against it.


Just for the record we consider Lenin to have been at one stage in his life a great revolutionary. We don't consider that 'Leninist' groups are automatically 'anti-worker'. We think that certain polices (i.e. support for anti-working class nationalist gangsters) followed by the vast majority of them are.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up.


Nevertheless, I understand that there are serious differences between different left groups. If you take the example of the IMT, and the CWI one of them believes that it is possible to work within the Labour party, and one doesn't. Can their be a unity between these two positions?

Certainly not. Stalinism vs. Trotskyism, I would consider mainly a historical division. However I would consider entryism vs. anti-entryism as a theoretical division. That's what I outlined before, historical differences vs. actual theoretical differences. There are other left groups in NZ who would never join with us and we would never join with them, because we disagree with their theory and practice. Like their latching onto identity politics, opportunism, reformism, etc. I won't name any specific groups however. :lol: However, within the Workers Party, our views and tactics in New Zealand today are fundamentally the same even if our views on history are different.


I am probably one of the few people on these boards who doesn't have a university education. However, I did pick up enough from real life to realise that history is of prime importance to the working class movement.

I agree. We need to look at history's mistakes and successes and draw from that. However, dividing ourselves over a matter of historical interpretation when our views and tactics in the modern-day are the same, the division is not because of any sort of principles, just petty sectarianism.

[Yehuda Stern]

Calling a brick a spade does not make the brick a spade. All Workers Party activists are revolutionaries who believe the state has to be overthrown by force and replaced with a socialist society. You are calling them "reformist" because they think Stalin was the better leader of a socialist state 55 to 86 years ago, and you're saying that division isn't purely historical?

Let's not be stupid. That you say that you want a revolution doesn't mean you're going to go the mile. Social-democracy made all sorts of revolutionary noises right before supporting WWI. Stalinism failed countless revolutions, is responsible for countless bloody dictatorships, and has aided with armed force the creation of the Zionist state. That is why I say it is reformist - it acts in every case against the interests of the working class.


Your gripe with that party is that they're a small group of intellectuals.

Again, it would take a very dumbed-down reading of that paragraph to come to that conclusion. My "gripe" with the CP is that it supported the setting up of Israel, and continues to support the state today.


We're in New Zealand, not Australia. I can see where you confusion comes from though, especially with that bridge that connects the two countries.

It was late at night - sorry if you're running out of arguments, but that's really grasping at straw.

[Zurdito]

Calling a brick a spade does not make the brick a spade. All Workers Party activists are revolutionaries who believe the state has to be overthrown by force and replaced with a socialist society. You are calling them "reformist" because they think Stalin was the better leader of a socialist state 55 to 86 years ago, and you're saying that division isn't purely historical?


if criticism of stalinism is purely historical, then this definition of "revolutionary" is purely abstract. many people claim to want this, and then in practice work to defeat strikes, to prop up bourgeois governments including some of the most reactionary in the world, to make popular fronts, and if they do get in power, to liquidate the workign class.

again, this is a crticism of the ideology, the ladership, and the tradition of these movements. there are ground level militants worth arguing with and workign with on some issues, sure. the same is true of many reformist activists. do we now stop saying that reformism is counter-revolutionary just because many of its activists have a general idea that they want a more equal world (and on many issues like democratic rights, are probably more progressive than most stalinist/maoist activists anyway).

btw that post was not about your party specificallyw hich I know nothing about, it was about the role of stalinism in general. I'v given examples in other threads including in the "If Maoists are socialists..." thread. where by the way the authorr of the original post here still hasn't explained why support for the Mujahideen was "justified", despite promising to... :p

[OI OI OI]

Stalinism is simply a reformist tendency which uses Marxist rhetoric, unlike social-democracy, which is explicitly reformist. When I speak about Stalinism, I speak not just about Stalin's person or his regime, but of all the Marxist-Leninist / Maoist / Hoxhaist / Anti-Revisionist / What-Have-You groups. In this sense the debate is not historical but is very concrete.

Nice post.


It is because their Meneshevik position of the Stage Theory which is indeed class collaboration , and also the Socialism in One Country position which is an anti-dialectic rejection of internationalism. Both of those theories puts the Stalinists in the reformist club.

That goes for all the variations of Stalinism

[Led Zeppelin]

If the IMT and CWI were truly Bolshevik organizations, a split over such a secondary tactical question would never have occurred.

If a faction of an organization splits despite being in the minority, is it the fault of the organization as a whole? Is it forever tainted? By this logic the Bolsheviks would be tainted as well, since a lot of factions split from them over the years (and I'm not just referring to the Mensheviks).

So the Bolsheviks....weren't truly Bolshevik?

Your criticism only holds water against the faction that split while being in the minority, i.e., while having to adhere to the principles of democratic centralism but didn't; the IMT.

[Yehuda Stern]

Not really. Instead of making it such a decisive issue, Taaffe could have simply come forward to Grant's come and tell them to try and reach some sort of compromise of the sort I described above. I don't believe it could have worked, as Grant would never be willing to leave Labour, and say what you will about the CWI, they realized nothing's coming out of working there. But an attempt could have improved the situation considerably.