Can someone do a summary of each? I'm looking for a group at the moment and I don't have the time to sift though the websites. Much appreciated!
Perhaps you could view the wikipedia page of each? They're all Trotskyist organisations. The CWI is a split (in 1965 the British Revolutionary Socialist League, more commonly known as Militant, was degraded from full section to "observer status", which effectively meant the Militant was kicked out. The CWI would be founded in 1974) from the USFI and the IMT is a split (in 1991 there was a split over the question of entryism in the "traditional workers organisations" such as the Labour party. The CWI majority thought we should adopt a new tactic, the minority, centered around important figures of the organisation, Alan Woods and Ted Grant, disagreed and split) from the CWI. In my Dutch experience (I don't really know the USFI in other countries) the USFI section, which is called "Socialist Alternative Politics" or more commonly simply SAP, is very deep entrenched in the Dutch Socialist Party (a post-Maoist rightwing-reformist and realpolitik party). While they entered the SP only about 5 years back, they're pretty much invisible in the party and very uncritical in my view. So they're large left alone. I'm in the CWI myself and our group also joined the SP, but back in 1998 when the party had a much more leftwing character and was booming in membership and activism. From day one we adopted a critical approach though and stood on the idea that the SP should adopt socialist policies, etc. Last year two of our members (myself being one of them) got expelled for some bullshit reason, "thanking" us for our political viewpoints Since last year there is also an IMT group in the Netherlands, but I've never seen them on any demo, strike or whatever. Their website is also updated sporadically. Internationally I can say very little about the USFI and know that the IMT has had three major splits in the past few years. The CWI is active in about 40 countries across the globe. I don't know where you live though, but I can probably tell you more if I do know If you want to read up on our positions you could give our international theoretical site a look, which has extensive documents on, among other things, the "open turn" debate (which resulted in the IMT split).
I'm with Socialist Action in the US. Our experience with the USFI is what you might call troubled. Our organization has been critical - sometimes severely-- of the liquidationism of the FI majority. That said, the FI also has some really good militants in it. I think it depends on /where/ you are as to the politics of the section. I was in the CWI section in the US previously. I have my criticisms of the CWI, but they are mostly comradely. I think highly of most all the folks in the CWI section here. My differences were on a couple of political questions. 1. Their support of Nader. Nader is not going to be the vehicle for a labor party, has too many ties to rightists like Buchanan and has said things about gays and immigrants that should rule him out for support. Socialists should support working class and socialist candidadtes, not the candidates of cross-class parties. 2. I think they take a too rigidly "class reductionist" stand on the Black liberation question in the US. They don't see any progressive role for Black nationalism. In fact when I was in the group, they seemed to want to avoid the question entirely, especially police brutality. I can't say much re the IMT, except that I think they need to explain their position re cops. They seem to think that cops are just workers in uniform. Cops are part of the repressive apparatus of the state (exist to protect the rich and their property) and as such, no matter their class origin, are separated from workers by their relationship to capital. The IMT is also extremely uncritical of the Chavez government in Venezuela. If you are in the US, check out Socialist Action http://www.socialistaction.org/
Socialist action is a good party, huh! They kept the Vanguard Party, but i'm rogue. This is because the degenerated workers state was where the USSR failed to take over Europe in WWII. But China took over land and it became State-capitalist, teh USA became state capitalist so i don't see anything wrong with gov corps being state-capitalist. If you want to be funny you argue that US was degenerated worker state because the imperialistic US lost the Philippines after WWII! In that scenario, degenerated worker state sounds so CHEESY so i stayed with state-capitalist! I agree with Trosky when USA would be degenerated workers state during the American Civil War in the 1860s. Maybe degenerated workers state only applies to civil wars?
