International Socialist Organization

And this thread is why I'm not a Trotskyist anymore, even if I think Trotsky is important to understand and I agree with a lot of what he wrote re: Stalinism, the USSR, China, fascism, Spain, etc.

And this thread is why I'm not a Trotskyist anymore, even if I think Trotsky is important to understand and I agree with a lot of what he wrote re: Stalinism, the USSR, China, fascism, Spain, etc.

Being associated with secterian lunatics is almost unavoidable in any corners of the revolutionary left. I'd say the good definitely weights up the bad, in that, as a trotskyist you apply the ideas of trotsky on the living worker's movement today.

But then again you used to be affiliated to Lutte Ouvrier, no? j/k

I was in the ISO for a time before leaving them for the CWI.

The ISO generally has a very high turnover. They work members like mules. The branch I was in had 2 mandatory paper sales a week (each w/an hr long meeting) a mandatory weekly meeting, plus fraction meetings and interventions. Its important to have dedicated comrades but that was too much.

Its complicated but I felt uncomfortable w/some of the interpersonal dynamics. One example-I was in the anti-war fraction. During the ICE raids against immigrant communities several years ago a friend who was then in Socialist Alternative asked me go w/her and some SA comrades to a major protest some distance away. That's what I did. When we got there there were a large no. of ISO people present.They wanted me to join them but I wanted to hang out w/my friends.My "fraction leader" was there. She spotted me and took me aside. I was severely scolded, not so much for hanging out w/SA people (that was part of it) but for the fact that I went to the protest at all.It was a violation of party discipline- I wasn't "assigned" to it. I thought this was weird. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

I think I'm somewhat intelligent. I'm fairly well read in history, philosophy and political theory although I'm still on the learning curve in terms of Marxism. Anyway in the ISO I had the feeling I was constantly being talked down to. Its a "one size fits all" outfit.

Shortly afterwards I drifted further in the orbit of SA. They are a far healthier group, IMHO. Also as others have said, ISO compromises w/the Dems.

I used to be in the ISO, left and joined the Workers International League, the US sympathizing section of the International Marxist Tendency.

I posted this in another thread so I'll just copy-paste:

I used to be a member of the ISO. I bought hook, line, and sinker into the state capitalist idiocy, it just fit so nicely with my unsophisticated anti-capitalist worldview that I couldn't help it.

I am so glad to no longer be a part of it.

The ISO's links to the working class are notable only by their complete absence. They make no effort to build a cadre organization, that is to educate and train their members in the theory and practices of revolutionary Marxism. They cynically adopted "yes we can" as a slogan after Obama's victory in 2008. I know for a fact that many of their members actually voted for Obama on election day. Their abandonment of both Nader and McKinney during the 2008 election was shameful, embarassing, and ultra-left. Most of their luminaries are petty-bourgeois to the core, a smattering of college professors, former fellow-travelers, independent journalists, and the like. I don't know of a single actual proletarian in the leadership of the organization.

Whoever said "why not just cut out the middle-man and join the Democratic Party" is spot on.

The ISO is pretty large in the bay area, but it seems they have a reverse psychology view on how to achieve socialism. They think that instead of creating a front for workers, they are going to let capitalism die on it's own, and let things get much worse until that happens. I joined the SO, a relatively small 4th international group and it's working pretty well.

Much as I hate playing necromancer there are a few things in this thread that deserve a proper response.

A little background: I was a member of the ISO for 18 years, first joining the Iowa City branch in 1989, then rejoining in 1994 when I ran across two comrades seeking to establish a branch in Washington DC. I was quite active in the branch up until leaving the States to work abroad in 2007.

So - the ISO's attitude towards Obama and the Democrats. There is a difference between acknowledging the inspiration that the Obama campaign generated in people who were otherwise highly disaffected by the American political process and being directly inspired by it. There's an editorial at Socialist Worker online, titled 'Looking forward to change' and published on January 9, 2009, that lays out our perspective quite plainly. I'll also raise you Alan Maass' SW article 'Will your vote end the war?' from February 8, 2008 to emphasize where we stood on the Democrats even before Obama became their nominee and Lance Selfa's excellent The Democrats: A Critical History (2008) to show that in the heat of the campaign we hadn't changed our stance. (I apologize for not providing direct links, but I haven't hit a post count of 25 yet.)

I think this perspective is even more clearly laid out in an SW article from March 7, 2008 - 'What can Nader accomplish?' - our perspective then was not that Nader didn't deserve our votes, but that the weakness of his campaign with its focus on getting endorsements from both left-wing and right-wing parties wasn't the way to build a left alternative and therefore working on his campaign would be a waste of the resources and energy we had at that point. It would have been ultra-left to argue against a Nader campaign simply because the Greens weren't the ISO; it was not ultra-left to criticize him for seeking to get on the Reform Party ballot and pandering to the proto-Tea Partiers in order to do it.

Most of the other accusations levelled here seem to be of the personal butt-hurt variety based on hearsay and aren't really worth addressing. Harsh, perhaps, but it's really the only proper response to that kind of swampy politics.

Except for fredbergen on page 1 who deliberately misquotes an SW article. The ISO did not hail his war budget as a 'welcome blast of fresh air'. Herewith the full quote:

After 30 years of Republican ascendance in Washington and the retreat of liberalism at every turn, Obama's willingness to draw the line and promise a fight for his priorities is a welcome blast of fresh air. But the novelty of a Washington politician supporting a tax increase shouldn't distract us from where he falls short. Obama's budget outline seems like a dramatic departure in relation to the last eight years of Bush, but it isn't nearly so radical outside that framework--and it's certainly not "socialist," at least by any standard we at SocialistWorker.org would recognize.

As is crystal clear to anyone without an axe to grind, the ISO doesn't think the war budget is a good thing, but rather what was an apparent willingness to stand up to the right wing. Even then (as indicated by the following sentences) what he was willing to fight for left a whole crateload to be desired.


Seriously, you don't have to agree with the ISO, and I'll gladly debate political criticisms. But this kind of dirty trick is beyond unspeakable.

I read just about every issue you put out. To be honest, both of your organizations make some legitimate criticisms of each other and other organizations (kind of like how the Internationalist Group and the International Bolshevik Tendency called you on your support for imperialist troops in Haiti, that your organization has recently chosen to backpeddle on), but the consistent sectarianism gets old. Kind of like how Spartacists will come up to PSL booths are rallies and try to give your newspaper to people who are interested in our party or are having a discussion with our supporters. Regardless, we're growing rapidly, whereas the International Communist League is not, so I'm not really concerned.

You would be considered relevant perhaps, but the consistent fragmentation of our breed of Trotskyist thought makes it impossible for you to really accomplish anything. It's a shame, since your political line, aside from the hostility in your actions and publications, is actually a pretty decent one. I actually considered learning more about it before I heard about the whole, you know, pushing a member of the ISO down a flight of stairs. Shit happens, I guess.

An urban legend. That myth was punctured some 15 years ago on the old, now basically defunct, alt.politics.socialism.trotsky newsgroup, when one of the ISO guys involved in the incident came clean that the fight was started by the ISO.

The APST is searchable, not too hard to find the true story if you want.

Happened right after some ISO'ers had beat up a woman in the SL, so they were kinda pissed at the time.

-M.H.-

The Spartacist League was not going to call for US/UN troops out of Haiti while they were giving out aid that the Haitians desperately needed. The IG idiotically thought the earthquake was a revolutionary situation. I go to Spartacist League meetings so I will ask the organizers about pushing an ISO member down a flight of stairs. I heard the PSL ran candidates for the capitalist Green party. I do not think capitalism can be reformed. I really do agree with what the Spartacist League has to say. It all makes sense to me.

This is off the thread topic, but whatever, I can actually clarify this one.

The IG was wrong about the situation in Haiti being revolutionary, but the SL was a whole lot wronger about Haiti.

For which there is some pretty solid evidence, being as the SL in their "mea culpa" one actually said so, even giving the IG credit for being righter than they were.

About the only time lately I can think of a left group actually saying in public, "yes we fucked up big time." They have to get some credit for that IMHO.

-M.H.-

An urban legend. That myth was punctured some 15 years ago on the old, now basically defunct, alt.politics.socialism.trotsky newsgroup, when one of the ISO guys involved in the incident came clean that the fight was started by the ISO.

I actually did a search on that because I remembered the discussion around that incident back when I'd first joined the DC branch. Nobody 'came clean'; it was RevLeft's own Chegitz Guevara claiming that Alan Maass had told him he'd done it, as part of a claim that the ISO started every fight they'd ever been in. Get your story straight.

Naturally one's memory of 15 year old postings on alt.politics.socialism.trotsky is a bit vague. But according to my memory, the guy on APST may not have said he was an ISO member himself, in fact I think he'd said he was a supporter not a member at the time. But he *did* say that he'd been personally involved in planning the attack on the Spartacists in Chicago, it wasn't hearsay.

If that was in fact Chegitz Guevara, that's interesting, but I'm pretty sure the handle he was using was different. So unless I'm remembering that wrong, you really shouldn't "blow his cover" without permission.

-M.H.-

Naturally one's memory of 15 year old postings on alt.politics.socialism.trotsky is a bit vague.

Nice attempt at weaseling out. I found the threads from 1996 and 1998 easily enough on the APST Google group searching for ' "flight of stairs" ISO', which means it would have been just as easy for you to read up on your ancient history before spouting off.

But according to my memory, the guy on APST may not have said he was an ISO member himself, in fact I think he'd said he was a supporter not a member at the time. But he *did* say that he'd been personally involved in planning the attack on the Spartacists in Chicago, it wasn't hearsay.

Your memory fails you again. A certain Marc Luzietti (identified as Chegitz in a subsequent discussion) says he helped the ISO keep the Spartacists out of an anti-war planning conference and was ashamed of that. It is a stretch at best to label this "planning an attack". You'd have more of an argument there if the ISO were planning to invade and disrupt an event organized by the SL.

Seriously, how much would it kill you to read your sources before citing them?

Nice attempt at weaseling out. I found the threads from 1996 and 1998 easily enough on the APST Google group searching for ' "flight of stairs" ISO', which means it would have been just as easy for you to read up on your ancient history before spouting off. Your memory fails you again. A certain Marc Luzietti (identified as Chegitz in a subsequent discussion) says he helped the ISO keep the Spartacists out of an anti-war planning conference and was ashamed of that. It is a stretch at best to label this "planning an attack". You'd have more of an argument there if the ISO were planning to invade and disrupt an event organized by the SL.

Seriously, how much would it kill you to read your sources before citing them?

Fair enough. I really should do the research on something like this rather than rely on ancient memories. I'll try to remember that in the future. But life is short, time is brief, I like most folk am very busy, and this is after all only the Internet, here today gone tomorrow. Especially APST, which is gone, gone, gone, and missed by few.

Thanks for doing my research for me. I mean that.

So I appreciate your correction. What it says in the thread you link to is that, rather than "planning an attack" on Spartacists at this conference, this Marc person, alleged to be Chegitz, was involved in I suppose spontaneously throwing a Spart down a flight of stairs. Well, that sounds pretty bad to me too.

BTW, given that this posting is from 15 years ago on a basically defunct forum that nobody reads anymore, identifying Chegitz on that basis still sounds like outing to me. At least you should have asked Chegitz's permission first. And by the rules here, you're not even supposed to do that with permission.

-M.H.-

On names and identities, it was never a secret, but it's not something I go around talking about either. I'm not saying delete it, but don't go shouting it from the rooftops either. It's not a big deal, either way.

In any event, I have never raised my hand against another comrade. That's not to say I wouldn't, if it was necessary, or they pushed my buttons to the point I lost control (or, in the case of Atlee Yarrow, would have if he had been physically present when he pulled some of the shit he pulled).

What happened at the January 1991 antiwar event was that we had required every group which wanted to table to register before hand and pay a fee. The Sparts just showed up and expected to be let in. At the time, I felt this was being disrespectful of everyone else, but looking back, that was bullshit. I was actually one of the few communists in Chicago who got along well with the Sparts who wasn't actually in the Sparts, so for me, at the time, it seemed like a principled position. But it was just stupid, really. I wish I hadn't done it, but I was young and inexperienced. On the plus side, the Sparts always registered for our conferences on time after that.

They wrote a leaflet within an hour about the blockade, and highlighted that one of the comrades in the ISO (Alan Maas), was wearing a Chicago Police Department leather jacket. CPD jackets were pretty common in the Chicago punk scene, so for us, it never even occurred to us that there was any problem with it, any more than the fact that I was wearing an army coat at the time.

Yes, a leader of the ISO did tell me and my comrades (formerly of Spark) that they had thrown a Spart down a flight of stairs. I and my ex-Spark comrades were kinda horrified. I don't really remember who it was who told us, so I'm not gonna say. Don't bother trying to guess, either, cuz I ain't sayin' even if I do remember. Edit: Apparently I mentioned it then.

Huh, never saw that stuff on alt.politics.socialism.trotsky. I think I'd left usenet behind by that point. Weird. Well, my ego is stroked for the day.

wow, that brought back memories

On names and identities, it was never a secret, but it's not something I go around talking about either. I'm not saying delete it, but don't go shouting it from the rooftops either. It's not a big deal, either way.

In any event, I have never raised my hand against another comrade. That's not to say I wouldn't, if it was necessary, or they pushed my buttons to the point I lost control (or, in the case of Atlee Yarrow, would have if he had been physically present when he pulled some of the shit he pulled).

What happened at the January 1991 antiwar event was that we had required every group which wanted to table to register before hand and pay a fee. The Sparts just showed up and expected to be let in. At the time, I felt this was being disrespectful of everyone else, but looking back, that was bullshit. I was actually one of the few communists in Chicago who got along well with the Sparts who wasn't actually in the Sparts, so for me, at the time, it seemed like a principled position. But it was just stupid, really. I wish I hadn't done it, but I was young and inexperienced. On the plus side, the Sparts always registered for our conferences on time after that.

They wrote a leaflet within an hour about the blockade, and highlighted that one of the comrades in the ISO (Alan Maas), was wearing a Chicago Police Department leather jacket. CPD jackets were pretty common in the Chicago punk scene, so for us, it never even occurred to us that there was any problem with it, any more than the fact that I was wearing an army coat at the time.

Yes, a leader of the ISO did tell me and my comrades (formerly of Spark) that they had thrown a Spart down a flight of stairs. I and my ex-Spark comrades were kinda horrified. I don't really remember who it was who told us, so I'm not gonna say. Don't bother trying to guess, either, cuz I ain't sayin' even if I do remember. Edit: Apparently I mentioned it then.

Huh, never saw that stuff on alt.politics.socialism.trotsky. I think I'd left usenet behind by that point. Weird. Well, my ego is stroked for the day.

Well, wearing my historian hat, I will mention that us historians prefer primary to secondary sources, and that as far as I am concerned this qualifies.

My original point was that the Spartacists were not the first offenders in the fortunately now long over war between them and the ISO. The flight of stairs thing was I believe written up by them at the time, though the thing that really sticks in my mind was a gross assault on a woman in Toronto with what sounded to me like sexual overtones. And no, I don't remember the details.

But now that we have hopefully got all this out of our systems, let us quietly forget about this and move on.

Nowadays you don't usually have the physical violence between leftists that was so common back then. Let us try to avoid reviving it, and maybe a good way to do that is to drop the subject.

-M.H.-

I'm in.

To return to the question of the ISO, where I live, when the ISO manages to organize, say, an antiwar demo, and it has been sometime since that happened, they put two Democratic city councilmen at the top of the speakers' list. They appear to be oriented to liberal Democrats.

Factually, also, they had to publish a retraction of what they put in their press, their opinion that under Obama, both domestic and US foreign policy would change. After Obama was elected, again factually, the front page of ISR, their magazine, had a headline, "New Politics for a New Era." What we have seen since 2009, that is, Federal repression, by the Obama administration, of pro-Palestine activists, as well as the Obama administration's continuing, intensifying and extending Bush's wars (i.e., the US is now covertly involved in Yemen), is hardly new. And any Marxist could have told the ISO that Obama, like any other Democrat, represents no change at all.

It seems to me that if you're going to consider calling yourself "Trotskyist" you might want to start with the writings of the man himself. I mean, he's not like Jesus. He wrote a BUNCH of shit on a BUNCH of different subjects and the ALL relate to Marxism. And for all that LD wrote himself there was probably a 100+ more written ABOUT him. So the material is out there, primary and secondary.

As to the sectarianism rampant in Trotskyist circles and the left in general, I'm actually PROUD to say I have no IDEA of what it's all about. I became a self identified Trotskyist in 1971 BECAUSE I READ A BUNCH OF BOOKS BY AND ABOUT HIM AND I AGREED WITH HIS TAKE. On pretty much everything politically.

I joined Workers Power because their manifestos and statements actually SOUNDED like what I had read. And they still do. In our meetings, one of the PRIMARY sources for getting to the bottom of issues IS Trotsky. Maybe THE primary source along with Lenin.

So I wouldn't worry too much about the groups. Go back to the source and see if you agree with Trotsky himself. THEN judge the groups by what you've read, ESPECIALLY what you've read from Trotsky himself/

To return to the question of the ISO, where I live, when the ISO manages to organize, say, an antiwar demo, and it has been sometime since that happened

So this is entirely the ISO's fault? As opposed to ANSWER and/or UFPJ, who are the two major organizations at the head of the anti-war movement, such as it may be?

Factually, also, they had to publish a retraction of what they put in their press, their opinion that under Obama, both domestic and US foreign policy would change.

Links and quotes for both original statement and retraction, please. I'm beginning to suspect you're talking out of your ass.

After Obama was elected, again factually, the front page of ISR, their magazine, had a headline, "New Politics for a New Era."

And now you've confirmed my suspicions because this is an out and out lie. Here, for your perusal, is the complete list of ISR front covers from Issue 1 in 1997 to today. Which issue are you referring to?

What we have seen since 2009, that is, Federal repression, by the Obama administration, of pro-Palestine activists, as well as the Obama administration's continuing, intensifying and extending Bush's wars (i.e., the US is now covertly involved in Yemen), is hardly new. And any Marxist could have told the ISO that Obama, like any other Democrat, represents no change at all.

Something like this, you mean?

The main reason behind the swelling support for Obama that transformed the terms of the campaign is a strong hope for change among an electorate fed up with seven years of George Bush and arrogant Republican rule. But given the policies that Obama and the other Democrats actually stands for, those hopes will be disappointed. Obama's rhetorical appeals disguise more moderate political positions--positions which are, in fact, closer to the Republican agenda that people reject in growing numbers than either he, his fellow Democrats or the media that cover them ever let on.

Whoever said that back in January 2008 obviously was on the ball. Oh, if only the ISO had listened...