There are other strategic differences, but that's off topic for now
Well, the funny thing with the British IMT is that they've left Labour for the Greens right at a moment when Corbyn happens I have several issues with Trotskyist strategy, which is why I no longer consider myself a Trotskyist anymore. Entryism is just one of them, which in my opinion can be summed up as a parasitical raiding party designed to gain for your own group, but at the cost of other working class organisations and often isolating yourself from them. Historically it is also most often a very unsuccessful strategy. These days I strategically reverted to more 'orthodox' Marxist methods, something that could be called the "merger formular": Aiming to transform the existing workers movement by having socialist ideals accepted, thereby 'merging' the workers movement with socialism. This still requires independent organising, but not because of building a sect, but because of the need to remain independent from bureaucratic manoeuvres against communists.
Oh and if you think the issue is with being outside, what do you think of the IMT approach, I'm not gonna lie, I'm really starting to lean towards the IMT now
Have you read The Socialist article on Corbyn? It actually outline a pretty good plan for what happens with Corbyn IMHO. http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/iss...age-is-popular . Also thanks for that link I'll have a look through it. Also AFAIK the CWI sections are in Die Linke and Syriza but I could be wrong, I'm only a CWI sympathiser not a member
What we see is halfarsed attempts, like TUSC in the UK, attempting to set up a Labout 2.0, which of course never went anywhere with Labour 1.0 still around. Now with Corbyn, the CWI is really in a somewhat embarrssed position: According to their stance on Labour, Corbyn shouldn't be possible, as Labour became a "fully bourgeois" party. Yet, here we are, 400 000 people joined Labour in no time, Corbyn is set to win and undoubtedly this is barely the beginning of what will probably result in a civil war inside that party. Where is the CWI? Outside...
I has been quite some time since I looked at Trotsky's texts on entryism, so I couldn't directly find it either. I'll come back to you on it. As for the CWI: Its idea on entryism is different as I understand it from Trotsky. Where Trotsky proposed a short entry to win as much members from the SFIO as possible, the CWI has a much longer strategic view. It has this idea of a dual task of both setting up their own sections as "the revolutionary party" and, with the collapse of social democracy, of building new social democratic parties. The idea here is that while "socialism" will not attract lots of workers, reformist ideas will. In all cases this has led to the CWI being mostly outside the formations of importance. They're outside Labour, they're semi-outside Die Linke, they're outside Syriza, etc. They can't control these formations, so they don't take part in them.
well really I've been looking at the different strands of entryism. I looked through some CWI stuff but I couldn't tell if they wanted to do the classic entryism with the eventual breakaway or turn Labour, Die Linke etc into the Leninist vanguard party. Could you link me to the essays on the french turn, as I looked through on marxist internet archive and couldn't tell if I was looking at the right works. Thanks in advance comrade
Hmm. I suggest you read Trotsky's essays on the "French turn" for starters, where it finds its entry in the Trotskyist tradition. Are you looking for something in particular?
Hey Q, do you know some good links on the theory of entryism, I ask this as you seem to be the only active former CWI person who might actually respond properly :P
