The Difference Between Trotskyist Internationales.

[RedScare]

Ok, I need to settle this. What are the main differences between some of the bigger Trotskyist internationals, such as USFI, CWI, and IMT? What is it that they disagree on that is so important that they had to go make another party over it?

[Die Neue Zeit]

The IMT has an obsession with deep entryism.

[Q]

The IMT still claims that the old social-democracy are still mass workers parties, contrary to the plain facts (falling electoral support, falling membership numbers, falling union support among the rank and file, anti-working class policies, etc).

The USFI (or the Reunified Fourth International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reunified_Fourth_International) as it is also known) is mostly a paper international these days. I certainly never actually see them on the streets in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany... They do still have branches there, but are just ... invisible. The SAP in the Netherlands works entryistically within the SP (a post-Maoist left-populist party) as we do. But contrary to us, they're never active under their own flag. The LCR in France has been the positive exception to this, but they're now making a huge mistake by going to dissolve their party to form a broad-left new workers party. I'm not at all against starting new workers parties, but dissolving your revolutionary organisation in order to get there is a step back.

The IST is another big international that describes itself as "Trotskyist". They don't have an international in the proper sense of the word and are therefore dominated by their biggest section: the SWP in the UK. I don't recognise them as Trotskyist anymore though as they left very basic stances such as a transitional program and instead are very opportunist in practice and try to aggressively dominate any social movement where they can reach a numerical majority.

These are the differences in a nutshell. Here's another quote from the book "A socialist world is possible" by Peter Taaffe explaining the CWI stance towards other internationals:

United Secretariat of the Fourth International (USFI)

On the international plane, the United Secretariat of the Fourth International (USFI) looks towards the SSP, which more and more corresponds to their own view of politics.

They are perhaps the most widely known international organisation identified as Trotskyist. Yet, the USFI, by its own admission, claims that at its World Congress in 2003 there were participants from 40 countries (not all of these were members of the USFI). This is a similar figure to the number of different countries in which the CWI has sections, groups or members at present. While the USFI has a sizeable presence in France, through the LCR, this is not the case in most Western European countries. The strength of the different ‘revolutionary left’ Internationals is not just a question of present strength but of potential. This, in turn, depends upon a correct analysis of the stage through which society and the working class is passing and all the political conclusions that flow from this. Whether an organisation numbers dozens, hundreds, thousands or even millions is important in relation to the effect it can have, but what is ultimately decisive, when sharp turns in the situation take place, is the political premise of these organisations. It would be criminal to form or maintain a separate political organisation of the left unless there are fundamental differences that cannot be accommodated within one organisation or through the unification of different organisations. At the same time, a revolutionary party is not the same as any transitional broad formation, in which different political positions, organisations and trends, some of them differing wildly from others, can collaborate and work together.

The need for unity flows from the basic trend within the working class to combine its forces against the common enemy, the capitalist class. Woe betides any political party or current that in critical periods stands in the way of this urge for unity! Marxists must always seek common cause, particularly with genuine organisations that have roots in the working class, in specific actions, in united front-type initiatives, etc. But this must not be at the cost of dipping or hiding the Marxist banner, or watering down or not advancing the programme of Marxism. The future of the different ‘Internationals’ will be determined by their political approach now and in the future and by whether their ideas meet the needs of the current situation.

Neither the IST nor the USFI have ever over a period consistently put forward a Trotskyist or Marxist analysis. The USFI, claiming lineage from Trotsky, is recognised in ‘intellectual’ circles as the representative of ‘orthodox Trotskyism’. Unfortunately, this is not the reality, as an examination of the USFI’s current analysis and programme will demonstrate. To take on the designation of ‘Trotskyist’ is to defend the heritage of Trotsky, his method of analysis and, in general, his activity in the workers’ movement. This does not mean a carte blanche acceptance of everything that Trotsky did as being right. In a recent series of articles in the USFI’s ‘International Viewpoint’ journal, dedicated to Trotsky, a series of criticisms and attacks on his ideas and methods appeared. Rather than taking up some of the mistakes that Trotsky made – and in his lifetime he admitted to them openly, unlike the USFI and its leaders today – USFI writers attack “mistakes” he never made; they lambast his strong rather than his weak points! In so doing, they echo, unconsciously perhaps, the criticisms of the Stalinists about Trotsky’s alleged “weaknesses”.
Source (http://socialistworld.net/pubs/history2/p08.html)

You can read the whole book online, it contains more info on differences and views from the CWI. Here the content page (http://socialistworld.net/pubs/history2/00.html).

edited 28-11-2008: removed statement on SWP not selling papers anymore as it appears to be wrong

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Q, where on earth did you get this odd idea?


They (the SWP at least) even recently stopped selling papers as this was condemned to be "sectarian"!

I am not in the SWP, but even I sell Socialist Worker (on marches etc)! And SWP paper sales are still widely held.

And of course the SWP is Trotskyist -- even Trotsky changed his mind on many things during in his life. How could he fail to do so as a dialectician!

A Pharisaical attachment to everything he wrote on the back of envelopes does not make one a Trotskyist.

And thanks for the Peter Taafe material; but he will always be remembered as the 'leader' who 'advanced' from 8000 members to less than 800.

[Q]

Q, where on earth did you get this odd idea:



I am not in the SWP, but even I sell Socialist Worker (on marches etc)! And SWP paper sales are still widely held.

Maybe it's only in certain branches, I'm not sure. Maybe an English comrade could elaborate.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I think you have been listening to too much gossip in the pub.

[Yehuda Stern]

(clarficiation - my number judgement here is pretty objective, as I am not a member of any of these internationals)

First of all, to put the USFI, IMT, and CWI on the same level is kinda ridiculous. The USFI is a pretty big International with many, many sections, while the CWI is small and the IMT is tiny (contrary to their ridiculous claims that they have 10,000 members). The IST is much larger than either, and one could probably think of other larger groups, certainly bigger than the IMT.

To clarify everything we need to go back a little. In the 1940s, the Fourth International collapsed. The International was on shaky ground from the get go, but wartime isolation and the class pressures suffered by its sections worldwide caused its demise by the end of the war, despite the continuing heroic efforts of European Trotskyists who fought against the Nazis (not to mention that many of them were Jews who perished in the holocaust).

As the allies advanced in Europe, especially after the Nazis were beaten in France (1944), the remaining Trotskyists attempted to reconstitute the Fourth. I'm not going to recount the whole thing here - suffice to say, by then the different groups had evolved in different directions and the differences in allegiances were enough to splinter the Fourth hopelessly. One of the splinters was the British section of the Fourth*, the RCP, which realized that the Fourth's perspective of a slump was unrealistic, but retorted with an even more reformist program of deep entry into social-democratic and Stalinist parties. This group was to become the Militant, which is the origin of both the IMT and CWI.

*(which, one may parenthatically note, was condemned by the Fourth in 1938 for sectarianism with regards to its official British section and for unprincipled clique policies, and did not join the International until the mid-40s. One might also note another little dirty secret - despite all of Grant's criticism against Pablo and the other 'sects,' Militant was the British section of Pablo's International from 1953 to 1964)

The reconstituted Fourth was to split many more times. Another split occurred in 1953. The theoretical background for the split was the theory raised by then Fourth leader, Michel Pablo, that Stalinism was a necessary part of the transition from capitalism to socialism, and that what we are facing is "centuries of deformed workers' states." James P. Cannon, leader of the American SWP, and Gerry Healy, who was recently installed by Cannon as head of the British section to silence the opposition in the RCP to the Fourth's conduct, opposed this theory*, and this led to a split between Pablo's International Secretariat (IS) and the Cannon-Healy International Committee (IC).

*(To be completely honest, seeing as these are the same people who sent an open letter to Tito and his CP urging them to join the Fourth International, the differences were completely secondary at best)

The full name which the IS chose for itself was the International Secretariat of the Fourth International (ISFI). Years later, the SWP split from Healy's IC and rejoined with the IS. The highly unstable merger was dubbed the United Secretariat of the Fourth International (USFI). The USFI is characterized mainly by the fact that it is probably the only Trotskyist international which has in some countries more than one section - few other 'internationals' are that bold in their opportunism.

The Militant had a somewhat different approach to Stalinism than the USFI. It did not say explicitly that Stalinism is necessary to move from capitalism to socialism, but it did urge Stalinist and reformist parties to take up socialist policies and become vehicles for the socialist revolution. Again, like with the IS and IC, the differences were at best secondary.

Up to the 1990s, the Militant soared and soared from a very small group into what was probably the largest far left group in Britain - at one time having about 8000 members. However, like all hot air ballons, Militant eventually popped, and its remains - the IMT and CWI - differ mostly on the question of entryism. The IMT to this day insists that all Marxists must work inside the big reformist parties, where they exist, and advocate setting them up where they don't, while the CWI prefers a more dynamic appraoch to its opportunism.

In terms of class base, I can't say much about the USFI, inasmuch as they don't have an Israeli section and I have never had any contact with them. I can say that the IMT's base is more union bureaucracy and intellectuals, while the CWI tends to be more student / middle-class based. But the differences in base aren't that decisive.

[Herman]

I'll say this about the internationals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE

[Q]

I'll say this about the internationals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE

Classic :D

[OI OI OI]

The IMT is the only international that upholds the original ideas of Trotskyism.

The IST from decades ago has started to degenerate and now it is merely a reformist organization.

The USFI as Q-Collective said is a paper organization with no real activity.

The CWI although closer than all to the original ideas of Trotskyism it made an ultra left turn in the 90s where it denounced the tactic of entryism and through that from an organization of 8 000 became an organization of 400.

The IMT split from it with only 80 people at that time and now it has managed to grow into the most influential international(thanks to its tactics).

It is playing a major role in Venezuela and Pakistan where the action is while all the others are mere spectators.

Now Yehuda Stern is against the IMT because himself got expelled for holding ridiculus ideas of support for Hamas and Hezbollah which is something not only anti-Leninist to believe , it is destructive to the movement(see what happened in Iran) and it is dangerous for the international.

So he is kind of bitter , so he is not the right person to ask about the IMT.

Go on www.marxist.com to read the history of the IMT and its latest actions.



The IMT is the only international that has a role in the present events.

[apathy maybe]

http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?page_id=336

DSP promotes giving lots of money to Venezuela, and are an observer of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reunified_Fourth_International

Also, how many members does IMT have now OI?

[Yehuda Stern]

Yes, go with OI OI OI - he's obviously a very intelligent and coherent writer, and does not exaggerate at all when he announces that the IMT has 10,000 members : )

[OI OI OI]

Also, how many members does IMT have now OI?

In Venezuela the IMT started 6 years ago with 1 fulltimer.

now it has hundreds of people but what is more important is that thanks to its correct tactics it has a massive influence and the CMR is well known among Venezuelan.

Its newspaper has a circulation in the tens of thousands every issue and it is going in the right path.

Now witht he establishment of PSUV-Youth there is an ongoing battle between the reformists and the Marxists(the CMR).

If everything turns good the IMT will grow with leaps and bounds in the next couple of years.

Interesting articles
http://www.marxist.com/venezuela-psuv-youth-congress.htm

http://www.marxist.com/alan-woods-speaking-tour-in-venezuela/

Now worldwide you can read about the IMT in Pakistan in our workers actions subforum.

The IMT has a massive presence there with thousands of members and 269 branches and 30 offices.

It is one of the biggest(if nt the biggest) revolutionary groups in Pakistan and influence wise it is far the biggest.



In the rest of the world our sections are growing very fast especialy in Denmark and Canada while in Spain we control the national students union and we have 600 or more activists.

In Mexico about the same number of activists as in Spain while in England although we started off with 80 peple after the split now we are close to the umbers of the CWI which started with 4 000 people.

[Yehuda Stern]

That's rich! 4000 IMTers in England? Who are you kidding? You have less than 200 in the whole of Britain. Or do you mean 4000 in the whole international? That is more reasonable, although it does show that you consciously lied when you said you had 10000 members.

In Venezuela it might be possible that the IMT has grown - with the IMT's policies regarding Chavez, anyone could get a couple of people in Venezuela - but little more than a year ago they admitted to having only 65 members there.

In Pakistan the IMT claims to have a very large presence, although no revolutionary movement exists in Pakistan - this especially contrasts wildly with their miserable performance in Venezuela. I have never seen anyone else reporting a significant presence of IMT members in Pakistan. I can't say for sure if they're telling the truth or not, but the IMT's fudging with numbers would suggest that one should take their claims with a grain of salt.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

OI-cubed:


The IMT is the only international that upholds the original ideas of Trotskyism.

Yes, they all say that.:rolleyes:


The IMT split from it with only 80 people at that time and now it has managed to grow into the most influential international(thanks to its tactics).

If everything turns good the IMT will grow with leaps and bounds in the next couple of years.


And I was around when the old Miltant Tendency used to say similar things, just before Thatcher smashed it, and then it imploded.

They refused to listen, too.

Don't get me wrong -- I sincerely hope you are right (for if you are, we all win), but I have heard this sort of stuff so many times (from IMT-ers here and elsewhere (like Axel1917, who is equally over-the-top) and the old Militant Tendency), it's beginning to tire.

The only thing us Trots do well is beat our chests and then fragment. :(

And then the cycle begins all over again ten or twenty later.

[Yehuda Stern]

It's also pretty ridiculous to say that the IMT is the most influential International - the USFI is certainly more influential, and the IST is also more prominent than the IMT, certainly in Britain.

[RedScare]

The thing is, none of them have a much of a presence in America. The USFI group seems almost non-existent, or merged with someone else, Solidarity I think. The local CWI seems reasonably coherent, but I know virtually nothing about the American IMT group. I've been casting around for a party to join, and I'm trying to find a good Trotskyist group in America that isn't made of 5 people that do nothing but sit around debating fine points of theory. I want to find a party that actually does something.

[Yehuda Stern]

Most left groups don't have a section of any significance in the states. The IST's former American section, the ISO, is bigger than most groups, but still quite small and utterly reformist. The SWP is supposed to be among the bigger ones too, but they aren't even pretending to be Trotskyists anymore.

[OI OI OI]

well the IMT has a presence in the states
heres their website
http://www.socialistappeal.org/

also talk to Axel1917 about the group in the states since he is a member there.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Most left groups don't have a section of any significance in the states. The IST's former American section, the ISO, is bigger than most groups, but still quite small and utterly reformist. The SWP is supposed to be among the bigger ones too, but they aren't even pretending to be Trotskyists anymore.

Try the Debs Tendency in the SP-USA.

[Q]

The thing is, none of them have a much of a presence in America. The USFI group seems almost non-existent, or merged with someone else, Solidarity I think. The local CWI seems reasonably coherent, but I know virtually nothing about the American IMT group. I've been casting around for a party to join, and I'm trying to find a good Trotskyist group in America that isn't made of 5 people that do nothing but sit around debating fine points of theory. I want to find a party that actually does something.

If you think Socialist Alternative (CWI USA) is pretty coherent, what is stopping you from joining them or discussing with them to see if you agree with them and become active? Socialist and working class alternatives don't fall out of the air, we need your active involvement to build up this movement!

[Yehuda Stern]

Try the Debs Tendency in the SP-USA.

Back when I was in the IMT I found out about these guys and asked the American section about them, and they claimed they were 'insane.' They seemed like they had pretty good ideas - I'd have to take a second look at them to see what I think about them today, though.

[Random Precision]

still quite small and utterly reformist

Care to demonstrate this somehow?

[Yehuda Stern]

What, about the ISO? I can, though I might as well demonstrate that the sky is blue. Anyway, just tell me which group you were thinking of and I'll get right into that good old sectarian bashing.

[Random Precision]

What, about the ISO? I can, though I might as well demonstrate that the sky is blue. Anyway, just tell me which group you were thinking of and I'll get right into that good old sectarian bashing.

Yes, the ISO.

[Yehuda Stern]

Other than their support for Ralph Nader, despite his anti-immigrant racism and his support of capitalism, and their flirting with the Democratic Party, the ISO shares some positions with it's former slaveholder, the IST (British SWP's International): they oppose vanguard parties, they deny a labor aristocracy exists, they claim that there is no more imperialism in the Leninist sense, and at the time of the war in the Balkans, they supported the UN as a peacekeeping force and criticized the UN for not doing a good enough job at it.

[Random Precision]

Other than their support for Ralph Nader, despite his anti-immigrant racism and his support of capitalism,

This was a tactic designed to break away people from the two-party duopoly and do some recruiting of our own. I think that in the 2000 election especially we accomplished a lot toward that end. Though you will note that we don't support a candidate in this upcoming election. The situation in the United States requires flexible tactics.


and their flirting with the Democratic Party,

Eh?


the ISO shares some positions with it's former slaveholder, the IST (British SWP's International): they oppose vanguard parties,

Could you provide a source that says we oppose them? Or is that just your impression of our activity?


they deny a labor aristocracy exists,

This is true, because we think it's been conclusively proven a myth. Solidarity has a pretty good article about it (http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/128).


they claim that there is no more imperialism in the Leninist sense,

When and where?


and at the time of the war in the Balkans, they supported the UN as a peacekeeping force and criticized the UN for not doing a good enough job at it.

Maybe you're thinking of a different organization? Here is an article from ISR that shows a quite different position:

http://www.isreview.org/issues/08/new_masters_balkans.shtml

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RP, as usual, sectarians can't get anything right!:rolleyes:

[Sam_b]

They (the SWP at least) even recently stopped selling papers as this was condemned to be "sectarian"!

As a member I can say that this is emphatically not true. Where did you get this info from?

[Yehuda Stern]

RP: All excuses aside, you supported a bourgeois candidate, and a pretty racist one at that, who supports American capitalism and can at best be described as a moderate reformist, without even the convenient excuse the European opportunists use that his party is a working class party. Since the rest of what I said is based on personal experience, I would prefer not to elaborate - but that to me is enough to conclude that your organization is not socialist and, inasmuch as it supports a racist candidate and is as far as I know is not part of any world tendency, not very international.

RL: Being a former IMTer, I am very familiar with the throwing around of the word 'sectarian' when one has nothing to answer to charges of opportunism. Save it.

[Random Precision]

RP: All excuses aside, you supported a bourgeois candidate, and a pretty racist one at that, who supports American capitalism and can at best be described as a moderate reformist, without even the convenient excuse the European opportunists use that his party is a working class party. Since the rest of what I said is based on personal experience, I would prefer not to elaborate - but that to me is enough to conclude that your organization is not socialist and, inasmuch as it supports a racist candidate and is as far as I know is not part of any world tendency, not very international.

Yehuda, all I wish is that you would give us a chance. I think our politics have much more in common than what separates us. We have, as far as I can tell, an identical line on the conflicts in Israel, and I have been quite impressed by both your posts and materials from your group that I've run across.

The support for Ralph Nader is indeed something that a lot of people question about us. I think that's quite understandable, especially from people outside the United States. The fact is that the United States has never had any kind of mass "workers party", and the closest we ever got to Social-Democracy was the New Deal. In light of that, revolutionaries in the US have to adjust their tactics to deal with the capitalist two-party system. To move forward in any meaningful way here, we have to strike against that system, along with building a revolutionary left alternative. And so we think that as a tactic, it makes sense to critically support Nader as far as he presents a real (if limited) alternative to it. Now that he no longer does, we no longer support him. This is not reformism, and it's not opportunism either, it's adapting tactics to the unique and difficult situation we are faced with.

You said that we "oppose vanguard parties". I am interested in you elaborating on this if you would care to. It is true that the ISO does not cast itself as a vanguard party, like many Stalinist sects are apt to. But that is out of the recognition that the party is the embodiment of the working class' consciousness. Since class-conscious workers are scattered and few in number in this country, it's not appropriate to form a vanguard party at this stage. This is exactly the approach the revolutionaries used in Russia, moving from the study circles to the party when class-consciousness and the class struggle were on the rise.

You say that your other criticisms of our group are based on your personal experience- very well. If you would share these experiences with me (through PM if you prefer) maybe we can work on the differences that we have. But if you won't, I suppose there isn't much I can do. But please know that I think it would be quite useful and maybe even profitable to both of us to have such a dialogue.

As for the name- we place ourselves in the International Socialist tradition. As such we are an organization of international socialists rather than an international organization of socialists.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YS:


RL: Being a former IMTer, I am very familiar with the throwing around of the word 'sectarian' when one has nothing to answer to charges of opportunism. Save it.

I do not wish to 'answer' baseless 'charges' of 'opportunism'; such slurs are indeed the meat and drink of sectarians like you. You deserve no better fate.

[OI OI OI]

This was a tactic designed to break away people from the two-party duopoly and do some recruiting of our own. I think that in the 2000 election especially we accomplished a lot toward that end. Though you will note that we don't support a candidate in this upcoming election. The situation in the United States requires flexible tactics.

And the IMT is reformist.......for its flexible tactics!

[Random Precision]

And the IMT is reformist.......for its flexible tactics!

The IMT has the least flexible set of tactics I've seen from any left tendency, except maybe the left communists, who don't have any and are quite happy about it. You guys have entryism- and that's about it.

[Yehuda Stern]

I do not wish to 'answer' baseless 'charges' of 'opportunism'; such slurs are indeed the meat and drink of sectarians like you. You deserve no better fate.

You know, you Cliffites aren't that different from the IMT bunch, including with the way you blame people who criticize of sectarianism when you have nothing real to say. One of these days you'll end up just like Militant did all those years ago. The Respect Renewal fiasco is just a small sample of the shit all of you are about to it. I'll gladly watch as it happens, knowing the SWP is chock full of people just as full of themselves as you are.


Yehuda, all I wish is that you would give us a chance. I think our politics have much more in common than what separates us.Superficially, we are all brothers. Then again, being superficial in political matters is a bad idea. Superficially, we both call ourselves Marxists and Trotskyists; we both oppose the war in Iraq (I'm not sure about the ISO position on Afghanistan); we both oppose capitalism; we both oppose Zionism. Then again, I know Trotskyists who believe that it's wrong to support the resistance to the occupation in Iraq, despite the fact that they claim to oppose the war. I know people who support the Democrats, despite the fact that they claim to be anti-capitalists and anti-imperialists, even Marxists or Trotskyists. I know people who claim to be anti-Zionists who support the continued existence of ("a socialist") Israel. So let's not be naive. Labels come very cheap.

Regarding Nader: The Green Party, as you implicitly recognized, is not a working class party. It is, from what I've seen, a classic petty-bourgeois party. Giving it supporting is class treason. The only parties either Lenin or Trotsky approved of giving tactical electoral support to are working class parties, because these are parties the working class might have illusions in and giving them power exposes their inability to challenge capitalism. Few workers have ever had this attitude towards Nader, if ever. I'll remind you that Trotsky didn't even approve of calling for a broad workers' party in the US (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/xx/lp.htm).

On vanguardism: the SWP opposes vangaurd parties and I have never seen the ISO publishing anything changing your position on this question. You may, if you wish, show that either proposition is wrong. I don't believe you can, though.


You say that your other criticisms of our group are based on your personal experience- very well. If you would share these experiences with me (through PM if you prefer) maybe we can work on the differences that we have.I am always willing to discuss with people who answer questions concretely instead of throwing around epithets like, oh, other people in the thread. PM me and we'll get going.


As for the name-The point was that all talk aside, your organization does not seem to truly be either socialist or internationalist.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YS:


You know, you Cliffites aren't that different from the IMT bunch, including with the way you blame people who criticize of sectarianism when you have nothing real to say. One of these days you'll end up just like Militant did all those years ago. The Respect Renewal fiasco is just a small sample of the shit all of you are about to it. I'll gladly watch as it happens, knowing the SWP is chock full of people just as full of themselves as you are.

Ah, yet more sweet sectarianism -- you are so predictable.:rolleyes:

And, I am not in the SWP, nor am I a 'Cliffite'.

As I said earlier: you sectarians can't get anything right, can you?http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/_paperbag_125.gif

[JimFar]

I think that says it all.
[

quote=Herman;1246439]I'll say this about the internationals:

gb_qHP7VaZE[/quote]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

It's all water off a duck's back, Jim, with numpties like Yehuda here.http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/eusa_wall.gif

[Yehuda Stern]

It's all the same to me, Rosa - no expects you to let your unwarranted self-importance down for long enough to listen to anything anyone has to say.

[OI OI OI]

The IMT has the least flexible set of tactics I've seen from any left tendency, except maybe the left communists, who don't have any and are quite happy about it. You guys have entryism- and that's about it.

Is that why in Pakistan we focus now in open work?

As the masses moved through the PPP we were there so we can attract them.

So thanks to our job in the PPP we won hundeds of new militants.

After the PPP got discredited we switched to open work, while we were for the whole time criticizing the bureaucracy of the PPP and for ti to go back to a soclaist platform.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YS:


It's all the same to me, Rosa - no expects you to let your unwarranted self-importance down for long enough to listen to anything anyone has to say.

But, I am not the one being sectarian here. I have said nothing against any of the tendencies mentioned in this thread (except, that I have heard it all before).

So, with respect to 'self-importance', I pale into insignificance next to you.

[Lenin's Law]

The thing is, none of them have a much of a presence in America. The USFI group seems almost non-existent, or merged with someone else, Solidarity I think. The local CWI seems reasonably coherent, but I know virtually nothing about the American IMT group. I've been casting around for a party to join, and I'm trying to find a good Trotskyist group in America that isn't made of 5 people that do nothing but sit around debating fine points of theory. I want to find a party that actually does something.

Keep in mind though, numbers aren't the most important factor to consider. No matter which party you decide to join, it almost certainly will be pretty small in actual number. And the bigger doesn't always equal better: the Bolsheviks were not always the largest socialist group in Russia for instance. So my humble advice to you is to examine the political programme of the parties you are most interested in, try reading some of their articles to get a flavor of where they stand and then if you are still interested, coming into contact with one of its members.

And if you don't like what you see/hear or feel you made a mistake, all it takes is a "Thanks but I don't think it's right for me" and off you go!

[Forward Union]

I think you have been listening to too much gossip in the pub.

No one talks about the swp in pubs

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RH:


No one talks about the swp in pubs

Ah, but I said they "gossiped". I did not use "talk about".

[Yehuda Stern]

No one talks about the swp in pubs

Burn!

[chicanorojo]

Back when I was in the IMT I found out about these guys and asked the American section about them, and they claimed they were 'insane.' They seemed like they had pretty good ideas - I'd have to take a second look at them to see what I think about them today, though.


I never thought of myself as "insane." But. Hey. I gotta tell my other personalities about it. :D DT is not Trotskyist, not even when we started. We are the Revolutionary Left and/or Marxist wing of the SP, fwiw.

[chicanorojo]

Try the Debs Tendency in the SP-USA.

FWIW, we have never worked under the idea that we consider ourselves trotskyist nor we identify ourselves as such. We have been labeled by social democrats in the SP as such since it's the boogey-man that they will use.

[Yehuda Stern]

I didn't say you're Trotskyists or insane. I said other people told me you are. As you will easily understand from my other posts, I don't give that much credit to rumors passed by IMTers.

[chicanorojo]

I didn't say you're Trotskyists or insane. I said other people told me you are. As you will easily understand from my other posts, I don't give that much credit to rumors passed by IMTers.

I am not accusing you of anything.

You and Jacob posted in a thread titled "The Difference Between Trotskyist Internationales. " commenting on the DT. So that needs to be clarified even if you didn't outright state as such.

You state "and they claimed they were 'insane." and you did not clarify. And I am still not sure what the hell that means!??! :confused:

The DT as far as it goes has been about a bringing together better relations between the revolutionary left, presenting revolutionary left/marxist pov w/i the SP, and being adamant of building the SP as opposed to the social democrat strategy w/i the party. If that's insane....sure...bring me the white funny suit. :D

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'd like some more info on recent developments in the SP-USA, if you don't mind:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/spusa-questions-t89256/index.html

[JimmyJazz]

It's all water off a duck's back, Jim

You're so folksy, Rosa.

[chicanorojo]

I'd like some more info on recent developments in the SP-USA, if you don't mind:


You'll have to start another thread.


===

Ooops OK. You did. I'll post there. :D

[Yehuda Stern]

Man, you really aren't listening. I said that they called you insane, and I clarified that I do not trust their definition - nor am I so quick, by the way, to trust the ideal way in which you present the DT.

[black magick hustla]

The IMT has the least flexible set of tactics I've seen from any left tendency, except maybe the left communists, who don't have any and are quite happy about it. You guys have entryism- and that's about it.

Actually we do have tactics, but they are very different from the other marxist tendencies. I think people think we dont have "tactics" because we explicitly reject the idea that marxist organizations can build workers' councils and assemblies, or can constitute vanguard parties without class struggle backing them. We think the objective of communist organizations is to argue for proletarian and internationalist positions in times of intensified class struggle. You cant build a vanguard party by opening your doors and claiming you are true and expecting people to join it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Actually we do have tactics, but they are very different from the other marxist tendencies. I think people think we dont have "tactics" because we explicitly reject the idea that marxist organizations can build workers' councils and assemblies

The problem is that these day-to-day-issue organs cannot become organs of workers' power without political parties inside them. :(


or can constitute vanguard parties without class struggle backing them

So what do you make of the international proletariat's first vanguard party, which existing during a relative absence of class struggle (German unification being the stronger motivator) and then was subject to Anti-Socialist Laws?

[Wanted Man]

http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?page_id=336
That's actually pretty sad to read. Although I have never read the phrase "more gauche than sinister" before, I think it's clever. :D


Keep in mind though, numbers aren't the most important factor to consider. No matter which party you decide to join, it almost certainly will be pretty small in actual number. And the bigger doesn't always equal better: the Bolsheviks were not always the largest socialist group in Russia for instance. So my humble advice to you is to examine the political programme of the parties you are most interested in, try reading some of their articles to get a flavor of where they stand and then if you are still interested, coming into contact with one of its members.

And if you don't like what you see/hear or feel you made a mistake, all it takes is a "Thanks but I don't think it's right for me" and off you go!
Hey man, long time no see! Whatever happened?

As for trotskyist internationals, I can only offer an outside opinion, and there aren't that many of them here.

The IS (IST section) have a big mouth, a nicely coloured and flashy newspaper, so they definitely win in the 'bluff' department. They campaign heavily against the far right, but the rhetoric is often so shrill and so liberal that it probably misses the goal for quite a bit. It's still the good old Godwin-invoking pasting of the 'racist' label on anything that's 'bad'. For example, simply labelling the far right MP Wilders as an 'Islam-racist'. I don't think this point will stick with a lot of people. Show, don't tell! Still, they have enough media savvy and ability to mobilise people for their various front actions against anti-Islamism, against the war, etc.

This frontism also leads to unfortunate allegiances with reactionary 'representatives' of muslims and bourgeois politicians (even from the liberal-conservative VVD) who are supposedly also fighting the far right racism... Another common criticism is that they 'coup' action groups and turn them into fronts, and then drop them like a hot potato when the getting is no longer good. I don't personally know if this is true, but this criticism is made of IST sections in every country, and where there's smoke, there's fire.

Offensief (CWI section), I don't know much about them. I do sometimes see them selling papers at actions. But then, I don't get to visit a lot of demonstrations, so I'm probably not seeing the full picture of their work. I believe they work within the Socialist Party, but I'm not sure what kind of effect this has. At least they also organise independently.

Socialist Alternative Politics (RFI/USFI section). Never actually seen them, but again, maybe I'm not looking hard enough. Maybe a RevLeft comrade can fill me in. As others here have said, this tendency basically (claims to) represent 'orthox trotskyism', which means that the USSR was a 'degenerated workers state' rather than 'state capitalist'.

In fact, this seems to be the dividing line between trotskyist groups. I'm not sure what the practical differences are. Actual trotskyists are more qualified to comment on this than me.

Broadleft seems to be down at the moment, so maybe I'm forgetting about other tendencies. One thing I do know, is that the IMT do not have a section here, and we can thank God for it.

[chicanorojo]

Man, you really aren't listening. I said that they called you insane, and I clarified that I do not trust their definition - nor am I so quick, by the way, to trust the ideal way in which you present the DT.

I ain't acusing you of anything. And I still don't know WTF you mean they said we were insane. :confused: :sneaky:

The ideal way? WTF?! I am a member of the DT and that's really about it. I really don't care if you trust it or not. Facts are facts. That's what the DT is.

If you want different responses, clarify your statements.

.......btw, I don't listen because.....you can't listen to forums. You read 'em. :glare:

Anywho..enough said about this issue.

[bellyscratch]

This thread has left me pretty pessimistic about joining another party.

I used to be in the SWP but after a few months realised they were not for me. I have been looking into joining the Socialist Party of England and Wales (CWI) and International Socialist Group Britain (USFI). Socialist Party are really behind the Campaign for New Workers Party and seem to have much more democratic international the IST and they have a branch near me. ISG have more of an emphasis on ecosocialism, which i really like and I thought they were part the biggest international in the world (?), but they are very small in Britain and don't have a branch near me.

I don't want to go anywhere near Socialist Appeal (IMT) just becasue they seem to think they can bring the labour back to the left, but are just wasting their time imo. Plus they don't seem to have much of a presence in Britain.

:confused:

[iraqnevercalledmenigger]

This thread has left me pretty pessimistic about joining another party.

I used to be in the SWP but after a few months realised they were not for me. I have been looking into joining the Socialist Party of England and Wales (CWI) and International Socialist Group Britain (USFI). Socialist Party are really behind the Campaign for New Workers Party and seem to have much more democratic international the IST and they have a branch near me. ISG have more of an emphasis on ecosocialism, which i really like and I thought they were part the biggest international in the world (?), but they are very small in Britain and don't have a branch near me.

I don't want to go anywhere near Socialist Appeal (IMT) just becasue they seem to think they can bring the labour back to the left, but are just wasting their time imo. Plus they don't seem to have much of a presence in Britain.

:confused:

If you don't mind me asking comrade. What exactly is your criteria for joining a group?

[bellyscratch]

If you don't mind me asking comrade. What exactly is your criteria for joining a group?

I wish I knew :lol:

Ideally, I want to join a Trotskyist party that is not too centralised, backs a real mass workers party, is not sectarian, has an emphasis on ecosocialism, has large following and has a branch near me.

There isn't one party that I know of that matches all that criteria so its all about finding out which is the best for me.

Maybe I'm looking for a party in the wrong way? I probably am.

Its so confusing when there are so many parties out there that all just ***** about each other instead of working together for their common goals. It sometimes makes me think that there is no point in doing anything because the left is just too divided and is incapable of achieving anything at all :(

[Q]

I wish I knew :lol:

Ideally, I want to join a Trotskyist party that is not too centralised, backs a real mass workers party, is not sectarian, has an emphasis on ecosocialism, has large following and has a branch near me.

There isn't one party that I know of that matches all that criteria so its all about finding out which is the best for me.

Maybe I'm looking for a party in the wrong way? I probably am.

Its so confusing when there are so many parties out there that all just ***** about each other instead of working together for their common goals. It sometimes makes me think that there is no point in doing anything because the left is just too divided and is incapable of achieving anything at all :(

As a Dutch CWI member, I can only invite you to go to a SP meeting near you and discuss with comrades, participate in activities and read the paper and/or other publications and see if we are your match :P

On eco-socialism: we have a pamphlet on green growth where we stress the need for a planned economy as being vital to sustainable growth. But I agree it isn't one of our "main" topics that we stress a lot about in our media. But do ask about the pamphlet, it's a good read! :)

[bellyscratch]

As a Dutch CWI member, I can only invite you to go to a SP meeting near you and discuss with comrades, participate in activities and read the paper and/or other publications and see if we are your match :P

On eco-socialism: we have a pamphlet on green growth where we stress the need for a planned economy as being vital to sustainable growth. But I agree it isn't one of our "main" topics that we stress a lot about in our media. But do ask about the pamphlet, it's a good read! :)

To be honest, Socialist Party looks like the one I am most likely to join. It has a branch in Newcastle which isn't too far from me and I have spoken to people from the branch who have given me details about the meetings.

I do have a problem about them not putting enough emphasis on ecosocialism, but I think the same about the left as a whole not having enough emphasis on it. I even criticise myself for the same thing :confused:. But if its something that is important to me then I can organise things around this particular subject myself to bring the left together in my area I suppose.

[bellyscratch]

I've just bought Planning Green Growth from the SP website too. It better be good :)

[zider]

To be honest, Socialist Party looks like the one I am most likely to join. It has a branch in Newcastle .

Back in the days of Militant I can always remember the comrades from the N. East as being very vociferous and good fun at conferences and rallies.

[Q]

I've just bought Planning Green Growth from the SP website too. It better be good :)

Yeah, that's the one :)

[zider]

I've just bought Planning Green Growth from the SP website too. It better be good :)
I'd be interested to hear their position on this issue. Maybe you could summaries the main points & arguements after you have read it?

[Q]

I'd be interested to hear their position on this issue. Maybe you could summaries the main points & arguements after you have read it?

Or you just read it yourself (http://socialistworld.net/eng/2002/08/19environment.html)? :tt2:

[zider]

Or you just read it yourself?:tt2:

but that would mean buying it, and diverting funds away from true revolutionary causes


edit: oops, didn't realise it was online. Thanks for the link, I'll certainly do as you suggested

sorry, smilie was supposed to come after causes, won't seem to edit properly. lol:laugh:

[RedScare]

I'm still poking around in the US. Surprisingly few parties have a branch near me, so it's not making this any easier.

[bellyscratch]

If there aren't any branches near you, find the party that you have most in common with then try start your own branch for the party? Start talking friends round to your way of thinking, join in on other single issue campaigns in that may be in your area to do with the anti-war movement, climate change etc and put your point of view forward to them and try win them round. Try build something up that way? Easier said than done though

[chebol]

Apathy Maybe wrote:

DSP promotes giving lots of money to Venezuela, and are an observer of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reunifi..._International (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reunified_Fourth_International)

We do not promote "giving lots of money to Venezuela". Why the fuck would anyone want to do that anyway? It makes no sense, given that Venezuela is rolling in Petrodollars. Please. Apply. Logic. Before. Posting...

Sure, we are observers to the FI (which we used to be part of (http://www.dsp.org.au/node/201)), but we are not about to join any international (not least a Trotskyist one. The DSP is not Trotskyist, per se, despite having come out of that tradition).

Our general approach to internationals, and internationalism, can be read here (http://www.dsp.org.au/node/115).

I also warn against relying to heavily on @ndy's accounts of the left. They are more entertaining than they are accurate.

[Bilan]

^^
SP-CWI.
They seem to fit that criteria. At least, here in Australia they do.

[chebol]

Syndicalisme ou Barbarie wrote:

SP-CWI.
They seem to fit that criteria. At least, here in Australia they do.


Really? Which criteria (sic) is that? Bellyscratch's criteria?

* "Trotskyist party"? Sure, if a group of around 50 almost entirely in one city can be called a "party".
* "not too centralised"? When the majority of the group's work is organised their member in local council and most members live in the same suburb?
* "backs a real mass workers party"? Um. No. Doesn't back one - calls for one (good idea), but with themselves as the only revolutionaries in it (bad idea). Other groups aren't really invited, especially if those other groups are actually trying to build a new mass party in practice (not rhetoric).
* "is not sectarian"? See above, plus countless other occasions. For example, during the founding of the Unite union in Melbourne (by the SP) they were approached by other left groups keen on being involved. They were told not to bother, Unite is a SP front, and they don't want to work with anyone else, thank you very much...
* "has an emphasis on ecosocialism"? Not noticeably, especially compared to the rest of the left in Australia.
* "has large following"? Fail. Big fail.
* "has a branch near me"? If you're in the UK, go right ahead (and all the points above apply to Australia, not the UK). If you're in Australia, you'll need to think about moving to Melbourne - Yarra, to be precise.

This is not diminish the SP's (and Steve's) work in Yarra. But Yarra is also where it stops. Outside (ie in the rest of Australia) they simply don't exist.

[bellyscratch]

Syndicalisme ou Barbarie wrote:


Really? Which criteria (sic) is that? Bellyscratch's criteria?

* "Trotskyist party"? Sure, if a group of around 50 almost entirely in one city can be called a "party".
* "not too centralised"? When the majority of the group's work is organised their member in local council and most members live in the same suburb?
* "backs a real mass workers party"? Um. No. Doesn't back one - calls for one (good idea), but with themselves as the only revolutionaries in it (bad idea). Other groups aren't really invited, especially if those other groups are actually trying to build a new mass party in practice (not rhetoric).
* "is not sectarian"? See above, plus countless other occasions. For example, during the founding of the Unite union in Melbourne (by the SP) they were approached by other left groups keen on being involved. They were told not to bother, Unite is a SP front, and they don't want to work with anyone else, thank you very much...
* "has an emphasis on ecosocialism"? Not noticeably, especially compared to the rest of the left in Australia.
* "has large following"? Fail. Big fail.
* "has a branch near me"? If you're in the UK, go right ahead (and all the points above apply to Australia, not the UK). If you're in Australia, you'll need to think about moving to Melbourne - Yarra, to be precise.

This is not diminish the SP's (and Steve's) work in Yarra. But Yarra is also where it stops. Outside (ie in the rest of Australia) they simply don't exist.

I know that the SP aren't perfect, but its either them or the SWP in all honesty. I do like the sound of International Socialist Group in some ways, but its totally pointless joining them as they don't seem to have any presence near me at all. The only other left parties that I know of near me are the Revolutionary Communist Party and Communist Party of (Great?) Britain, both whom I have no intention of joining.

[Q]

I know that the SP aren't perfect, but its either them or the SWP in all honesty. I do like the sound of International Socialist Group in some ways, but its totally pointless joining them as they don't seem to have any presence near me at all. The only other left parties that I know of near me are the Revolutionary Communist Party and Communist Party of (Great?) Britain, both whom I have no intention of joining.

You can always bring up the topic of ecosocialism within the party, form a tendency with others if you like, to defend the stance the party should have a bigger focus on it. Perhaps you could write articles on the matter.

Did the pamphlet arrive already?

[bellyscratch]

You can always bring up the topic of ecosocialism within the party, form a tendency with others if you like, to defend the stance the party should have a bigger focus on it. Perhaps you could write articles on the matter.

Did the pamphlet arrive already?

Once I actually get round to joining a party, I will try do that. I'm not confident enough to write articles on anything really, but once I have more confidence in my knowledge then its something I will try do.

I just got the pamphlet today, will read it when I have a bit more time.

[chebol]

Bellyscratch, I'm not trying to criticise the SP for the sake of it (merely relating the Australian reality, which is different to the UK one), and if I had a choice of either the SWP or the SP, I'd choose the SP too, probably (and critically).

My advice is get involved in local campaigns; if you want to, join the SP; but also keep a close eye on other groups (such as the ISG) and their activities (even if it means on the internet, or by getting in touch with them to get their paper sent out, etc). For example, I would strongly warn against joining the CeePeeGeeBees, but I WOULD recommend reading their paper - it's sort of the gossip magazine of the far left, as well as containing the occasional good article.

The SP talks about a "New Workers Party", but for that to succeed, there will need to be a break from Labour, and the more united the far left is, the better placed we will be to capitalise on that break.

And if the break doesn't come, we can still make considerable ground if we find ways of working closer together.

On the Enviro thing, I say read read read, and raise it in discussion. Too many left groups disregard the importance of the environmental crisis to human survival and the movement around it in building a social vanguard.

The phrase "socialism or barbarism" has never been more apt, because if we enter runaway climate change without forcing social change, the subsequent crises will make the wars in Iraq and Vietnam will look like humanitarian missions.

It's not a perfect work by any means, but the Socialist Alliance here in Australia has just redrafted our "Climate Change Charter", which you can read here (http://greenleft.wikispaces.com/2008+Climate+Charter) in four or five parts.

Also, while it's a few years old, this book (http://www.dsp.org.au/node/85) is worth reading (it's all online).

Further, check our ClimateAndCapitalism (http://climateandcapitalism.com/) for more interesting material.

[Q]

The SP talks about a "New Workers Party", but for that to succeed, there will need to be a break from Labour, and the more united the far left is, the better placed we will be to capitalise on that break.

And if the break doesn't come, we can still make considerable ground if we find ways of working closer together.
Sorry, but what are you talking about? The Socialist Party and its forerunner, Militant Labour, have broken with Labour since 1991.
This was the whole reason for the split that we faced as the tendency by Grant/Woods wanted to stay in Labour, they consequently left our ranks, founded Socialist Appeal and have their own international; the IMT.

[chebol]

Oh for chrissakes, get some perspective! The world does NOT revolve around the CWI's relationship with Nu-Labour and the IMT (and, for that matter, most of us think the fixation a little silly)!

What I said was "a break from Labour". Id est, a break of existing working class militants away from the Labour Party in a manner sufficient to give life to the left's aim of building a new party of labour!!

After all, you aren't going to build a new workers' party through the primitive accumulation of cadre...

[Q]

Oh for chrissakes, get some perspective! The world does NOT revolve around the CWI's relationship with Nu-Labour and the IMT (and, for that matter, most of us think the fixation a little silly)!
Choose your words more carefully then, because you were talking about:


The SP talks about a "New Workers Party", but for that to succeed, there will need to be a break from Labour, and the more united the far left is, the better placed we will be to capitalise on that break.
Emphasis by me. Given that you were talking about the SP in the first part of the sentence, I naturally assumed you were talking about the SP when you were stating the need for a break with labour in the same sentence.


What I said was "a break from Labour". Id est, a break of existing working class militants away from the Labour Party in a manner sufficient to give life to the left's aim of building a new party of labour!!

After all, you aren't going to build a new workers' party through the primitive accumulation of cadre...
I agree. It is one of the reasons we call for a severing of the links from the unions towards Labour and setup a new initiative (the CNWP is mainly a union-based campaign).

[bellyscratch]

Bellyscratch, I'm not trying to criticise the SP for the sake of it (merely relating the Australian reality, which is different to the UK one), and if I had a choice of either the SWP or the SP, I'd choose the SP too, probably (and critically).

My advice is get involved in local campaigns; if you want to, join the SP; but also keep a close eye on other groups (such as the ISG) and their activities (even if it means on the internet, or by getting in touch with them to get their paper sent out, etc). For example, I would strongly warn against joining the CeePeeGeeBees, but I WOULD recommend reading their paper - it's sort of the gossip magazine of the far left, as well as containing the occasional good article.

The SP talks about a "New Workers Party", but for that to succeed, there will need to be a break from Labour, and the more united the far left is, the better placed we will be to capitalise on that break.

And if the break doesn't come, we can still make considerable ground if we find ways of working closer together.

On the Enviro thing, I say read read read, and raise it in discussion. Too many left groups disregard the importance of the environmental crisis to human survival and the movement around it in building a social vanguard.

The phrase "socialism or barbarism" has never been more apt, because if we enter runaway climate change without forcing social change, the subsequent crises will make the wars in Iraq and Vietnam will look like humanitarian missions.

It's not a perfect work by any means, but the Socialist Alliance here in Australia has just redrafted our "Climate Change Charter", which you can read here (http://greenleft.wikispaces.com/2008+Climate+Charter) in four or five parts.

Also, while it's a few years old, this book (http://www.dsp.org.au/node/85) is worth reading (it's all online).

Further, check our ClimateAndCapitalism (http://climateandcapitalism.com/) for more interesting material.

I agree with pretty much everything you said there and more or less plan to do all that anyway. I'm always doing as much reading as I can around my university work, getting involved in political activities in my area and trying to have some escapist activities too. Its not always easy to find the right balance but i'm doing my best.

[chebol]

Q-collective,

Without descending into a pointless argument over the construction of meaning in English syntax...

I wrote:

The SP talks about a "New Workers Party", but for that to succeed, there will need to be a break from Labour, and the more united the far left is, the better placed we will be to capitalise on that break.


One very simple point. If I was referring to any need for the SP to break from Labour (which it already did years ago, as we all know) I would have written "but for that to succeed, it will need to break from Labour", or, indeed, to distinguish it more clearly from the "New Workers' Party in the previous clause, "but for that to succeed, the SP will need to break from Labour".

I didn't write that for a very good reason - that was not what I meant. This much was clear from the rest of the sentence, where I refer to the need for left unity (by implication, also including the SP) in order to capitalise on a break (a term I repeat) from Labour of exactly the kind both you and I know the SP is looking for.

Your leap was not a "natural assumption", but rather an unnatural one, that twisted the meaning of the sentence.

You wrote:

Given that you were talking about the SP in the first part of the sentence, I naturally assumed you were talking about the SP when you were stating the need for a break with labour in the same sentence.

Actually, it is within the rules of human language - English in particular - to include more than one object, and more than one clause, in the same sentence. The way the sentence is then constructed dictates the meaning being conveyed. If your reread my sentence you will actually find that I'm clearly refering to a possible "New Workers' Party", not the SP, with regards to any break from Labour.

Let me break it down for you, nice and simple.
1st clause: SP talks about NWP
2nd clause: but necessary element of NWP is break from LP
3nd clause: and left unity is necessary to capitalise on potential break
Simple. While the original sentence is not as direct and simplistic as the above, the only way you can misunderstand it is if you try to, especially as you are familiar with the concept at play...

So, rather than my choosing my words more carefully, I suggest you read more carefully, use common sense, don't jump to insupportable conclusions, and refrain from presuming to lecture me (ill-advisedly) on sentence construction. That way we can get on with the more important business of changing the world.

[More Fire for the People]

The IMT has an obsession with deep entryism.
I can't help but comment: this sounds so sexual.

[Bear MacMillan]

The IMT has an obsession with deep entryism.

Deep entryism is when you dissolve your organization in another organization.
That is opportunist. As it is opportunist to spread lies like that about the IMT.
The IMT performs entryism where there are material conditions to do so like in France where they won over 15% of the Communist Party etc.
In other countries it advances the demand of a workers party which is undoubtely a step forward for that given country.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I can't help but comment: this sounds so sexual.

:laugh:

[Sam_b]

I still see that Q-Collective has not yet elaborated on where he heard that the SWP no longer sells its paper....

And we're opportunist, apparently :rolleyes:

[Q]

I still see that Q-Collective has not yet elaborated on where he heard that the SWP no longer sells its paper....

And we're opportunist, apparently :rolleyes:

I answered the question before you asked it. Not going to repeat myself.
And yes, the SWP is hugely opportunistic.

[Sam_b]

I still see that Q-Collective has not yet elaborated on where he heard that the SWP no longer sells its paper....


Maybe it's only in certain branches, I'm not sure. Maybe an English comrade could elaborate.

That is not an answer.

[Q]

That is not an answer.

It sure is an answer, deal with it and ask an English comrade.

[Sam_b]

It sure is an answer, deal with it and ask an English comrade.

The question was where did you hear such a lie. You have not said who you've talked to, or where you heard the rumour, only (in a patrionising way) that we should "ask an English comrade". Yeah, because it wouldn't be good enough for an SWP member to call out this lie for what it is :rolleyes:

We have got a thing as accountability in the SWP, and weekly bulletins about what is happening across the country.

Now tell us where you heard this from and what proof you have, or remove it from your post.

[BobKKKindle$]

Of course the SWP still sells its paper - the paper urges both SWSS groups and local branches to have at least two paper sells every week, including an industrial sale, and at the moment we are also having our annual appeal because the party wants to buy our own printing press to handle the increasing demand for our paper and various pamphlets. Every SWP membership card states that to be a full member of the party you have to be doing something active and not just sitting at home writing about socialism on the internet, and so it is highly unlikely that the party would stop branches from having paper sales. The fact that Q-Collective made this assertion and is now unable to back it up is revealing. It is also ironic that the SP accusses the SWP of being opportunist, given that members of the SP on the executive board of the PCS voted to continue negotiations with management and not take strike action earlier this month, and by doing so rejected a great opportunity to involve a new section of the labour market in the struggle against the government.

[Q]

Of course the SWP still sells its paper - the paper urges both SWSS groups and local branches to have at least two paper sells every week, including an industrial sale, and at the moment we are also having our annual appeal because the party wants to buy our own printing press to handle the increasing demand for our paper and various pamphlets.

Then I guess my source was wrong or I have misinterpreted it.

Btw, didn't you have a printing press (in the past)?

[Sam_b]

Then I guess my source was wrong or I have misinterpreted it.

Fair enough. Would you be able to edit it out of your first post then? From your position I think it gives a fairly decent rundown of the different internationals and I wouldn't want people getting the wrong idea from that particular part :)

[Q]

Fair enough. Would you be able to edit it out of your first post then? From your position I think it gives a fairly decent rundown of the different internationals and I wouldn't want people getting the wrong idea from that particular part :)
Very well, edited.

[Yehuda Stern]

I agree with the quote, but must say I find no place in which Trotsky used it. The only place I find is an article by the L5I.

[Led Zeppelin]

"In no sense is a Labor Party that is anything less than the revolutionary party a necessary stage in the development of the working class in countries where there are no workers' parties." - Leon Trotsky. Emphasis added.

This is the second time you quoted that and attributed it to Trotsky, even though the first time you did it I pointed out to you that it was not a Trotsky quote:



"In no sense is a Labor Party that is anything less than the revolutionary party a necessary stage in the development of the working class in countries where there are no workers' parties." - Trotsky

That's not a Trotsky quote.

It's taken from the site of the "fifth international".

[gilhyle]

Can we get a link to the original ?