No worries, comrade. To paraphrase Tony Cliff: It is fine for revolutionaries to make mistakes, so long as they learn from them, and don't continue to repeat them.
Well I apologise if I give a certain measure of trust to comrades that got me involved in activism since I was fourteen and have known ever since.
Who ever said anything about criticisms being admonished? Nobody. The SWP has stood by their views from the debate. The ISO stands by ours. That is fine. The differences did not reflect matters of principle, but matters of tactics and strategy. The difference between you and Callinicos is that he at least had a working knowledge of our organization's activism, whereas you relied on second hand accounts of individual ex-ISO activists (the definition of hearsay). It is true that I do not know you. It is also true that you do not know about the ISO or its activism. I'd give a "measured response" if you gave some concrete criticisms and not just relied on hearsay about us not being a "praxis organization". If you support us then why not engage with our differences in an honest manner?
You don't know me nor have you ever really engaged with me, so don't jump to assumptions and generalisations. You have given nothing in way to a measured response - i'm sure you probably thought Callinicos' document was 'heresay' as well. A working relationship does not mean that criticisms are suddenly admonished. If you knew me or anything I was talking about you'd realise I actually support the ISO, but this is not on everything. The same goes to my criticism towards the SWP.
It really is unfortunate that you're willing to accept hearsay about an organization that has a working relationship with your own group, and has nearly identical politics. I can't argue about what some SWP members in your city have said about us. As I suspected, your charges have no concrete basis. I could describe the large number of mass actions that the ISO has been involved in organizing in Northern California alone. But I don't think it'll do any good, since you've made up your mind so easily.
The fact that ex-ISO members, now SWP organising members in Glasgow, can attain to an uneven development of theory alongside organisation, I believe to be paramount here. I don't generally see that the ISO is that active in occupations or mass mobilisations compared with its theory, which on the whole is very good and with a good bookshop.
Well, certainly if you say it's the case it is true! So you disagree with our tactics with events that happened 13 and 8 years ago (respectively). How are we not a "praxis organization"? Enlighten me.
Just because you say it isn't true doesn't particularly make it so though. But what is an 'alliance' anyway? Some sort of united front? Without going into too much detail at this time (i'm writing), I think a lot of the IST-ISO-SWP documents have left many things unanswered, perhaps on both sides. I'm not particularly sympathetic to the defence of the ISO's tactics at the time that the anti-globalisation movement rose to a head, nor do I hold much sympathy for a degree of electoral entryism with the Green Party.
Sorry I posted this on my wall accidentally: Does an alliance mean we don't have strategic/political tactical differences? I don't think so. We were allied with the LCR in France. We we had far more differences with them than with the SWP. What strategic problems do we have? I remember when you said that we were not a "praxis organization" (not true).
Normalisation is not alliance. I mean, what does the word 'allies' mean anyway? We are allies with the PSL for example considering they are fundamentally on our side of the barricades. That does not mean, however, that there are not significant strategic, political and tactical differences here. This is how I view the ISO- with notable strategic problems.
