IMT = Reformist

[TheRedRevolutionary]

A prime example of the degeneration of Trotskyist parties can best be amplified by the IMT or International "Marxist" Tendency. The reality is that they are not Marxists or even revolutionaries. This is not mere slander by the way, there is actual empirical evidence to support this.

-The IMT supports anti-worker governments like Chavez and Morales in Latin America
-They support the Labour Party in the UK and continue to refer to it as a workers party!!
-In the US, they support the petit-bourgeois Green Party which again is pro-capitalist.
-They are led by Alan Woods, huge ass-kisser of Hugo Chavez who repeatedly calls him an "outsanding, brave man"

This group has abandoned all pretenses of being Marxists and really that of revolution itself. It shows very clearly how middle class Trotskyist sects quickly degenerate from pseudo-revolutionary organizations into full blown reformism.


Chávez and Imperialism
Examining the arguments used by fake Marxists like the IMT to justify their support to the “Bolivarian Revolution” will help clarify the difference between populist nationalism and authentic proletarian Marxism. In a 1 March article on their Web site titled “President Chavez Reaffirms Opposition to Capitalism,” IMT spokesman Jorge Martin asserts that when he came to power in 1998, “Chavez did not start from a socialist standpoint. He was committed to solving the problems of inequality, poverty, and misery of millions of Venezuelans. But he initially thought that could be done within the limits of the capitalist system.”
Martin continues:

“Since President Chavez was seriously committed to solving these problems, the oligarchy, en masse, went over to the side of armed insurrection against the democratically elected government....

“It has been this rich experience of the revolutionary movement, faced with the constant provocations of the ruling class, that has pushed Chavez and many in the Bolivarian revolutionary movement to draw the conclusion that ‘Within the framework of capitalism it is impossible to solve the challenges of fighting against poverty, misery, exploitation, inequality’....

“This dynamic of action and reaction of the Venezuelan revolution reminds us in a very powerful way of the first years of the Cuban revolution. In a process of attack and counter-attack, the leadership of the Cuban revolution, which did not start with the intention of overthrowing capitalism, was forced, in order to solve the most pressing needs of the masses, to overthrow capitalism.”

Aside from the point that Chávez did not (and does not) “start from a socialist standpoint,” every statement in this passage is false or misleading. We will address later in this article the notion that “the leadership of the Cuban revolution” should be a model for Latin American revolutionaries. For now it is enough to show how the IMT’s comparison of Castro’s Cuba with Chávez’s Venezuela twists the facts into a pretzel. When Castro’s rebel army marched into Havana on 1 January 1959, the bourgeois army and the rest of the capitalist state apparatus that had propped up the U.S.-backed Batista dictatorship collapsed in disarray. By the time Castro declared Cuba “socialist” in 1961, the Cuban bourgeoisie and the U.S. imperialists and their CIA and Mafia henchmen had all fled and every bit of capitalist property down to the last ice cream vendor had been expropriated. What was created in Cuba was a bureaucratically deformed workers state. In contrast, Chávez came to power and rules at the head of the capitalist state, the Venezuelan bourgeoisie is alive and kicking, and the imperialists continue to carry on a thriving business with Venezuela, White House threats and provocations notwithstanding.

Chávez’s principal concern upon coming to power was to “solve the problem” of the country’s faltering oil profits, the lifeblood of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie. He moved immediately to discipline the oil workers union and to otherwise increase the efficiency of the state-owned oil industry, while pressing the OPEC oil cartel to jack up prices. It was for such efforts, and to enforce political stability, that Chávez was initially supported by much of the ruling class. This included not least his former comrades in the military high command, who were instrumental in restoring him to power after the 2002 coup. As oil prices climbed, Chávez did siphon off some of the enormous profits to finance a series of social measures: tripling the budget for education, setting up free health clinics and free food distribution programs for the poor, etc. But the aim of such measures is not to effect, but rather to deflect, a social revolution—by binding the dispossessed masses more firmly to the Venezuelan state.
However much the lily-white Venezuelan oligarchy may detest this upstart junior officer who boasts of his zambo (mixed African and indigenous) heritage, Chávez serves the class interests of the Caracas bourgeoisie—and, through that class, world imperialism. While speaking of “restlessness in the boardrooms” over the regime’s populist policies, a New York Times (3 November) article headlined “Chávez Restyles Venezuela With ‘21st-Century Socialism’” reported soberly: “So far, no noticeable exodus of foreign companies operating in Venezuela has occurred. Banks and oil companies are making record profits thanks to oil prices that have left the country, the world’s fifth-largest exporter, awash in petrodollars.”
In his Porto Alegre speech, Chávez was quick to assure the Venezuelan bourgeoisie and its imperialist overlords that his is not “the kind of socialism that we saw in the Soviet Union”—i.e., a planned, collectivized economy based on the overthrow of capitalist rule—which he denounced as “state capitalism” and a “perversion.” He made it very clear that his friendship with Cuba’s leader did not extend to its collectivized economy, saying, “Cuba has its own profile and Venezuela has its own.” He lauded and identified with Brazil’s Lula, the one-time populist who enforces imperialist-dictated austerity measures. In short, as Chávez declared on his Alo Presidente TV show on May 22, his vision of “21st- century socialism” is “not in contradiction with private companies, it is not in contradiction with private property.”

Indeed. And so long as capitalist private property prevails, the masses will remain subject to exploitation and oppression, and economic development will be subordinated to the dictates of the world capitalist market, particularly the imperialist oil monopolies. There can be no permanent amelioration of the plight of the urban and rural poor without the smashing of the capitalist state and the overthrow of the capitalist social order, leading through a series of proletarian revolutions internationally to a global classless order in which all forms of exploitation and oppression have been eliminated.

[spartan]

I am not a member nor am I a supporter of the IMT but what the hell I might as well take up the challenge and defend their position (even if I may disagree with some, if not the majority, of it).


-The IMT supports anti-worker governments like Chavez and Morales in Latin America

Hmmm... the workers elected Chavez and defeated the imperialist coup against him and restored him to power.

Whilst I think Chavez could be doing alot more then he is doing now, the reality is we don't know what it's like to be in his situation.

You don't take decisions lightly when you are pissing off the world's only superpower who have a history of invading country's going against it's intrests to "restore democracy".

And let's face it going all out and implementing socialism in Venezuela would be an open invitation for the US, EU and NATO (who supported a coup against him for doing alot less then he does now) to intervene and "restore democracy".

That's why he is slowly building up his position by modernising the armed forces, slowly taking control of vital parts of the economy, and even talking of nuclear cooperation with Russia! (that should stop the US in it's tracks, or spur them on into action much more quickly).


-They support the Labour Party in the UK and continue to refer to it as a workers party!!

I don't know too much about this but wasn't Ted Grant a member/leader of the Militant Tendency?

And correct me if I am wrong but Militant broke away from Labour in the late 80's or early 90's?

There are still socialist groups within the Labour party, it's supported by most of the major unions and it's the party who the working class vote for (if they can even be bothered) due to traditional (though now obviously misplaced) loyalties.


-In the US, they support the petit-bourgeois Green Party which again is pro-capitalist.

That's probably out of desperation more than anything else, as the US isn't known as the most friendly place for socialists.:lol:


-They are led by Alan Woods, huge ass-kisser of Hugo Chavez who repeatedly calls him an "outsanding, brave man"

You should here some of the cult worshippers we have here.:lol:

Praising leaders for good actions is okay as far as I am concerned as long as you call them up on any bad decisions they make (no uncritical support for anybody I say).

[KurtFF8]

I'm going to have to go with Spartan here. You seem to be opposed to them at least partly because they are Trotskyists, when you are quicker than Trotskyists to completely dismiss Chavez as "anti-worker" which ignores a lot of the positive things he's done in Venezeula (e.g. calling for worker ownership of factories and having them run them).

I usually don't get into sectarian battles on this forum but Trotskyists seem to be more dismissive of..well just about every revolutionary movement currently going on, and you're criticizing a group for supporting a socialist leader?

Now I can understand the criticisms of Chavez and Morales, but to copmletley dismiss them and be critical of an orgnizaiton for supporting them is sectarianism at its finest in my opinion.

We have to agree that the "jury is still out" on Chavez and Morales and we shouldn't be so quick to ignore what they're doing (nor should we blindly accept their every move of course).

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not an IMT member nor would I have any real reason to defend them, but it just seems that this particular criticism of them by yourself needs at least a little more work.

[Zurdito]

I'm going to have to go with Spartan here. You seem to be opposed to them at least partly because they are Trotskyists, when you are quicker than Trotskyists to completely dismiss Chavez as "anti-worker" which ignores a lot of the positive things he's done in Venezeula (e.g. calling for worker ownership of factories and having them run them).

I usually don't get into sectarian battles on this forum but Trotskyists seem to be more dismissive of..well just about every revolutionary movement currently going on, and you're criticizing a group for supporting a socialist leader?

Now I can understand the criticisms of Chavez and Morales, but to copmletley dismiss them and be critical of an orgnizaiton for supporting them is sectarianism at its finest in my opinion.

We have to agree that the "jury is still out" on Chavez and Morales and we shouldn't be so quick to ignore what they're doing (nor should we blindly accept their every move of course).

the jury is not still out, they are bourgeois!

the question of "completely critical" or not is not the point. it's a strawan. all systems have a "progressive" left bourgeois section who offers reforms to the workers, and whose appeal we must understand in order to defeat. this doesn't mean we support them! I am not "completely critical" of Barack Obama but I wouldn't tell workers to vote for him or joint he Democrats!

the point is that the IMT tells workers to vote for the governments and to join the PSUV!

While at the same time these governments are crushing strikes, attacking the vanguard, and trying to bring the organs of workers representation ever more under their control.

the question is do you think it is possible and do you want to fight for a revolutionary workers vanguard party in those countries, or is Chavez and Morales the best we can hope for and workers have to patiently follow their leadership until the inevitable defeat, such as experienced by followers of every single Latin american populist and popular front.

because if the answer is the latter then yes you are reformist not revolutionary,

if the naswer is the former then support the revolutionary vanguard, for example LOR-CI in Bolviia or LTS in Venezuela (Fraccion Trotskista sections), groups who are made up of vanguard workers int eh factories, in the moines, organisation led by the wokrkers, for the workers! rather than bureaucrats and capitalists in the MAS or PSUV who cynically manipualte owrkers struggles to fill their own pockets and lead workers to defeat, a defeat which may well cost a lot of blood.

the question is simple really do you base your poltiics on the most advanced workers and support teir fight to become leaders of the class, or do you go opose them and support our class enemy, the boli-bourgeoisie and "andean capitalists".

[TheRedRevolutionary]

I'm going to have to go with Spartan here. You seem to be opposed to them at least partly because they are Trotskyists,

True because I regard Trotskyism from studying their history and their leader as being opposed to the revolution instead favoring petty-bourgeois reformism as we shall see.



when you are quicker than Trotskyists to completely dismiss Chavez as "anti-worker" which ignores a lot of the positive things he's done in Venezeula .You really sound like a Social Democrat reformist here, Chavez has been in power for 10+ years, and he has shown to be a complete bourgeois putting on the breaks of revolution time and time again. Regardless of some of the positive things he's done Venezuela is still capitalist country meaning the workers are still in chains. No I cannot support that nor can any revolutionary.


I usually don't get into sectarian battles on this forum but Trotskyists seem to be more dismissive of..well just about every revolutionary movement currently going on, and you're criticizing a group for supporting a socialist leader?"Socialist leader?!?!" :laugh: Chavez is a capitalist leader of a capitalist state. You sure you're not a reformist?


Now I can understand the criticisms of Chavez and Morales, but to copmletley dismiss them and be critical of an orgnizaiton for supporting them is sectarianism at its finest in my opinion.Interesting logic, I understand the criticisms against the bourgeois leaders, I just don't get why you attack a group for supporting them unconditionally....:cursing: Why shouldn't I completely dismiss a capitalist leader? What should I do? Be nice to him? Give him another chance??


We have to agree that the "jury is still out" on Chavez and Morales and we shouldn't be so quick to ignore what they're doing (nor should we blindly accept their every move of course)."Jury is still out?"" Chavez has been in power for almost 10 years!! Jeez! How long does it take for you to realize that he's a bourgeois who has time and time again put the breaks on the revolution!? Glad you weren't around in 1930s Germany to inform us how bad Hitler was...

"Well the jury is still out! After all i hear he's been nice to the troops!" :lol:



Now don't get me wrong, I'm not an IMT member nor would I have any real reason to defend them, but it just seems that this particular criticism of them by yourself needs at least a little more work.Yes, here's the work - I am a revolutionary who believes in the revolutionary emancipation of the working class by using the theories of Marxism Leninism. I do not support and frankly are intrinsically opposed to bourgeois leaders, like Chavez who are opposed to a socialist revolution in any meaningful sense of the term. I don't believe in playing nice, giving cappies "chances to prove themselves" or what not. I believe in revolution.

I don't know whether you're too young to understand all of this or maybe you are just a reformist looking for a 'middle road' solution to capitalism v socialism, but your arguments sounded VERY reformist.

@ Zurdito - Thank you comrade. Very well stated.

[Zurdito]

@ Zurdito - Thank you comrade. Very well stated.

you're welcome, but I should let you know I am a trotskyist...:lol:

To be honest the argument I put is the trotskyist argument, and your position on this issue is not contradictory with Trotsky's. I am not sure why you use this issue against the trotskyist movement, when supporting Chavez or Morales is against anything Trotsky ever said or did!

[OI OI OI]

I have an answer to the critics of our policy in venezuela

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

and here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/can-nationalizations-progressive-t87541/index.html


I won't bother anymore with idiotic arguments from sectarians like Zurdito who their tendency have accomplished nothing in Venezuela and they talk from the comfort of their chair having non-valid arguments and the highest point of their day is winning a debate on revleft.

Now as the Stalinist crap of the OP, I won't bother.


But I wonder what the hell happened this last month and the IMT is being slandered in more than 10 threads.

It might be just a sign of jeallousy from the sects and sectarians as they see the IMT growing by leaps and bounds in influence while they remain stagnant in their ghettos.

[Bilan]

Can you substantiate the claim that the IMT supports the Labour Party in the UK?

[Die Neue Zeit]

To be fair, the one area where Chavez has really gone ahead of "social-democrats" (either in the old Keynesian "post-war consensus" or modern social-fascist sense like the Blairites) is the question of participatory democracy, which so many Marxist groups do not call for in their minimum program (or at least make demands that explicitly pave the way for such). :(

But I suppose many Marxists, including "Marxist-Leninists," still prefer broad economism... :(

[OI OI OI]

Can you substantiate the claim that the IMT supports the Labour Party in the UK?The IMT works in the labour party int he UK.

It exposes the bureaucracy while it calls for labour to return to its socialist platform.

That is how the Militant had been built.

But in no way it supports the labour party

[PRC-UTE]

To be fair, the one area where Chavez has really gone ahead of "social-democrats" (either in the old Keynesian "post-war consensus" or modern social-fascist sense like the Blairites) is the question of participatory democracy, which so many Marxist groups do not call for in their minimum program (or at least make demands that explicitly pave the way for such). :(

But I suppose many Marxists, including "Marxist-Leninists," still prefer broad economism... :(

Calls for participatory democracy are only useful or relevant for a revolutionary if it's a means to mobilise the masses. Otherwise it's pretty pointless.

[OI OI OI]

Oh ya about the Green Party the IMT supports only one candidate which is revolutionary marxist.

It doesn't support neither the green party neither any other candidate.

Haha another slander detected and proved to be a lie.

[PRC-UTE]

-In the US, they support the petit-bourgeois Green Party which again is pro-capitalist.

This is one of the strangest policies for any self described Marxist, because the Greens aren't even very working class from what I know. you can't argue that you're reaching the working class in a party of liberal hacks and hippies. ARe you sure the IMT did this? I thought they wanted to create a labour party in the States.

The CWI supports the Green Party, but it doesn't actually call for a vote for the Green Party. They specifically say "vote Nader" on the cover of their publication.

http://www.socialistalternative.org/graphics/justicecover.jpg

what socialist would tell workers to vote for a union busting bourgeois and sacrifice the independence of the working class for no real gain? Sad.

[Q]

This is one of the strangest policies for any self described Marxist, because the Greens aren't even very working class from what I know. you can't argue that you're reaching the working class in a party of liberal hacks and hippies. ARe you sure the IMT did this? I thought they wanted to create a labour party in the States.

The CWI supports the Green Party, but it doesn't actually call for a vote for the Green Party. They specifically say "vote Nader" on the cover of their publication.

http://www.socialistalternative.org/graphics/justicecover.jpg

what socialist would tell workers to vote for a union busting bourgeois and sacrifice the independence of the working class for no real gain? Sad.

Indeed, we support a vote on Nader, have a read:
Break with the Two Parties of War and Big Business - Vote Nader! (http://socialistalternative.org/news/article10.php?id=901)
Is a Nader Vote a Wasted Vote? — The Case Against Lesser-Evilism (http://socialistalternative.org/news/article10.php?id=902)

In short: Nader is not our goal, but a means to an end. Let me quote a little from one of the articles:


Nader is not a socialist, but rather a left-wing populist. He mistakenly believes it is sufficient to reform capitalism by exerting more democratic control over big corporations. We believe real change requires a fundamental overturn of the whole capitalist system by the working-class majority of the population (see pg. 8-9).

Nader's main weakness, however, is his unwillingness to use his campaigns as a launching pad for building an on-going political alternative. Nevertheless, his campaign points in the direction of what is needed: a mass party that fights big business and gives a political voice to the disenfranchised working class and oppressed.

All those who want to fight for real change should join us in supporting the Nader campaign. At the same time, we need to build a movement that continues to fight beyond November 4 to address the root cause of society’s problems – the global capitalist system. Join us in the fight to change the system!
So, while Nader isn't going to end capitalism, he's a great attraction pole for people that are looking for an alternative. This momentum is what we try to use in our argument for a mass workers party.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This is one of the strangest policies for any self described Marxist, because the Greens aren't even very working class from what I know. you can't argue that you're reaching the working class in a party of liberal hacks and hippies. ARe you sure the IMT did this? I thought they wanted to create a labour party in the States.

FYI, the IMT should be "entering" and "growing" the following parties:

Working Families Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Families_Party)
United States Labor Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Party_(United_States))

[YSR]

Not to get in the middle of an exciting Leninist slugfest, but just to clarify:

Ralph Nader is not the Green candidate. That person is Cynthia McKinney.

[Devrim]

Can you substantiate the claim that the IMT supports the Labour Party in the UK? The IMT works in the labour party int he UK.

It exposes the bureaucracy while it calls for labour to return to its socialist platform.

That is how the Militant had been built.

But in no way it supports the labour party

I think that that substantiates the claims. Of course it supports the labour Party. It is a part of the Labour party.
Devrim

[Q]

The IMT works in the labour party int he UK.

It exposes the bureaucracy while it calls for labour to return to its socialist platform.

That is how the Militant had been built.

But in no way it supports the labour party

How can you work inside the Labour party yet not support it?
Also, Militant was build up in a qualitatively different period, but lets not have that discussion again...

[Q]

I don't know too much about this but wasn't Ted Grant a member/leader of the Militant Tendency?

And correct me if I am wrong but Militant broke away from Labour in the late 80's or early 90's?

There are still socialist groups within the Labour party, it's supported by most of the major unions and it's the party who the working class vote for (if they can even be bothered) due to traditional (though now obviously misplaced) loyalties.

Grant and Woods split from Militant over this issue as they argued that we should remain in Labour as it was still the party of the working and that the masses would fall back to Labour eventually ... They subsequently formed Socialist Appeal in the UK and the IMT internationally and are working inside Labour (and similar parties internationally) to this day. They've in effect dogmatised the whole tactic of entryism.

[Yehuda Stern]

That is how the Militant had been built.

It's also the way it was destroyed, conincidentally.
And Cynthia McKinney is a revolutionary socialist? Huh?

To the OP: it takes little ability to prove that the IMT is reformist. If you believe that by that you have proven Trotskyism to be counterrevolutionary, that is just sad. In fact, what led the IMT down the reformist road is their enthusiastic support for social-democratic parties and for the Stalinist regimes that you claim were so revolutionary.

[Wanted Man]

But in no way it supports the labour party
So it's not going to say: "Vote Labour"?


But I wonder what the hell happened this last month and the IMT is being slandered in more than 10 threads.

It might be just a sign of jeallousy from the sects and sectarians as they see the IMT growing by leaps and bounds in influence while they remain stagnant in their ghettos.
This is brilliant. Maybe I'll sig a part of this. You sound like the Iraqi information minister. I really like the insistence on referring to all other groups as "the sects", "the sectarians", etc. Even marxist.com seems to be doing it more. It's classical Militant heritage, and it's just damn funny.

The IMT is being criticised more because they are doing more stupid shit, and they're doing it more prominently. Also more prominently on RevLeft, because of the hysterical screeching from IMT drones such as your good self. But of course, you can believe what you want. Especially if it's a good excuse (in your eyes, anyway) to avoid actually having to discuss said stupid shit. :D

Still, I wonder what you have to say about this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/open-letter-marxist-t90137/index.html), which is not just a stupid action from the IMT, but also a reactionary and disgusting one.

[bolchevique]

we work where the workers are we dont't care about the leadereshisp and what the sectarians think about these parties here in spain we work in the psoe, pce and the main union and eve in the cgt which anarquit organization with workers

[Zurdito]

I won't bother anymore with idiotic arguments from sectarians like Zurdito who their tendency have accomplished nothing in Venezuela and they talk from the comfort of their chair having non-valid arguments and the highest point of their day is winning a debate on revleft.

This is rubbish, Fraccion Trotskista in Venezuela leads vanguard workers, and was at Sanitarios Maracay, at SIDOR, and leads miners in Bolivia and youth in El Alto whose borthers and sisters have been killed on the streets by Evo's police.

You on the other hand support the government that repressed them. You're with the enemy.

That is not armchair activism, sorry.

As for winning a debate on Revleft, no, you are projecting your impressionistic long-distance approach to the Latin American working class onto me. I am active in Latin America alongside vanguard workers every day. What I want to do is persuade people to support the working class and not our class enemies. This is why I take these conversations seriosuly instead of throwing 12 year old style tantrums whenever someone disagrees with me.


It might be just a sign of jeallousy from the sects and sectarians as they see the IMT growing by leaps and bounds in influence while they remain stagnant in their ghettos

The sad thing is you probably believe that. Though in all the eyars of its existence the IMT has not led one single strike, one single worker occupation, has it? Unlike Fraccion Trotskista who led the occupation of Zanon, who was in the leadership of the SIDOR struggle, who is in the leadership of Bolivian miners struggles today. So talking about "growing by leaps and bounds" is rubbish, you're compeltely irrelevant. Show me one workers struggle you have led.

As for supporting the Labour Party: telling workers and disafilliated unions to join it and fund it, and telling workers to vote for it at every election, is support, yes. Just like you support the MAS Popular Front and you support the borugeois PSUV and Chavez government.

[KurtFF8]

the jury is not still out, they are bourgeois!

the question of "completely critical" or not is not the point. it's a strawan. all systems have a "progressive" left bourgeois section who offers reforms to the workers, and whose appeal we must understand in order to defeat. this doesn't mean we support them! I am not "completely critical" of Barack Obama but I wouldn't tell workers to vote for him or joint he Democrats!

the point is that the IMT tells workers to vote for the governments and to join the PSUV!

While at the same time these governments are crushing strikes, attacking the vanguard, and trying to bring the organs of workers representation ever more under their control.

the question is do you think it is possible and do you want to fight for a revolutionary workers vanguard party in those countries, or is Chavez and Morales the best we can hope for and workers have to patiently follow their leadership until the inevitable defeat, such as experienced by followers of every single Latin american populist and popular front.

because if the answer is the latter then yes you are reformist not revolutionary,

if the naswer is the former then support the revolutionary vanguard, for example LOR-CI in Bolviia or LTS in Venezuela (Fraccion Trotskista sections), groups who are made up of vanguard workers int eh factories, in the moines, organisation led by the wokrkers, for the workers! rather than bureaucrats and capitalists in the MAS or PSUV who cynically manipualte owrkers struggles to fill their own pockets and lead workers to defeat, a defeat which may well cost a lot of blood.

the question is simple really do you base your poltiics on the most advanced workers and support teir fight to become leaders of the class, or do you go opose them and support our class enemy, the boli-bourgeoisie and "andean capitalists".

To put Chavez in the same camp as say the Labor party in the UK would be an overgeneralization. Chavez is not simply a social democrat who claims that he wants to just reform capitalism and make it "capitalism with a human face" like social democrats generally do. He actually is claiming (and attempting) to transform Venezuela into a socialist country. Now obviously he's done a few things that seem counter productive, but he has also helped energize the movement in Venezuela and I would argue that he shouldn't even be dismissed as a bourgeois social democrat yet.

Now I could end up being terribly wrong about this and maybe I'm being too optomistic about him.

I don't think that Chavez is "the answer" for Venezuela, only that he can provide some important progress for the working class movement of Venezeula. It's not like he can sit there and build socialism himself, he obviously needs the working class. And they won't only act by his "direction". This is why I, along with most members here it seems, aren't going to go out and start a cult of personality of Chavez.

[Yehuda Stern]

More lovely stuff from the IMT:

The big, huge, perfect Pakistani section of the IMT, with its deified leader, has split (http://discussion.newyouth.com/index.php/topic,2679.0.html).
Shortly before that, the Glorious Leader claimed that Chavez is a member of the IMT (http://socialistworld.net/eng/2004/06/21venezuela.html) (which explains why the little Grantbots think the Venezuelan section is thousands strong).

Isn't there enough evidence to conclude that this group, no matter how hard its members make ludicrous claims about its power, is a miserable group of reformist liars?


He actually is claiming (and attempting) to transform Venezuela into a socialist country.

Claiming, yes. Attempting, hell no. Chavez is merely trying to concentrate power into his hands to be a 'respected' member of the 'International Community.' No more than that.

[OI OI OI]

Yehuda there was no split in Pakistan.

One of the ex-MP's which was member of the struggle turned reformist.

He was kicked out of the organization and that was about it.

[Q]

More lovely stuff from the IMT:

The big, huge, perfect Pakistani section of the IMT, with its deified leader, has split (http://discussion.newyouth.com/index.php/topic,2679.0.html).


Do you have any other sources on that? It's the first time I've heard of it.

[Zurdito]

To put Chavez in the same camp as say the Labor party in the UK would be an overgeneralization. Chavez is not simply a social democrat who claims that he wants to just reform capitalism and make it "capitalism with a human face" like social democrats generally do. He actually is claiming (and attempting) to transform Venezuela into a socialist country.

No he isn't. No more than the Socialist Party in France is. He uses the word to mean "nicer capitalism". And this is what his supporters understand it to mean, and when they support him, this is what they want.



Now obviously he's done a few things that seem counter productive, but he has also helped energize the movement in Venezuela and I would argue that he shouldn't even be dismissed as a bourgeois social democrat yet.

Now I could end up being terribly wrong about this and maybe I'm being too optomistic about him.


But that is not a mistake Venezuelan revolutionaries and vanguard workers can afford to make. Is this a game where we try out a few approaches, and if we fail this time we can always cange it next time? No. You iwll live for one revoution. Get it "terribly wrong", and you won't see another one.

This is why you should base your politics ont he vanguard workers who have led struggles which Chavez has brutally repressed, against the workers taking on his pay cielings and "friendly capitalists". If they are defeated,t he workign class will have no leadership of its own, as it currently does not, and wil instead be lead to certain defeat by Chavez. There is no doubt about this. I can name you the PRI, the Peronists, theCuban Communists, the Popular Front in Chile - all inflicted, collaborated with, or lead to, bloody defeats for Latin American workers.

The desperate need is for class independence and a vanguard workers party.


I don't think that Chavez is "the answer" for Venezuela, only that he can provide some important progress for the working class movement of Venezeula. It's not like he can sit there and build socialism himself, he obviously needs the working class.

Progress for the working clas smovement cannot come form a bourgeois army general. one who attacks the vanguard. one who has presided over an increase int he public sector share of the economy. one who is bringing the organs of workign class representation ever more under the subordination of the boli-bourgeoisie and bureaucracy. one who imposes pay cielings and who attacks the vanguard which goes beyond the limits of his "socialism with bosses".


And they won't only act by his "direction". This is why I, along with most members here it seems, aren't going to go out and start a cult of personality of Chavez

This is not the point. A marxist needs to base their poltiics ont he workign class vanguard, the minority. If you "critically support" Chavez, then as an activist you are telling workers who attacks and represses in order to defend the interests of capital, that they should still support him!

The situation as I see it is that the idea of "marxist revolution" has been wiped out of the colelctive consciousness, and therefore when objective conditions (high oil prices, US miltiary preocupation in the Middle East, growing incompatibility of neo-liberalism with the interests of weak Latin American capitalists, and the destructive effect of neo-liberalism on the very social fabric of Latin American societies) give rise to a populist - who in historical terms is not even very radical, when comapred with Cardenas or Peron for example - then the "marxist" left lends its supprot to this least bad option.

however this a nefarious role played by intelelctuals who have distanced themselves from the class, and to many of these "radicals", "populsits", "anti-imeprialists", mentioning class is the ultimate sign of a sectarian, an embarrassment, a dogmatist. these groups, like the IMT, root their poltiics in impressionism - the masses are on the streets! he expelled the US ambassador! he said socialism!

none of this has anything to do with being rooted in the vangaurd in those coutnries. Many sectors in of the Venezuelan workign class do not accept Chavez's limitations. they have struck agaisnt him and been brutally repressed. Chavez uses the favoruable objective conditions in order to bring "order" back to Venezuelan society, and the "troublesome elements" - the vanguard workers, are fought agaisnt hard.

A basic principle of marxism: the wokring class can only liberate itself.

To create the party able to make this happen you need to be providing a poltical project for the most advanced sectors, and fighting to generalise their struggle more and more across the class, more and more fighting for these sectors to become the leadership of the class, and not the bourgeois and bureaucrats in the PSUV. A marxist needs to be fighting to put back in the collective conscience the possiblity of class independence, of class itself in fact, and of the revolution. none of this exists today. andas long as Chavez is able to make these words his own, these things never will exist.

http://www.lts.org.ve/

that is the site of the Fraccion Trotskista section in Venezuela who lead vanguard workers including in SIDOR.

[Zurdito]

Yehuda there was no split in Pakistan.

One of the ex-MP's which was member of the struggle turned reformist.

He was kicked out of the organization and that was about it.

so OI OI OI you have returned to the thread, but haven't found time to admit to any of the poitns where you were shown wrong?

How about the most basic one: the IMT does support Labour in the UK. This has been proved by logic and evidence. Do you admit that you were wrong?

Surely if you are serious about your poltiics, you will have to. I mean it is not very marxist to blatantly deny material reality to everyones face. That is what bourgeois politicians do...

[Yehuda Stern]

OI OI OI, you are a liar and this has been exposed several times here. I don't post these things here to listen to your shit excuses. I am posting them to show how degenerate the IMT is and how ludicrous are its claims of a mass membership. The fact that you never even mentioned on your website the fact that the only MP you have, a member who is deified by everyone in the International, has suddenly "turned reformist." We said back when we left the IMT that you would suffer the consequences of your reformist attitude to building a section in Pakistan, and now it has come and you're too afraid to admit it.

[Charles Xavier]

Okay the IMT may be reformist but the Original poster is far from correct on any of the analysis

[Comrade B]

-The IMT supports anti-worker governments like Chavez and Morales in Latin America
-They support the Labour Party in the UK and continue to refer to it as a workers party!!
-In the US, they support the petit-bourgeois Green Party which again is pro-capitalist.
-They are led by Alan Woods, huge ass-kisser of Hugo Chavez who repeatedly calls him an "outsanding, brave man"
Nice job at adding negative adjectives in front of things to make them sound counter revolutionary.

The majority of people on Revleft, by a poll previously done, critically support Hugo Chavez.

Supporting reform does not mean you are against revolution. I will stand by reformists because they have the right objectives and I think, after a very long time, they may be able to achieve reform. It may not be the most efficient method, but it is a method. I prefer complete overthrow of the old government because it takes less time, and allows the full punishment the old capitalist regime deserves.

From what I have read, the IMT believes that they can go inside parties and slowly become a voice inside them, moving them further to the left.

No one will ever win an election in the UK or US in a party called The Communist Party because #1, we have a horrible name here due to a large amount of propaganda, and #2, because everyone already identifies with one of the old parties and is already clinging to it.

[TheRedRevolutionary]

Nice job at adding negative adjectives in front of things to make them sound counter revolutionary.

The Labour Party and bourgeois governments ARE counter revolutionary.


The majority of people on Revleft, by a poll previously done, critically support Hugo Chavez.

Yes and the Revleft kiddies are the be all and end all of what is revolutionary. Please. And aren't they supposed to be mostly Kropotkanists? Why are they supporting people like Chavez and Che who was an admirer of Stalin? Shows you how mature their political and historical knowledge is. They naively believe Chavez at his word when he says "I'm a socialist!" Their eyes go big and their pants wet, but experienced comrades take a more sober analysis.


Supporting reform does not mean you are against revolution. I will stand by reformists because they have the right objectives and I think, after a very long time, they may be able to achieve reform.

You reformists have a very strange kind of logic! "Supporting reform does not mean you are against revolution!" What is that? Post modernist crap? What's next, just because you are for capitalism does not mean you are against socialism?

Reform is reform, revolution is revolution.



No one will ever win an election in the UK or US in a party called The Communist Party because #1, we have a horrible name here due to a large amount of propaganda, and #2, because everyone already identifies with one of the old parties and is already clinging to it.

No. Because you live in a fake democracy , really a dictatorship of capital, of the bourgeoisie. This is ABC of revolutionary politics.

[OI OI OI]

Reform is reform, revolution is revolution.

While I won't bother with the rest of your post , this is realy ridiculus.

As Marxists we push for every reform with transitional demands, that will benefit the life of the working class while we always push those transitional demands with revolution.

You are clearly not a Leninist if you think that we should not use transitional demands.

[TheRedRevolutionary]

OI the Labour/Chavez/IMT supporter, you must respond to the posters who have already exposed you:


OI OI OI, you are a liar and this has been exposed several times here. I don't post these things here to listen to your shit excuses. I am posting them to show how degenerate the IMT is and how ludicrous are its claims of a mass membership. The fact that you never even mentioned on your website the fact that the only MP you have, a member who is deified by everyone in the International, has suddenly "turned reformist." We said back when we left the IMT that you would suffer the consequences of your reformist attitude to building a section in Pakistan, and now it has come and you're too afraid to admit it.

[Charles Xavier]

Yes, communists support reforms, but reject reformism. Reformism is something done by privileged gentlemen who feel for the working class, but are divorced from class struggle.

However attacking Oi on the basis for his support for Chavez is stupid beyond belief.

Chavez may make many mistakes but Socialism is being built (however unevenly) in Venezuela. He is not a social democratic reformer. You must realize the restraints put on the Venezuelan government, things are not so simple. The counter-revolution has not been defeated.

[RHIZOMES]

Now as the Stalinist crap of the OP, I won't bother.

AWESOME arguing.


But I wonder what the hell happened this last month and the IMT is being slandered in more than 10 threads.

It might be just a sign of jeallousy from the sects and sectarians as they see the IMT growing by leaps and bounds in influence while they remain stagnant in their ghettos.

No we're criticizing the IMT because it's reformist. Why should I be jealous of the IMT? in my country the IMT branch consists of one member (Xiao Banfa).

[Random Precision]

Nice job at adding negative adjectives in front of things to make them sound counter revolutionary.

The majority of people on Revleft, by a poll previously done, critically support Hugo Chavez.

1. Argumentum ad populum = fail.
2. Well, I suppose then we should all just praise Shiva's cock that RevLeft is in no way representative of the actual revolutionary movement.


Supporting reform does not mean you are against revolution.

No, but supporting anti-worker governments typically does.


I will stand by reformists because they have the right objectives and I think, after a very long time, they may be able to achieve reform.

What makes you think that?


It may not be the most efficient method, but it is a method. I prefer complete overthrow of the old government because it takes less time, and allows the full punishment the old capitalist regime deserves.

So, you're a revolutionary because it's more convenient? Jesus tap-dancing Christ, I thought that I'd seen it all at this place. :lol:


From what I have read, the IMT believes that they can go inside parties and slowly become a voice inside them, moving them further to the left.

Unfortunately, as Wanted Man correctly pointed out, entryism works both ways. This is the lesson we have from "progressives" who tried to turn the Democrats further left: now the DSA is preoccupied with making them a liberal party again. The IMT is learning for the 27th time or so the harsh lessons of following this failed strategy right now in Pakistan.


No one will ever win an election in the UK or US in a party called The Communist Party because #1, we have a horrible name here due to a large amount of propaganda, and #2, because everyone already identifies with one of the old parties and is already clinging to it.

I guess it's a good thing that actual revolutionaries don't include winning elections among their priorities in those countries, no? :rolleyes:

[OI OI OI]

No we're criticizing the IMT because it's reformist.

How is the IMT reformist ?
You have posed no valid argument.

Do we not stand for the revolutionary overthrow of the borugeoisie and the establishment of socialism?

Like I hear repeatedly in this thread that the IMT is reformist.

Ok what should I repsond? It is obvious that you are a bunch of ignorant sectarians.

Should I start waisting my time and instead of studying for my calculus test, start making long posts just to please you guys ? I ll pass.


As about the support of labour, the IMT is working inside labour. It is a tactic we use.

If you don;t like it , fine I won't try to convince you that it is correct.

But you cannot accusse the IMT as reformist simply because it is working in Labour.

Now as about Venezuela I have responded to RP and the others including Yhuda in the trot forum.

whoever is interested go and read it, If you don't , well I don't give a crap.

I wont repeat myself over and over.

What else do I have to apologize for?

Not making a public anouncement of the fact that one member turned reformist?

He is one out of 5 000 thousand,

why does any other group post on its website, hey member XXX had a baby, member YYY has fever, member RRRRR is a reformist now.

Besides if the IMT was reformist I would be restricted:lol:

[Comrade B]

-The IMT supports anti-worker governments like Chavez and Morales in Latin America

-In the US, they support the petit-bourgeois Green Party which again is pro-capitalist.
-They are led by Alan Woods, huge ass-kisser of Hugo Chavez who repeatedly calls him an "outsanding, brave man"

These were the baseless statements you made. I have no problem saying fuck the labor party, however you kind of just made up titles to make these things sound bad. If one does not dislike Hugo Chavez, then the last statement bears no importance. Also, what makes you say that Chavez is ANTI-worker. There is a difference between not being a devout socialist and being anti-worker. Anti-worker is attacking protesters, taxing everyone to cover the asses of a few, and kicking people out of their homes to benefit the already rich, as they did in south side Seattle.


Yes and the Revleft kiddies are the be all and end all of what is revolutionary. Please. And aren't they supposed to be mostly Kropotkanists? Why are they supporting people like Chavez and Che who was an admirer of Stalin? Shows you how mature their political and historical knowledge is. They naively believe Chavez at his word when he says "I'm a socialist!" Their eyes go big and their pants wet, but experienced comrades take a more sober analysis.
Oh how easy it is to be rude to internet people. Would you ever act like such an ass to a human being in person? I doubt it.
Anyway, are we to believe that Chavez is counter-revolutionary because the anonymous man on the internet told me he was? Maybe I should go with him being socialist because his reforms are generally favored by the workers and hated by the rich.
My point was that the majority of the community you are speaking to requires something to convince it that Chavez is counter revolutionary other than your baseless comments.


You reformists have a very strange kind of logic! "Supporting reform does not mean you are against revolution!" What is that? Post modernist crap? What's next, just because you are for capitalism does not mean you are against socialism?

Reform is reform, revolution is revolution.
Care to make a point?
I didn't say that a reform is a revolution, I said that they can achieve the same goal, though one is more efficient.


No. Because you live in a fake democracy , really a dictatorship of capital, of the bourgeoisie. This is ABC of revolutionary politics.

So.... what I said isn't true?

we have a horrible name here due to a large amount of propaganda, and #2, because everyone already identifies with one of the old parties and is already clinging to it.
What did I say that was false? You are just adding to my point.
One cannot get elected into power while running in a communist party. You have to change a party from the inside.


1. Argumentum ad populum = fail.
2. Well, I suppose then we should all just praise Shiva's cock that RevLeft is in no way representative of the actual revolutionary movement.

Non argument = idiocy, only say something if you have something to say.


No, but supporting anti-worker governments typically does.
and now here is the part where you convince me Hugo Chavez is anti-worker


What makes you think that?
How could this not possibly be?
If you truly believe in reforming society, it can be done.
Gain political recognition and from there alter the system until it completely turns itself around.


So, you're a revolutionary because it's more convenient? Jesus tap-dancing Christ, I thought that I'd seen it all at this place. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif
A revolution will be sure to get a job done, reform is not as reliable because we are forced to trust a leader who works mostly by himself, but can still get the job done.

Anyway, you can argue for reform if you want here.
My point was that they are both ways to get to the same thing.


Unfortunately, as Wanted Man correctly pointed out, entryism works both ways. This is the lesson we have from "progressives" who tried to turn the Democrats further left: now the DSA is preoccupied with making them a liberal party again. The IMT is learning for the 27th time or so the harsh lessons of following this failed strategy right now in Pakistan.
I am not IMT, I support a lot of their views, but I do not pledge myself to the organization.


I guess it's a good thing that actual revolutionaries don't include winning elections among their priorities in those countries, no? http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif
Yeah, its great that instead they don't actually do anything!
Man, you remember that last great radical movement in the US?

I think 1999 in Seattle was the last time I saw anyone put up a physical fight against capitalism.
After the WTO left, everything calmed down.

[Zurdito]

You have posed no valid argument.

yes, valid arguments have been posted. like your support for reformism.


Do we not stand for the revolutionary overthrow of the borugeoisie and the establishment of socialism?

only in the abstract.


Should I start waisting my time and instead of studying for my calculus test, start making long posts just to please you guys ? I ll pass.

it would be better if you did in fact just stick to your calculus exam.

but unfortunately you do put up posts here regularly, so people respond and destroy your arguments. only then do you not find "time". but you still find time to insult them. how strange.




If you don;t like it , fine I won't try to convince you that it is correct.



you have tried, but you now find you can't. can you even convince yourself?


But you cannot accusse the IMT as reformist simply because it is working in Labour.

it calls for a vote for Labour at general elections and tells workers and disafilliated unions to join. it supports Labour. admit it.


What else do I have to apologize for?

you should not apologise, you should just stop supporting the enemies of the working class and start supporting the working class vanguard.


Besides if the IMT was reformist I would be restricted:lol:

well no. anyone is allowed to psot here who believes in revoltuion in the abstract. however, a party believing in revolution in the abstract does not mean very much. it is a bit like the French Socialist Party or the PSUV claiming to stand for socialism.

[Yehuda Stern]

Okay the IMT may be reformist but the Original poster is far from correct on any of the analysis

Granted. He is right, though, about Chavez and Morales being anti-worker, and about the RevLeft posters who support them being completely ignorant about these regimes and about Che.

Many people here have made desperate attempts at making excuses for why they support Chavez. Basically what they are saying is - we can't make a revolution on our own, we need the big bourgeois hero to do it for us. Those people are classic reformists. That you are burnt out and willing to whore yourself out to bourgeois reformists already is somewhat tragic, but you have only yourselves to blame for it.

As for OI's lies about the Pakistani section - Manzoor Ahmed is not just another member of the Struggle. That would be like saying that they would need to make no public announcement if Alan Woods took off from the IMT. The truth is probably that they hide this split because they're afraid that people know that the IMT has suffered a blow in Pakistan, and I would bet that there are much darker details about the shady way in which the Pakistani section has been built that we will find out about shortly. You can fool some people some of the time, but you can't buy off 5000 people in Pakistan on IMT membership dues.

[Q]

As for OI's lies about the Pakistani section - Manzoor Ahmed is not just another member of the Struggle. That would be like saying that they would need to make no public announcement if Alan Woods took off from the IMT. The truth is probably that they hide this split because they're afraid that people know that the IMT has suffered a blow in Pakistan, and I would bet that there are much darker details about the shady way in which the Pakistani section has been built that we will find out about shortly. You can fool some people some of the time, but you can't buy off 5000 people in Pakistan on IMT membership dues.

It's not that I don't trust our own comrades (your source), but are there any other sources on this? It's only rumor what I've seen up to now.

[Devrim]

As about the support of labour, the IMT is working inside labour. It is a tactic we use.
If you don;t like it , fine I won't try to convince you that it is correct.
But you cannot accusse the IMT as reformist simply because it is working in Labour.

I don't think that the IMT is reformist. I think that it is an openly bourgeois political organisation.

It is a part of the ruling party in Britain.

It supports bourgeois wars.

It manages parts of the local state*

It threatens to name demonstrators to the police.

It is in no way a communist organisation.


Besides if the IMT was reformist I would be restricted:lol:

Well, no there are lots of people with blatantly anti-working class politics on RevLeft. You are just another.

Devrim

*When it can persuade enough people to vote for it.

[apathy maybe]

Seriously guys, the supporting Charvez or boasting about huge numbers maybe crazy, but it isn't automatically "reformist" or "reactionary".

But, telling people to vote Labour is just plain crazy. OI OI OI isn't the first IMT person to do this on RevLeft either. Che y Marijuana has mentioned the need to work within Labour before as well.

Of course, the IMT isn't the only Trot/Leninist group to call for folks to "work within" reformist organisations (that they consider to be working class organisations for some strange reason).

Working with the unions is shit load different to saying "vote Labour".

[Devrim]

Seriously guys, the supporting Charvez or boasting about huge numbers maybe crazy, but it isn't automatically "reformist" or "reactionary".

I would say that supporting bourgeois government's whose police shoot down striking workers is reactionary, but then I am a communist.

Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

It's not that I don't trust our own comrades (your source), but are there any other sources on this?As for the split - I have found no other sources (sorry for not answering your last question, I forgot about it) other than the link in my original post. However, I've been an IMTer not so long ago, and I remember how glorified the Pakistani section and especially Manzoor were. If such a revered member and the only MP the group has had in well over a decade suddenly "turns reformist," it shows the worth of the whole section and the IMT itself. That OI admits that he departed but tries to act as if there is nothing unusual about that shows that the IMT is trying to hide something. Also, if you'll read the thread to which I have linked, no IMTer there has even tried to deny the "rumor," only to vilify the OP. So I tend to trust my source.

If you're asking about Manzoor claiming that Chavez is an IMT member - I have no other sources, but seeing as OI did not deny that, that signals to me that it's true. It's also something entirely in line with the swindling nature of the IMT, and certainly explains its alleged sudden rise from a section of 65 to many thousands.


Seriously guys, the supporting Charvez or boasting about huge numbers maybe crazy, but it isn't automatically "reformist" or "reactionary".

I beg to differ. Supporting Chavez, given that he is a bourgeois populist, is class betrayal. It is giving support to a part of the ruling class, thereby allowing it in the future to crush the workers all the better. As for lying about numbers - I see one of the revolutionary's main duty's as telling the workers the truth. To swindle the way the IMT does in order to seem like a powerful, ever-growing group is indicative of that tendency's contempt towards the workers. I'm just glad to see the liars reap what they sow.


telling people to vote Labour is just plain crazy [...] the IMT isn't the only Trot/Leninist group to call for folks to "work within" reformist organisationsI have no trouble with voting for and even entering certain reformist or centrist organizations under certain circumstances. But I don't want to start a debate on that and derail the thread. Suffice to say, my criticism of the IMT's entry/vote tactics is not that they do it at all, but that for them it has become a permanent duty, which means they have transformed a tactic into a strategy.

[Q]

As for the split - I have found no other sources (sorry for not answering your last question, I forgot about it) other than the link in my original post. However, I've been an IMTer not so long ago, and I remember how glorified the Pakistani section and especially Manzoor were. If such a revered member and the only MP the group has had in well over a decade suddenly "turns reformist," it shows the worth of the whole section and the IMT itself. That OI admits that he departed but tries to act as if there is nothing unusual abot that shows that the IMT is trying to hide something. Also, if you'll read the thread to which I have linked, no IMTer there has even tried to deny the "rumor," only to vilify the OP. So I tend to trust my source.
Ok, fair enough, but that leaves the question: was it just this one person expulsion or a serious split of sorts?

[Yehuda Stern]

Well, in the original thread the OP claims that Manzoor Ahmed took with him about half of the Pakistani section. This hasn't been denied by any of the posters in that thread. Only OI, who is known for lying his ass off in these forums, has made such a claim. It seems strange to me that the IMT would not report the departure of its only MP and one of its most important members. For these reasons, I believe it's a large split, not just Manzoor Ahmed.

[TheRedRevolutionary]

I don't think that the IMT is reformist. I think that it is an openly bourgeois political organisation.

It is a part of the ruling party in Britain.

It supports bourgeois wars.

It manages parts of the local state*

It threatens to name demonstrators to the police.

It is in no way a communist organisation.



Well, no there are lots of people with blatantly anti-working class politics on RevLeft. You are just another.

Devrim

*When it can persuade enough people to vote for it.

Could not have said this any better myself! Bravo!

Well it looks like the IMT and their supporters or supporter have given up any notion in trying to challenge the charges of reformism that have been made by so many here. I guess the verdict is in on this trotskyist organization.

Reformist.

[Yehuda Stern]

Do not even try to use this victory to your advantage. That you 'proved' an organization which even some of your ilk (And others in the pseudo-Trot milieu) call 'reformist' is nothing to be much proud of. This is not a victory against Trotskyism - it vindicates authentic Trotskyism against both reformists like Grant and political supporters of the counterrevolutionary Stalinist regimes such as yourself.

[bolchevique]

the problem of the all psudo reolucionaries is that they think the creation of worker party is as easy as proclaiming that they are the worker party and if we are honest there are more workers in any reformist meeting that in all the so-called revolutionary party together and the the hardest work is how to get the the workers pay attention to our ideas,the imt with great difficulties and with a serious work are achieving this aim, but we should be armed with our ideas and with a sense of proportion and and we should be very humble and try to listen carefully to the workers

[Zurdito]

the problem of the all psudo reolucionaries is that they think the creation of worker party is as easy as proclaiming that they are the worker party

no, nobody in this thread said that.

why do the IMT members here seem to only be able to lie about critics, instead of answering concrete questions about things the IMT says and does?

it is funyn that your word ofr everyone else is "sectarian", because this is exactly how a sect behaves.


and if we are honest there are more workers in any reformist meeting that in all the so-called revolutionary party

there is no revolutionary party. the task is to create one.

most workers have some illusions in reformism yes. As Karl Marx said, the dominant ideas in any society are the ideas of the ruling class. This doesn't mean he said to "critically support" the ruling class.

Also, more workers at meetings, depends - maybe in the PSUV or MAS, but in Europe, almost no workers care enough about the reformist parties to actively participate.


together and the the hardest work is how to get the the workers pay attention to our ideas

yes, by implanting your members in the vanguard sectors, by syaing relevant things, and by telling the truth.



the imt with great difficulties and with a serious work are achieving this aim

this is propaganda you were told but in reality, show me one workers struggle the IMT has led in almost 20 years of existence.

Just 1. Please.


but we should be armed with our ideas and with a sense of proportion and and we should be very humble and try to listen carefully to the workers

ok well you speak spanish, so I will post to you 2 links, 1 from a vanguard revolutionary worker in Venezuela who works at SIDOR - where the workers were brutally repressed by the government the IMT supports and tells workers to support!

And one from a vanguard revolutioanry worker in Bolivia, a section with miners, a sector which Evo also brutally repressed and where 2 died because of this! and the IMT still says to those same workers to vote for Evo!

Will you listen or will you keep defending the IMT, a group of intellectuals which is sectarian with the vangaurd, and which instead tries to win mass supprot with populist slogans which go against the struggles of the vangaurd?

http://www.lts.org.ve/spip.php?article19

that is an article by a SIDOR worker about the continued explotiationa nd repression in SIDOR under the Venezuelan state.

http://www.lorci.org/article.php3?id_article=568

and here is the argument for class independence in Bolivia against Evo's maniobras and the open offensive of the right.

there are more good articles on those sites also.

PS if you like, we can have the discussion in the Spansih section if you find it easier, there are many memebrs who would understand it and be interested. I say this because just once I would like to see a serious answer to these points.

[bolchevique]

sorry I dont have much time but im going to referto a local strike in malaga in 5 star hotle , the biggest hotel in malaga one of our comrade wasphysically attacked by the bosesand burocracy, we we won and now the comitte is under our leadership and we have more150 memberin the union the hotel is called Puerto Tomano is full rich people in Marbella , just one small example of our work , but you can check in our webpage elmilitante.org. marxist greeting

[Lenin's Law]

sorry I dont have much time but im going to referto a local strike in malaga in 5 star hotle , the biggest hotel in malaga one of our comrade wasphysically attacked by the bosesand burocracy, we we won and now the comitte is under our leadership and we have more150 memberin the union the hotel is called Puerto Tomano is full rich people in Marbella , just one small example of our work , but you can check in our webpage elmilitante.org. marxist greeting

Well if you are then the best of luck to you and your camaradas regardless of the infighting here organizing workers is very important work and I hope you are successful.

[Pogue]

Every now and then, every forum will get an angst driven lunatic on the board who regularly makes posts about everyone else being stupid, complacent, or in the case of leftist forums, 'liberal' or 'reformist'. Sometimes they even go as far as 'recationary'. This is nothing exciting and they rarely last very long, as such people lack the social skills to interact meaningfully. This lack of skills also explains why they are never active in real life. The other reason is that to them, communism is an intellectual game used to go one up on other people on forums. Just wait a while and this guy will be gone.

[Saorsa]

This lack of skills also explains why they are never active in real life.I've called you a liberal and a reformist in the past, but regardless of whether I'm an angsty lunatic, I'm very active in RL. Your theory fails.

[Pogue]

Ok, Alastair, I'm really sorry, you're right my friend. Are we cool?

[Cheung Mo]

I find the Bolivarian movement's orientation at this point in time to be more radical Keynesian than leftist, but people whose attacks on it (with the obvious exception of Ortega's obnoxiously bad domestic policies...The Sandinistas are a necessary evil for integrating Latin America along Bolivarian lines, in much the same way that playing kissy-face with Joe Lieberman is a necessary evil for the liberal factions of the bourgeoisie to realize their goals for the USA.) reach the level of opposition as opposed to critical support are playing into the hands of reactionaries and neo-liberals: Western meddling has prevented Latin Americans from becoming masters of their own house, of uniting in solidarity against the common foe of neo-liberalism, and of integrating in a way that strengthens their ability to resist rather than in a way that sells out their interests to the market fundamentalists; the Bolivarian Movement is seeking to correct this, a task which, when accomplished from the bottom on upwards as opposed to top on downwards, will precede genuine revolution in Latin America. Do not be hoodwinked by the Stalinists and the social democrats of Venezuela (But also, be willing to work with those people if they are willing to become a part of the Movement.); look at whose side they were in 2002. Banderas Rojas was doing most of the killing for the forces of the neo-liberal reaction, in which Accion Democratica was a main player.

[Devrim]

Every now and then, every forum will get an angst driven lunatic on the board who regularly makes posts about everyone else being stupid, complacent, or in the case of leftist forums, 'liberal' or 'reformist'. Sometimes they even go as far as 'recationary'. This is nothing exciting and they rarely last very long, as such people lack the social skills to interact meaningfully. This lack of skills also explains why they are never active in real life. The other reason is that to them, communism is an intellectual game used to go one up on other people on forums. Just wait a while and this guy will be gone.

I have condemned the IMT. I condemn them as reactionary, not reformist, because I honestly believe that there is no way you can even claim that people who shoot down striking workers in the streets are anything but reactionaries.

But then there is this sort of criticism aimed at people as individuals. It tries to suggest that revolutionaries are some sort of crazies:


as such people lack the social skills to interact meaningfully.

What on earth do you know about my 'social skills'? This is an internet message board. You have never met me, and know nothing about me.

Personally, I amquite happy in my 'social life'. I have a wife, and many friends who aren't political militants.


This is nothing exciting and they rarely last very long,

I have been a communist since the mid 80s, and I support a current that has existed since 1920. Is that long enough?


This lack of skills also explains why they are never active in real life.

How active are you in 'real life'? Personally, I have been involved in about a dozen strikes as a worker. I was involved in building the left commuist organisation in Turkey from nothing. I could go on, but I don't feel I need to.


The other reason is that to them, communism is an intellectual game used to go one up on other people on forums. Just wait a while and this guy will be gone.

To me communism isn't some sort of 'intellectual game'. We argue on forums like this because we seriously believe our ideas are important.

In ten years, I am pretty sure that I will be arguing the same politics here. I doubt you will still be here arguing your same 'lack of', we are all on the left let's agree' politics.

Devrim

[Pogue]

Devrim, I'm not even talking about you, where did you get the impression from? I am talking about the OP...

[bolchevique]

we don't support Evo or chavez we are very critical with them ,and you can check in our articles, and books , but we understand that the workersof these countries have found an instrument to express their desire of change, so we should go with them shoulder withe shoulder trying to explain `patiently our ideas , and also showing in a comradely way the limitations os these leaders, we think these the best way of approaching to the workers and is working

[Yehuda Stern]

Nothing in your articles or books is critical of Chavez, and very little is of Morales. All you do is blame the 'bureaucrats,' like the protesters in 1905 in Russia, who thought they had to notify the Czar about the landlords' mischief. In the end, critical or not, you are giving political support to bourgeois regimes who seek to co-opt the working class movement and use it to its own needs.

And tell me - is it a coincidence that you have showed up just when your IMT pals, like OI OI OI and Teis, have decided (quite understandably) to shut up? Maybe you're all trying to avoid criticism about the split in your Pakistani section, which you are incapable of explaining?

[Zurdito]

we don't support Evo or chavez we are very critical with them ,and you can check in our articles, and books , but we understand that the workersof these countries have found an instrument to express their desire of change, so we should go with them shoulder withe shoulder trying to explain `patiently our ideas , and also showing in a comradely way the limitations os these leaders, we think these the best way of approaching to the workers and is working

I thought you didn't have time to respond?:confused:

Also, yes you do support them. You call to vote for them and join their parties. That is support. So what, you might "criticise" them while supporting them. Even their own supporters do that. So you are not exactly elevating consciousness by doing that are you?

Also, good luck with the work in Marabella, but why did you need to bring it up here? I can only think it was defence of the IMT. But there is nothing that amazing about a leftist organisation supporting a strike. what is it about the self-righteous IMT members that you have to constantly tell us how active you are - you aren't the only ones who are active in real life, msot of us are, and we don't bring it up in every thread every time soemone questions our politics!

So finally - I didn't ask if you were active I said how many workers struggles has the IMT led in its existence. 1 example?

[Devrim]

So finally - I didn't ask if you were active I said how many workers struggles has the IMT led in its existence. 1 example?

If we include when they were the Militant, they did manage 30,000 workers. I think they ended up giving them redundancy notices or something.

Does that count?

Devrim

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

How exactly are Chávez and Morales usurping workers' support for their own gains, as you claim? Do you frankly believe that what these two governments are doing reflect the interests of the ruling classes of these countries? lol!

[Devrim]

How exactly are Chávez and Morales usurping workers' support for their own gains, as you claim? Do you frankly believe that what these two governments are doing reflect the interests of the ruling classes of these countries? lol!

Since Chavez came to power the proportion of the GDP going to the richest 10% has increased.


lol!

I think that stand for 'lots of laughs', not for the working class unfortunately.

Devrim

[Zurdito]

If we include when they were the Militant, they did manage 30,000 workers. I think they ended up giving them redundancy notices or something.

Does that count?

Devrim

Well yes that is another disgraceful story.

But I meant as the IMT since the split.

[black magick hustla]

Every now and then, every forum will get an angst driven lunatic on the board who regularly makes posts about everyone else being stupid, complacent, or in the case of leftist forums, 'liberal' or 'reformist'. Sometimes they even go as far as 'recationary'. This is nothing exciting and they rarely last very long, as such people lack the social skills to interact meaningfully. This lack of skills also explains why they are never active in real life. The other reason is that to them, communism is an intellectual game used to go one up on other people on forums. Just wait a while and this guy will be gone.

What is with the whole criticism of "lacking social skills"? Some people arent good with social skills, other people cant do math, others arent very good at basketball. The idea here is to criticize ideas, not the shitty "lack of social skills" insult that is sometimes used against people who do not have mainstream political ideas. What if someone is not very good socially? Are his ideas wrong, or is he just a worthless human being?

[bolchevique]

maybe I don't understand what I read or you read different articles, can you can affirm that we didn't critize the position the chavez after coup,or after the bosses lockout or recently when he met the empoyers or many articles critizing Evo?, but we also support all the nationalization all the steps forwards, and about our work in Venezuela our comrades are doing a great job, especially in freteco and in some unions an among the youth

[Yehuda Stern]

I think that stand for 'lots of laughs', not for the working class unfortunately.

It stands for "laughs out loud," which stands for "I'm too much of a stupid git to make coherent arguments, so instead I'm trying to make you look stupid in a desperate attempt to hide that fact."


What is with the whole criticism of "lacking social skills"?

It serves the same purpose as "lol."