CWI and IMT discussion

[OI OI OI]

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.

When one faction makes an ultra left turn then work with that faction is useless .

That is why the IMT split.

[Led Zeppelin]

When one faction makes an ultra left turn then work with that faction is useless .

That is why the IMT split.

So basically when the majority of the organization believes something that you do not agree with, you can say that they are "taking an ultra-left turn" and just split...

That nullifies the concept of democratic centralism, and I'd like to stick with it.

[OI OI OI]

So basically when the majority of the organization believes something that you do not agree with, you can say that they are "taking an ultra-left turn" and just split...

That nullifies the concept of democratic centralism, and I'd like to stick with it.

Democratic centralism is the principle of the IMT and for example when we debated our position to global warming Alan woods who believed that global warming is a capitalist lie was in the minority but still remained in the organization.

But in issues like working inside labour or not when the dissilutioned majority believes we can just leave labour when there are no conditions for it and it proves catastrophic for them as they lost 90% of their membership then we cannot endorse such ultra left turns and we have to split.

[Saorsa]

When one faction makes an ultra left turn then work with that faction is useless .

Acknowledging the Labour Party for what it is, a liberal capitalist party, is an accurate and revolutionary line, not an ultra-leftist one. The IMT are dogmatic opportunists.

[Led Zeppelin]

Democratic centralism is the principle of the IMT and for example when we debated our position to global warming Alan woods who believed that global warming is a capitalist lie was in the minority but still remained in the organization.

Democratic centralism is now a "principle" of the IMT, yes, just like it was a "principle" of Grant and Woods when they were in Militant.

History has proven that "principle" to be worthless.


But in issues like working inside labour or not when the dissilutioned majority believes we can just leave labour when there are no conditions for it and it proves catastrophic for them as they lost 90% of their membership then we cannot endorse such ultra left turns and we have to split.

They lost 90% of their membership? And the IMT split didn't?

Yes, they did, but not only that. What has IMT achieved by staying in Labour over the past decade or so? Nothing at all. The right-wing turn happened, no, in fact it was deepened, and the IMT did nothing - and could do nothing - to stop it. And the IMT is still smaller than the SP (the CWI section in the UK).

So if you want to talk about numbers, explain why after over a decade you are still smaller in the UK than the CWI is.

Explain why the IMT in general is still smaller than the CWI is.

If you want to play the numbers card, you lose, and there isn't any other card you can play to excuse not adhering to the principle of democratic centralism.

[OI OI OI]

They lost 90% of their membership? And the IMT split didn't?

Yes, they did, but not only that. What has IMT achieved by staying in Labour over the past decade or so? Nothing at all. The right-wing turn happened, no, in fact it was deepened, and the IMT did nothing - and could do nothing - to stop it. And the IMT is still smaller than the SP (the CWI section in the UK).

So if you want to talk about numbers, explain why after over a decade you are still smaller in the UK than the CWI is.

Explain why the IMT in general is still smaller than the CWI is.

If you want to play the numbers card, you lose, and there isn't any other card you can play to excuse not adhering to the principle of democratic centralism.

Led I respect you as you are the most intelligent member of the board.

However this post is full of crap.

Let me explain myself.

When the CWI and the IMT split , the CWI had 93% of the membership and the IMT 7%. That is more than 6 000 for the CWI and 70-80 people for the IMt.

since then the CWI lost a lot of its membership and now has 400 people in the UK.

But the IMT gained in membership and now they are approximately 200 in the UK.

So clearly the IMT has grown and the CWI shrinked.

why did the labour party take a right turn?
Because of the ultra left turn of the majorityof the Militant which left the party to the mercy of the right wing.

If they had stayed this wld have been prevented.

But the IMT styed firm on the principles of Trotskyism and its tradition but unfortunately because of the split it had no power whatsoever to keep Labour from taking a right turn.
It had to start from scratch and rebuild what it had achieved from 40 years of patient work.

So clearly those who fucked up the situation are not the 7% who stayed firm on their tactics that of entryism because exactly the conditions for open work were not favourable as proved by how the CWI got destroyed because of that move , but those who sided with the Taafite faction because of the dissilutionment caused in this period.

It was a mistake of the majority of the Militant to leave.

And the fact is that the IMT chose the hard path of continuing in the right way and slowly but surely it is growing whle the CWI is stagnant .

and now in a world scale the IMT has more influence where the "shit" happens.

So if the IMt went with CWI there would not be a section of thousands in Pakistan neither a section of Marxists in the PSUV with such influence in events.


So clearly, for the movement this split was beneficial because if the IMT had stayed in what is an ultra left move then that would mean that it would have been dragged to ultra leftism and ghettoism as the CWI has and that is a bad thing for the movement.

I hope this clarifies some things.
also I wrote this post in ahurry so it is not very articulate.

I hope you get the message though.

[Led Zeppelin]

Led I respect you as you are the most intelligent member of the board.

However this post is full of crap.

It's not, really. You just perceive it as such due to the IMT glasses you're wearing when you read anything related to politics.


When the CWI and the IMT split , the CWI had 93% of the membership and the IMT 7%. That is more than 6 000 for the CWI and 70-80 people for the IMt.

Provide a source for these numbers please.


since then the CWI lost a lot of its membership and now has 400 people in the UK.

Again, provide a source for these numbers please. I have heard that the SP has 2000 members, not 400.


But the IMT gained in membership and now they are approximately 200 in the UK.

So clearly the IMT has grown and the CWI shrinked.

Math isn't what matters here, political reasoning is. When the Nazis gained millions of workers to their side, did we "do the math" and conclude that the Nazis were therefore the "right way to go"?

Of course not, that's absurd.

We looked at the matter objectively, from all sides, and then came to conclusions about it. So let's look at the matter objectively, then. The CWI and IMT both lost members, but this was not just because they were the CWI and IMT, this was due to other factors, such as the collapse of the USSR and the general ebb in revolutionary consciousness on the part of the working-classes of most, if not all, nations.

It wasn't just the IMT and CWI that were affected by this, every communist organization from every ideological tendency was. Factors such as these take into account most of the losses on the part of the former Militant.

This numbers game is really pointless though, because you have your numbers, I have mine, and both can only source them back to people from either tendency, and we both know (at least I do) that they aren't very objective about stuff like this.

The fact of the matter is that the CWI is still bigger than the IMT after over a decade of the split. If you had the correct tactic and theory on your side, you would be bigger, it's as simple as that.


why did the labour party take a right turn?
Because of the ultra left turn of the majorityof the Militant which left the party to the mercy of the right wing.

If they had stayed this wld have been prevented.

But the IMT styed firm on the principles of Trotskyism and its tradition but unfortunately because of the split it had no power whatsoever to keep Labour from taking a right turn.
It had to start from scratch and rebuild what it had achieved from 40 years of patient work.

This is ridiculous.

Militant was strong and had some influence in Labour, but to say that it could have prevented the Blairites from coming to power is just absurd beyond belief. They were already being expelled and persecuted when they decided to form the SP, to say that they could've stayed and prevented the right-wing turn is idealist. The tide of right-wing liberalism which swept through the whole of Western-Europe could have been prevented in the UK, if only Militant had stayed in Labour...this isn't a position you should try to defend.


So clearly those who fucked up the situation are not the 7% who stayed firm on their tactics that of entryism because exactly the conditions for open work were not favourable as proved by how the CWI got destroyed because of that move , but those who sided with the Taafite faction because of the dissilutionment caused in this period.

You base your entire "so clearly..." point on an a priori assumption which is flawed, therefore your point is flawed as well.

There is no way that Militant could have prevented Labour's right-wing turn, but I'll entertain this fantasy for now. You now acknowledged that there was no way that the IMT could have prevented this by themselves, correct? If this is the case, don't you think it would have been better to, say, stay with the CWI and work on building the SP instead of splitting off to do something which you know is impossible?

Isn't that the useful thing to do? Set aside your personal disagreements for the sake of the greater good? To not only think of your own opinions as fact, but also take into consideration the opinions of, say, the majority of the organization? And then of course when the majority position turns out to be wrong, your own position will gain the upper hand, and the policy of the organization can and will change accordingly. The only difference is that we'd have a united organization now, with much less petty and idiotic sectarianism floating about.

You can blame this on "disillusionment on the part of the majority" all you want, but the fact is that your faction did not adhere to the principle of democratic centralism, and by doing so you harmed the movement more than any single tactical error could have done.


It was a mistake of the majority of the Militant to leave.

That is your subjective opinion, it is irrelevant when compared to the objective opinion of the majority of the organization, which has to be adhered to if you ever want to have a coherent and efficient revolutionary organization, and most of all, a democratic one.

If you want to create sects, then yes, the principle of democratic centralism is useless.


And the fact is that the IMT chose the hard path of continuing in the right way and slowly but surely it is growing whle the CWI is stagnant .

This is fantasy.

The CWI is bigger than the IMT in most nations where both are active, and the CWI is actually growing, I have no idea where you got the idea that it was stagnant.


and now in a world scale the IMT has more influence where the "shit" happens.

Having your "traditional mass-party" of choice being in power does not give your ideological tendency more influence.


So if the IMt went with CWI there would not be a section of thousands in Pakistan neither a section of Marxists in the PSUV with such influence in events.

This is again ridiculous. I have no idea how you come to these conclusions.

If CWI remained united, the policy of the national chapter in Pakistan would have resulted in nothing but constant failure. Why? Because I said so!

This isn't based on anything but speculation, and it's not really good speculation at that.


So clearly, for the movement this split was beneficial because if the IMT had stayed in what is an ultra left move then that would mean that it would have been dragged to ultra leftism and ghettoism as the CWI has and that is a bad thing for the movement.

Again, you base your entire "so clearly..." point on an a priori assumption which is flawed, therefore your point is flawed as well.


I hope this clarifies some things.
also I wrote this post in ahurry so it is not very articulate.

I hope you get the message though.

Yeah, I got the message, and even though I respect you as a member as you respect me, I believe your message was full of crap.

By the way, I'm going to split this discussion to prevent further derailing of this thread.

[OI OI OI]

Provide a source for these numbers please.

They left the Labour Party, and since then have declined to the point that they have become much weaker (from about 4,000 in 1992 they have now fallen to about 400!). Having made one mistake they then compounded it by drawing pessimistic conclusions about the whole objective situation. They talk of the labour movement having been thrown back one hundred years, etc.

http://www.marxist.com/history-marxist-tendency.htm

At a special conference of the Militant tendency in October 1991, after a lengthy period of debate and discussion, 93% of delegates voted to support the "Scottish turn".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_tendency#The_.27Open_Turn.27


Math isn't what matters here, political reasoning is. When the Nazis gained millions of workers to their side, did we "do the math" and conclude that the Nazis were therefore the "right way to go"?

Oh come on Led. This is not a valid analogy.

We have the same ideas and analysis but just different tactics. So numbers , growth and influence are very pertinent to the discussion. And throught hat we see the superiority of the tactics of the IMt as it has been growing faster and it is not isolated in the Leftist ghettos of Britain or elsewhere.


Militant was strong and had some influence in Labour, but to say that it could have prevented the Blairites from coming to power is just absurd beyond belief. They were already being expelled and persecuted when they decided to form the SP, to say that they could've stayed and prevented the right-wing turn is idealist. The tide of right-wing liberalism which swept through the whole of Western-Europe could have been prevented in the UK, if only Militant had stayed in Labour...this isn't a position you should try to defend.



You are right on this. But now that conditions have changed and it is time for the "left-turn" as the capitalist crisis have started the Trotskyists are not there to rip off the benefits. Instead they are in the leftist ghettos isolated from society.

The IMT can play a role but its numbers are too small. But it will certainly benefit from this left turn in power and influence while the SP will remain stagnant.

And we already see this trend. I suggest you read the original article I linked you with.



This is fantasy.

The CWI is bigger than the IMT in most nations where both are active, and the CWI is actually growing, I have no idea where you got the idea that it was stagnant.

The fact is that the CWI plays no role where the "shit" happens.


I guess I will respond to the rest tomorrow as I am really tired now.

[Saorsa]

The fact is that the CWI plays no role where the "shit" happens.

Oh really? What about the Socialist Party of Australia, which has a councillor elected in the working class area of Yarra? I certainly don't see any IMTers practicing entryism into the liberal capitalist ALP!

The Aussie SP is doing the best work of any group that I can see over there.


The Socialist Party (SP) is the Australian section of the Committee for a Workers' International (CWI). The Australian section began when comrades recruited to the CWI whilst living in Britain returned to Australia in the early 1980's. We began organising mainly within the trade union movement and the Young Labor (the youth wing of Australia's Labor Party ALP). At one time controlling three Young Labor Branches. The party has grown to have branches in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. In November 2004 we had our first election victory in the Yarra City Council elections in Melbourne.
Over the years the Party has supported and led a number of struggles in support of the rights and conditions of the working class and community as a whole. We were the strongest influence during the student movement against the Greiner government in NSW in the late 1980s. Calling demonstrations and rallies attracting tens of thousands of school students that strongly influenced the teachers strike against the Liberal government. Later, in Victoria, after the Kennett led Liberal Government attacked the education system SP was at the forefront of the anti-Kennett movement. In fact the SP played a leading role in the rebel run school in defiance of Kennett at Richmond Secondary. During 1992, after the Victorian government decided to close Richmond Secondary College, the school community led by members of the SP (then Militant) occupied the site for 360 days, 24 hours a day, ran a rebel high school, took the education department to court, established picket lines, and launched a giant political campaign. In late 2000 protesters who had been severely beaten by police, won an out of court settlement in excess of $300,000. An initiative instigated by the SP. The SP was also the first socialist party anywhere in the developed world to take up the issue of heroin and the detrimental effect it is having on the working class especially it's youth. The SP has initiated the building of the Community Campaign for Heroin Reform - a campaign to force the Government to acknowledge the current drug crisis as a health & social issue rather than an issue of crime. We have campaigned for the opening of safe injecting rooms to reduce the number of overdoses as well as the creation of jobs and other rehabilitation programmes. During the late 1990's the SP led the anti-racism struggle against the right-wing party, One Nation. Calling for school student strikes with enormous success in Victoria and participating on rallies and demonstrations throughout Australia. The protests played a significant role in halting the racist party's growth in popularity, especially in the cities. SP was also active during the demonstrations against a fascist run book shop in the Melbourne suburb of Fawkener that eventually closed under the pressure of the protests.
As was the case internationally, in the early 1990s the workers and youth came to the conclusion that the social democratic ALP no longer served the interest of the workers and young people. The SP made a positive open turn towards working as an independent party. Our work was directed towards the new and politically inactive layers in society, amongst workers and youth. However, we have continued to work amongst the rank and file of the trade unions. The success of this work can be gauged by the fact we now have a number of comrades working for trade unions. As a result of the many years of campaigning on the ground, the SP decided, in 1997, to stand a candidate in the Federal Election. Our candidate received over a thousand votes. Following on this successful campaign SP stood a candidate in the Victorian State Election built on the foundationsof the Richmond School and Heroin Reform campaigns. The SP candidate received one the highest results for a socialist candidate since the 1950s. In September 2000 SP mobilised youth and unionist to protest against a World Economic Forum regional meeting held in Melbourne. SP called a school student strike for the day and organised the successful First Aid Tent. Hundreds of protesters were treated by trade union first aid officers after the brutal and unnecessary attacks by police. Our influence in the CFMEU(Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union) led to this and other unions breaking from the Victorian Trades Hall leadership and marching onto the picket lines in support of the protest. More recently the SP established the UNiTE group, which organises casualworkers and names and shames particularly dodgy employers.
In November 2004 SP's National Secretary, Stephen Jolly, was elected to Yarra City Council (Langridge Ward) - the first socialist elected in Australia for many years. The SP will continue to build and mobilise around campaigns to strengthen the struggle against capitalism. SP will stand candidates in future elections in all states, build rank & file groups within trade unions and fight for the rights of working class people. The development of campaigns and the struggle against exploitation of youth and women will be forefront in the future work of the Socialist Party.

[OI OI OI]

This is why these discussion have to be done in the trot forum.
It acts as a filter to stupid posts

[Saorsa]

This is why these discussion have to be done in the trot forum.
It acts as a filter to stupid posts

Wow, a typically crushing response from Oi Oi Oi, the master of intelligent debate! You make an untrue statement, I prove you wrong, and you whine and cry about how mean everyone is outside of the Trotksyist forum.

If you've been proven wrong, either attempt to respond to it or take it like a grownup.

[Led Zeppelin]

They left the Labour Party, and since then have declined to the point that they have become much weaker (from about 4,000 in 1992 they have now fallen to about 400!). Having made one mistake they then compounded it by drawing pessimistic conclusions about the whole objective situation. They talk of the labour movement having been thrown back one hundred years, etc.

http://www.marxist.com/history-marxist-tendency.htm (http://www.marxist.com/history-marxist-tendency.htm)

Yes, link to the "history of our organization" section of the website of your own tendency, that's very objective.

When I asked for sources I meant real sources. If you want to go by sources like the one you posted, that is, from your own tendency, I can tell you that I have heard from CWI members in the UK that they have over 2000 members.


At a special conference of the Militant tendency in October 1991, after a lengthy period of debate and discussion, 93% of delegates voted to support the "Scottish turn".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militan...27Open_Turn.27 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_tendency#The_.27Open_Turn.27)

I'm not sure why you posted this. Yes, the majority of the organization supported the Scottish turn and the subsequent break with Labour, I've been saying that all along.


Oh come on Led. This is not a valid analogy.

We have the same ideas and analysis but just different tactics. So numbers , growth and influence are very pertinent to the discussion. And throught hat we see the superiority of the tactics of the IMt as it has been growing faster and it is not isolated in the Leftist ghettos of Britain or elsewhere.

Firstly, I have no idea why you keep using the word "ghettos". The IMT in the UK is in composition the same as the CWI, yet it is smaller than the CWI, so therefore if you want to refer to the CWI as a "ghetto tendency" (for whatever reason), your own tendency would be much more "ghetto".

Secondly, it is an established fact that the IMT is still smaller than the CWI both in the UK and internationally, and this after over a decade since the split. It is also a fact that the CWI is growing at the very least at the same pace as the IMT is, if not at a higher pace.

So yes, numbers do matter, but they're against you. I think it's a bit ridiculous to try and play the numbers game when this is the case.


You are right on this. But now that conditions have changed and it is time for the "left-turn" as the capitalist crisis have started the Trotskyists are not there to rip off the benefits. Instead they are in the leftist ghettos isolated from society.

Again with the "ghetto", is this the new IMT buzzword going around or something?


The IMT can play a role but its numbers are too small. But it will certainly benefit from this left turn in power and influence while the SP will remain stagnant.

"The CWI will certainly benefit from the current situation, and grow in power and influence while the IMT remains stagnant."

If I were you I would have written that, and I would have made a conclusion based on nothing.

The SP is numerically bigger than the IMT, has more influence than the IMT, and has more "power" (whatever you mean by that) than the IMT, and this has been the case for over a decade. Your work inside Labour has resulted in nothing but utter failure, and since you still continue to do it, history shows us that it will remain an utter failure.


And we already see this trend. I suggest you read the original article I linked you with.

No we don't, and no I'm not going to believe what the IMT says about the CWI, or the other way around.


The fact is that the CWI plays no role where the "shit" happens.

As I said before, just because your "traditional mass party" of choice is in power doesn't make you responsible for it, or even relevant to it.

If you really think that the IMT has some "say" in matters in Venezuela or Pakistan, then, well, you're wrong.

[Sam_b]

In all my five or so years being involved in left politics, i've never heard any socialist call the CWI 'ultra left'. To use it in the way OI OI OI is is to nullify the term and to deviate from Lenin's interpretation of it in 'Left WIng Communism - An Infantile Disorder' and could eventually cause problems down the line.

In my opinion I see the CWI not being ultra-leftists, but actually not being left enough with regards to issues on the Middle East and Imperialism. However, I would say that most of their analysis on the economy is pretty much bang on. As for the IMT, to stay in the Labour party and try to work within it after the revoke of Clause Four was an act of sheer madness, and have arguably failed in their intervention while neo-liberalism takes away any of the values that were left in it.

[Devrim]

In all my five or so years being involved in left politics, i've never heard any socialist call the CWI 'ultra left'. To use it in the way OI OI OI is is to nullify the term and to deviate from Lenin's interpretation of it in 'Left WIng Communism - An Infantile Disorder' and could eventually cause problems down the line.

I think that the reason for this is the term has very little meaning other than as an insult, and what it has come to mean is 'you are more leftwing than me, and I am going to insult you rather than address your arguments'*.

Therefore, from the position of the SWP, it seems absurd to call the CWI ultra left. However, when looked at from the IMT's point of view, and remember they are probably the most right wing of all the Trotskyist organisations, they be come raving looney ultra-leftists for saying that it is not possible to work in the Labour Party.

Devrim

*To be fair to Lenin, he did address the arguments however superficially.

[Sam_b]

Good point Dev.

On the subject of Lenin's 'Left Wing Communism': how do you and your ICC comrades interpret it? Would you desribe yourself as the 'infantile disorder' that he speaks of?

[Edited for atrocious spelling!]

[Q]

OI OI OI: stop making so many of these threads. If you want to vent your frustration, just do a papersale or something.

[Devrim]

On the subject of Lenin's 'Left Wing Communism': how do you and your ICC comrades interpret it? Would you desribe yourself as the 'infantile disorder' that he speaks of?

It is obviously not how we'd describe ourselves, but we (along with other groups) are the political descendants of the left wing communists of the time, and hold to many of the same positions.

Personally, I think it is a bit of a poor diatribe, which doesn't really address the issues at all.

Devrim

[OI OI OI]

OI OI OI: stop making so many of these threads. If you want to vent your frustration, just do a papersale or something.

Haha.

I didnt make this thread. It was split by Led zepelin from another thread.

Good point though. I need to do a paper sale.

The problem is that we don't have our french paper ready yet in Quebec and I don't feel like trying to sell our English one:P

[Saorsa]

I didnt make this thread. It was split by Led zepelin from another thread.

Good point though. I need to do a paper sale.

The problem is that we don't have our french paper ready yet in Quebec and I don't feel like trying to sell our English one:P

Going to adress the arguments that have been raised against your position?

[ajs2007]

I'm trying to understand this thread, but after staring at the wall for minutes I don't think I can.

Surely, the issues are straightforward. It has not been possible to build revolutionary forces in any great numbers, at least in Britain and probably in the rest of the "developed" world, during the past 15 years or so. So in these areas the IMT, the CWI/SP, even the IS/SWP etc. have either grown very little or shrunk- I would argue, not having verified numbers, that the IMT has grown a little rather than getting smaller, whereas both the CWI and IS have gotten smaller, but admitedly the IMT have grown from a much smaller base than either the IS or CWI.

So I'm not absolutely sure what debating the past 15 years or so will achieve. IMO it's valid though for OI OI OI to say that the CWI split from the IMT on an ultra-left basis, simply because the "Turn" meant that the old Militant threw away its position in the Labour Party for no obvious gains.

More importantly is what orientation revolutionary leftists (given the name of this forum) should have in the future. The IMT thinks that we should look towards the traditional organisations of the working class (not "traditional mass party" whatever that is) because when the working class becomes political that is where, in the first instance, they become active.

We can discuss whether in Britain say, the Labour Party is where the working class will initially become active or not, but as this hasn't happened yet I'm not sure what looking back to the past period will accomplish. We could also usefully look at the attitude socialists, eg Lenin, have taken in the past to working-class organisations whether those organisations have been "liberal capitalist parties" or not. I'm of the view that regardless of how we may regard these parties, the working class sees them as their parties, notwithstanding how feeble and disgusting many of the leaders of these parties are, and will become political to try to change these parties. We should be there at that time.

That doesn't mean that we should kow-tow to the reformist bastards in charge of these working class parties. In Britain, for example, the growth of the IMT has come from independent work, not from work in the Labour Party - which is not very important at the moment although this will change. It's just a question of orientation.

[chebol]

Comrade Alastair wrote:


Oh really? What about the Socialist Party of Australia, which has a councillor elected in the working class area of Yarra? I certainly don't see any IMTers practicing entryism into the liberal capitalist ALP!

Actually, I think there are about 3 IMTers in the ALP. They tend to hang out with the handful of people who think the CPGB's paper is actually worth reading for more than amusement....



The Aussie SP is doing the best work of any group that I can see over there.

You're clearly not looking very closely then. Despite its rhetoric, the SP is limited in scope to jut one small part of Melbourne, and has a national membership of barely 50 (if that).

It is testament to their ability to work hard in one area, and focus on building the profile of one individual - Steve Jolley - that they got him elected (largely by luck) at the last council elections. There are new elections this November, and while I wish Steve all the best, I fear he won't make it back in.

He has done some good work in the Yarra area, and done a good job of exposing not only Labor but the Greens for their neoliberal politics.

The work the SP has done in Union Solidarity (alongside all the other left groups) and in UNITE (which they didn't let other left groups into - it is basically a SP front. Potentially successful, but sectarian in orientation - so far) has also been commendable.

But - and not wanting to derail the discussion too much - the SP have nothing like the weight, nor active invovement in campaigns around the country that the Socialist Alliance does (and we're still small - only around 700 members - but still the largest far left group by far).

So for their size the SP have done a good job, but your comment is totally out of perspective.

LZ wrote:


Again with the "ghetto", is this the new IMT buzzword going around or something?

It's an attempt to "prove" that they are in the real game (ie the LP) while everyone outside is a ghettoised, isolated, sect, irrelevant to the class struggle.

Which is amusing, as the IMT's impact on anything - except Chavez's library (and even I have helped add to that) - seems pretty non-existent from my end.

The argument: big inside the LP --> outside --> smaller, therefore being in the LP = better, which is essentially what's being put here, is garbage, it avoids the question of the politics of the LP, of the non-partisan population, of the working class, and of the past 2 decades since the collapse of the USSR.

In fact, after the Kinnock-led purges in Liverpool, it should've been clear to anyone who didn't have some pretty serious delusions of grandeur that the LP was a dead end. It still is.

The question - and topic for a much more important and useful discussion - is what should the left be doing now? And things like the Convention of the Left are much more useful, in the long run, than pissing-contests over a split that happened before many members of this board could spell their own names.

[apathy maybe]

What I want to know is:
Who is the IMT group in Australia?
Who is the CWI group in Australia?
Who are the DSP aligned with?
Who are Socialist Alternative aligned with?
When is Socialist Alliance going to break up into many small parts as I have been reading recently is probably going to happen? (Admittedly reading on a anarchist site, but whichever.)


To stay a little bit on topic, why is there so much animosity between the IMT and other trot groups? Is there a fundamental disagreement on politics (such as entryism) that can't be changed? Or is it just that one group hates the other group because of ancient history?

What are the distinguishing differences between the CWI and the IMT?

(I would like a lot less insults, and a lot more objectivity in the answers to my questions, if at all possible.)

[chebol]

AM asked:


What I want to know is:
Who is the IMT group in Australia?
Who is the CWI group in Australia?
Who are the DSP aligned with?
Who are Socialist Alternative aligned with?
When is Socialist Alliance going to break up into many small parts as I have been reading recently is probably going to happen? (Admittedly reading on a anarchist site, but whichever.)

IMT - no actual group, as far as I know. There aren't enough to quantifiably do anything other than assert they exist. For a while they were linked to the Labor Tribune group in the ALP around Marcus Strom, but that was always pretty small and inactive, so it's hard to say what they do now.

CWI - is the Socialist Party in Melbourne (with a handful of members in Sydney, Newcastle and Perth). Total of maybe 50. Only explicitly socialist respresentive elected to govt at the moment in Steve Jolly, Yarra Council.

The DSP are not aligned with any "international". 4th Int'l (ie US SWP, etc) until mid 80s. Over 250 members, and part of the Socialist Alliance.

Socialist Alternative are a split from the IST group in Australia. They have a close connection with the US ISO (also ex-IST), but aren't in an official internation tendency (although their politics are still ortho-Cliffite). About 200 members, mostly students (this is a deliberate strategy, apparently).

Socialist Alliance isn't going to break into lots of small pieces (if it's the anarchist site I'm thinking about, he doesn't know what he's talking about, but is funny in doin it). Most of the small grouplets left a while ago.

Actually, we're still growing (albeit slowly - but surely), and are in negotiations with possible new affiliates. And we are still working on winning some of the other left groups back, but the vast majority of members are not aligned with any group, and that's quite healthy.

Rumours of our demise are much exaggerated (usually by those who have an interest in people thinking as much).

[apathy maybe]

OK, thanks. Another quick question then, would it be fair to say that the biggest (socialist) groups in Australia aren't aligned to any of the "internationals"? Would it be fair to then also say that this is healthy, as it means that they aren't being dragged into political fights from other countries? (And that stupid things happening in the UK, for example, would not means splits in Australia?)

[chebol]

On your first question, the answer would broadly be "yes". In the late nineties, however, the two largest groups were the DSP and the ISO. The latter was a member of the IST (Soc Alt had already split by this time), and went on to be a founding member of the Socialist Alliance.

It has, however, split a couple of times since (largely linked to perspectives dictated by the UK SWP, and/ or personality clashes here), and has only recently reunited as Solidarity, which holds the IST copyright in Oz.

So, generally, this would suggest that your second hypothesis is correct, however it's a bit more complicated.

While Soc Alt have about 200 members, they are mostly students and there is a high turnover of membership. Also, there have been a number of splits due to their highly authoritarian structure and lack of democracy, with some members dropping out, others joining the Greens, and yet others setting up their own groups, which eventually joined Solidarity.

The DSP has been more or less stable for the past couple of decades - even in the period when it was in the Nuclear Disarmament Party (the DSP was the SWP in those days) or when it was part of the alliances that set up the Greens. However, we had a split earlier this year, after about 3 years of debate. The ostensible difference was local - around the orientation to the Socialist Alliance - but there were also significant personal issues, and - very unfortunately - issues around our allies in various countries and the issue of Venezuela sometimes got dragged into the debate.

So your hypotheses are probably correct, to a point. It would, however, still be wrong to infer that because a group is in an international, it is necessarily prone to splitting very much more than groups solely national in scope. There is an array of reasons for groups splitting, and being in a feuding international is one of those - but it is only one - and not every difference within an international results in a split.

Often it is probably the case that differences on a national level are drawn out of proportion by international support (which might have a very different agenda) from some sectors of the organisation. Or local issues are poorly understood by an international leadership half a world away, and the locals involved in the actual work are a bit ticked off with being told what to do by the Comrade for the Colonies, or what have you.

And stupid (or clever!) things happening in the UK - or US, or wherever - might still cause a split in an unconnected group, if members of that group think the issues are serious enough - international or no. One of the practical issues that led to the DSP leaving the 4th international was around the revolution in Nicaragua, for example (although there was a lot more to it - if you're interested, there is a good document here explaining it all: http://links.org.au/node/480)

I think you get the picture, more or less.

[Yehuda Stern]

As for animosity between the IMT and other groups - all different left groups carry pretty heated debates at times, but the IMT has managed to draw more fire than anyone else because of their very pompous and cocky attitude and their assertion that they are on the rise and that everyone else is a 'sect.' For that reason, so many here (including yours truly) were thrilled to say the implosion of their Pakistani project.