Orthodox Trotskyist groups and parties

I am familiar with the following groups that claim to, or have claimed to, adhere to the orthodox Trotskyist line:

The Socialist Workers' Party (in the United States):

To the best of my knowledge, the American SWP was the first Party to publicly break with Pablo, and to describe themselves as an orthodox Trotskyist party. They were a founding member of the International Committee, an international alliance of orthodox Trotskyist parties, but gradually drifted to the right, particularly after Cannon's effective retirement, and joined with the International Secretariat, forming the present United Secretariat. Eventually, the majority in the SWP renounced Trotskyism and formed the quasi-Castroist Pathfinder Tendency. Publishes the Pathfinder.

Workers' Revolutionary Party (and descendants):

The former British section of the International Committee, previously known as the Club and the Socialist Labour League, led for most of its existence by the late Gerry Healy. Published the periodical Newsline, which heavily emphasised dialectical materialism (though many comrades will find their material to be of dubious quality). Also supported the Red Guard movement in China and what it termed the "Arab revolutions" led by the Nasserists or the Ba'ath. Prone to scandals and considered a bureaucratic cult by much of the Left, the WRP expelled Healy in the late nineties and subsequently split into several hostile groups, most of which seem to have either become inactive (the Marxist Party, for example), or become liberal or anarchist (the Peace and Progress Party).

Socialist Equality Party:

Formerly known as the Workers' League, the SEP was founded by American associates of Gerry Healy, particularly Wohlforth and North, from a split in the Revolutionary Tendency in the SWP (the majority of the Revolutionary Tendency would go on to found the Spartacist League). Formerly published the Bulletin, but now seems to focus on online publishing through the World Socialist Web Site. Infamous for their opposition to unions and what they term "identity politics". Currently, they seem to be focusing on the automobile industry. Have several international affiliates, most called the Socialist Equality Party.

International Communist League (Fourth-Internationalist):

An international organisation founded by the American Spartacist League, the former Revolutionary Tendency in the SWP, led by Robertson. Publish the Workers' Vanguard. Emphasise Soviet defencism and the theory of the deformed workers' state, which they also extend to China and Laos, unlike most Trotskyist organisations I am aware of. Tend to elicit strong emotions.

Internationalist Group:

Founded by members of the editorial board of Workers' Vanguard, most prominently Norden, who were expelled from the ICL in (what are to me) unclear circumstances, the Internationalist Group considers the ICL to have degenerated and to no longer be representative of the Spartacist tradition. Publish the Internationalist.

International Bolshevik Tendency and Revolutionary Regroupment:

Formerly an external tendency of the Spartacist League, the IBT opposed the ICL on a number of issues, famously on the ICL call to "hail the Red Army in Afghanistan". Consider the Spartacist to be too close to the Stalinist bureaucracy, as far as I can tell. Their leaders include Bill Logan, a suspicious fellow who was expelled from the ICL on charges of abusing members. Have split recently, with the tiny Revolutionary Regroupment claiming that the IBT leadership used undemocratic methods against a section of the membership. Publish 1917. The Revolutionary Regroupment, strangely enough, publishes the journal Revolutionary Regroupment.

Fourth International (International Centre of Reconstruction):

An organisation founded by supporters of Pierre Lambert, the preeminent orthodox Trotskyist theoretician and continental Europe and leader of the French section of the International Committee. Publish the periodical La Vérité. The old Lambertist organisation, the International Communist Organisation, was heavily involved in trade union work, which drew the accusation of bureaucratism from some. I do not know if the current Lambertist international continues to focus on the trade unions.

Other organisations:

The above list is far from exhaustive. There are many organisations I do not know about, or know only by name. Feel free to add information about new groups, or correct information that you think is mistaken or presented in an overly sectarian manner. In particular, I hope someone can post more information on the FI(ICR), and on the Morenist international.

Just goes to show that in politics you can never go by what people call themselves! I mean Lambertists? They are right-wing social democrats. In France they are tricolor nationalists!

The Russian question is fundamental. Only the then-Trotskyist ICL defended the Soviet Union (only to renounce that program later, after expelling the founders of the Internationalist Group). The rest of these "orthodox" "Trotskyists" were in the camp of "democratic" bourgeois counterrevolution.

Could you post some additional information about the L5I? I know they broke with the Cliff tendency some time ago, and that they seem to view Stalinist bureaucracies as uniformly negative, and that they criticise the entire former International Committee, but that's all I know. Are there any theoretical positions that are peculiar to the L5I?

In all honesty I don't think 'orthodox Trotskyism' exists in any meaningful sense.

What does that mean, 9mm?

That's why I said that these are parties "that have called themselves orthodox Trotskyist". In retrospect, I tried to do something that probably can't and possibly shouldn't be done - provide a list of these groups without political commentary.

Concerning RR, wasn't S. Trachtenberg joined recently by a Brazilian group? The RR split from IBT was apolitical, but understandable given the apparent internal culture in the IBT. And it seems to corroborate most of the original charges against the "Bolshevik Tendency".

On paper, the politics of the IBT are, well, bad, but better than, for example, the Lambertists, but they also seem to operate as a sort of bureaucratic cult - much like the old WRP and the current SEP. I really don't want to be seen as endorsing any of those groups.

On paper, the politics of the IBT are, well, bad, but better than, for example, the Lambertists, but they also seem to operate as a sort of bureaucratic cult - much like the old WRP and the current SEP. I really don't want to be seen as endorsing any of those groups.

May I ask what you think is bad about the politics of the IBT? The IBT, LFI, and ICL all seem rather similar despite some smaller differences (much of it spouting from personal feuds, based on what I've read)

I'm surprised to see the Grantite groups absent from the list. In spite of their entryism and bad politics, do they not claim the mantle of Trotskyist orthodoxy on all the major points?

I'm surprised to see the Grantite groups absent from the list. In spite of their entryism and bad politics, do they not claim the mantle of Trotskyist orthodoxy on all the major points?

The term "orthodox Trotskyism" was coined by J.P. Cannon, whose portrait is on this group's masthead. He defined it as those Trotskyists who split from the official Fourth International, which he saw as having been destroyed by Pabloite revisionism.

The three components of the International Committee which he formed were the American SWP, the Lambertistes in France and Healy and his people in England. So whatever you think of them, the Lambertistes and any latterday Healyites who still exist and still uphold Cannon's initiative in 1953 are, technically at least, "orthodox Trotskyists," if they haven't repudiated Trotsky like the SWP did under Barnes, Which the Lambertistes have never done, formally at any rate. Healy never quite got around to repudiating Cannon altogether, or Trotsky.

The only actual "Cannonites" left in America are the Spartacists and splinters therefrom. The FIT, who upheld Cannon right to the bitter end of the degeneration of the once-revolutionary SWP into something else, shrinking back only when anti-Trotskyist weirdo Barnes took over, have ceased to exist.

The Grantites are not "orthodox Trotskyists," as Grant sided with Pablo in 1953, indeed it's exactly from Pablo that the Grantite "deep entry" conception comes from, the hallmark of Pabloism according to orthodox Trotskyists.

And Workers Power and any other Fifth Internationalists (referred to in this thread years ago) aren't either, as to be an orthodox Trotskyist you have to be a Fourth Internationalist. And the LFI, insofar as it still exists, thinks Cannon was no better than Pablo.

May I ask what you think is bad about the politics of the IBT? The IBT, LFI, and ICL all seem rather similar despite some smaller differences (much of it spouting from personal feuds, based on what I've read)

What are the biggest political issues right now?

Syria and ISIS; Greece and SYRIZA; Corbyn in England.

Do these groups have identical positions? Far from it, especially on ISIS.

The ICL, which has a group in Greece, has a position very different from the LFI, whereas the IBT has maintained a curious silence lately, probably reflecting a faction fight or something.

Or maybe they just have a position on this closer to the ICL than the LFI, which they would never want to admit in public, as for the IBT fighting the ICL is far more important than any concern they might have for the working people of Greece.

And the IBT, which has representation in England, is at least trying to stake out a different position from the British Spartacists, if only because when the LFI gets around to saying something about Corbyn, it is obviously going to denounce the ICL for alleged opportunism, as the LFI for whatever its faults at least has a consistent political line based on something other than just hating the evil Robertson.

So on all the most important current day issues, we have three groups with different perspectives. Well, two at least, whether the IBT truly has a political perspective of its own is arguable, other than hating Robertson. The differences between them from a liberal POV may look small, but they are objectively bigger than the differences between, say, Obama and Bernie Sanders. Or for that matter, Obama and a semi-moderate Republican like Christie.

Em., I appreciate your taking the time to participate in this group, but if you want to make characterizations about the various groups, you're going to have to go into more detail, and include more evidence, if you want the posters here to respond in the way that I think you want. The other, non-trotskyist groups on the forum might be okay with broad, baseless generalizations. But I think you'll find that this group is a little different, at least I hope.

The ICL, which has a group in Greece, has a position very different from the LFI, whereas the IBT has maintained a curious silence lately, probably reflecting a faction fight or something.

I think it is more likely the result of the size of the IBT rather than some sort of intentional sinister silence.

Or maybe they just have a position on this closer to the ICL than the LFI, which they would never want to admit in public, as for the IBT fighting the ICL is far more important than any concern they might have for the working people of Greece.

What's the basis for this assertion? Certainly the IBT makes clear its differences with the ICL when they arise, but this is not their goal when arriving at political positions. Or, at least, there is no evidence of this.

And the IBT, which has representation in England, is at least trying to stake out a different position from the British Spartacists, if only because when the LFI gets around to saying something about Corbyn, it is obviously going to denounce the ICL for alleged opportunism, as the LFI for whatever its faults at least has a consistent political line based on something other than just hating the evil Robertson.

As far as I'm aware, the IBT has more different political positions from the ICL than the LFI does. I'm not sure what is inconsistent about the IBT's political line.

So on all the most important current day issues, we have three groups with different perspectives. Well, two at least, whether the IBT truly has a political perspective of its own is arguable, other than hating Robertson. The differences between them from a liberal POV may look small, but they are objectively bigger than the differences between, say, Obama and Bernie Sanders. Or for that matter, Obama and a semi-moderate Republican like Christie.

Again, I think the IBT has more serious political disagreements with the ICL and than the LFI has with the ICL. What reason is there to think the ICL and IBT have closer politics than the ICL and the LFI? My impression has been the opposite of yours.

I think it is more likely the result of the size of the IBT rather than some sort of intentional sinister silence.

What's the basis for this assertion? Certainly the IBT makes clear its differences with the ICL when they arise, but this is not their goal when arriving at political positions. Or, at least, there is no evidence of this.

As far as I'm aware, the IBT has more different political positions from the ICL than the LFI does. I'm not sure what is inconsistent about the IBT's political line.

Again, I think the IBT has more serious political disagreements with the ICL and than the LFI has with the ICL. What reason is there to think the ICL and IBT have closer politics than the ICL and the LFI? My impression has been the opposite of yours.

I have shall we say lengthy experience with the IBT, going back decades, know a lot of the ex-members in the US (nowadays the IBT, which when it was a fairly real organization in America called the BT, which actually did things occasionally, has essentially two people left in America).

Basically, they are bitter ex-Spartacists who hate the SL, who always look at the SL position on something, and come up with a position different from the SL's that they think will be more popular. Their political difference from the SL is that they don't like taking unpopular positions.

The only place where the IBT is a real organization nowadays is in Canada, where they actually have a real political difference from the SL that's more than just "triangulation." They oppose independence of Quebec. So in Canada, if you are an orthodox Trotskyist who doesn't think Quebec should be independent, you have a better reason to join the IBT than hatred for the SL. Naturally this helps their popularity in Toronto too, what will all the anti-French chauvinism rampant in English Canada.

I have shall we say lengthy experience with the IBT, going back decades, know a lot of the ex-members in the US (nowadays the IBT, which when it was a fairly real organization in America called the BT, which actually did things occasionally, has essentially two people left in America).

Basically, they are bitter ex-Spartacists who hate the SL, who always look at the SL position on something, and come up with a position different from the SL's that they think will be more popular. Their political difference from the SL is that they don't like taking unpopular positions.

The only place where the IBT is a real organization nowadays is in Canada, where they actually have a real political difference from the SL that's more than just "triangulation." They oppose independence of Quebec. So in Canada, if you are an orthodox Trotskyist who doesn't think Quebec should be independent, you have a better reason to join the IBT than hatred for the SL. Naturally this helps their popularity in Toronto too, what will all the anti-French chauvinism rampant in English Canada.

So rather than providing actual evidence for your earlier assertion, you simply repeated it and said that you know it from personal experience... yet these experiences are not described (if they're even real at all -- I can't possibly know). I'm not really convinced.

I have shall we say lengthy experience with the IBT, going back decades, know a lot of the ex-members in the US (nowadays the IBT, which when it was a fairly real organization in America called the BT, which actually did things occasionally, has essentially two people left in America).

Basically, they are bitter ex-Spartacists who hate the SL, who always look at the SL position on something, and come up with a position different from the SL's that they think will be more popular. Their political difference from the SL is that they don't like taking unpopular positions.

The only place where the IBT is a real organization nowadays is in Canada, where they actually have a real political difference from the SL that's more than just "triangulation." They oppose independence of Quebec. So in Canada, if you are an orthodox Trotskyist who doesn't think Quebec should be independent, you have a better reason to join the IBT than hatred for the SL. Naturally this helps their popularity in Toronto too, what will all the anti-French chauvinism rampant in English Canada.

Some of us here take program a lot more seriously than we do gossip or the numbers game. Even if what you said were true, and I don't think you've convinced anybody here that it is, so what? I would say it's pretty sad that an organization that supposedly decides upon its positions through angry vendettas has uniformly better positions and politics than one that I suppose we're expected to take seriously. If we wanted to join an organization with hundreds of thousands of members, in order to feel loved and popular, we'd run straight to our local bourgeois party headquarters.

So rather than providing actual evidence for your earlier assertion, you simply repeated it and said that you know it from personal experience... yet these experiences are not described (if they're even real at all -- I can't possibly know). I'm not really convinced.

Sigh... well, I could go into all sorts of gory details about particular individuals, the IBT and the original BT are a remarkably scurvy crew, especially Logan, but I suppose that would be gossip.

Probably the best proof of my assertions is just a look at the BT website.

http://www.bolshevik.org/

What do you see?

Whereas the left, the working class and the entire world has been agog over events in Greece, the colossal SYRIZA betrayal, you have nothing on the IBT website for half a year by now about Greece. And what do you have instead?

A bunch of postings that are either reminiscences about ancient BT glory days or pinpricks directed against the only thing the IBT really cares about, namely dissing the Spartacists and sucking up to any ex-Spartacists they can find. Oh yes, finally they get around to Corbyn, guess they couldn't avoid that being as they have a few people in London.

Thus you have a lengthy piece by an India expert alleging that the Spartacists got some minor details wrong about faction fights among Indian Trotskyists in--the 1940s?

But best of all, you've got them sucking up to the Platypus bunch, whose leader left the Spartacists because he thought they were too down on US imperialism. And if you think I'm kidding, check 'em out.

Let me produce some quotes, they're pretty rich.

IBT: "On the basis of his experience, Chris and his comrades apparently concluded that the SL’s version of Leninism, which had presumably sounded plausible enough when they joined, had some deep flaw that needed to be transcended. Looking around, they perhaps found that the rest of the left was, in one way or another, just as bad. But in fact the SL in this period was not a genuinely Leninist organization, and therefore I think the founders of Platypus were fundamentally mistaken in their assessment of the Leninist-Trotskyist tradition. To be fair, the Platypus society has continued to show some respect, at least in terms of the reading lists they distribute, for elements of the tradition they rejected."

Response from Platypus leader: "I will say to Tom, one little personal note, there was no break between me and the Spartacist League over any political disagreement.... It was actually my personal demoralization.... And I would sort of push back on the issue of whether me and Richard got turned off to the question of Leninist politics for ever more. No, but I think that we were clear as the Spartacists were clear...."

So the IBT tried to enlist these renegades into their SL-as-Stalinoid-cult obsessions, and the Platypoids, somewhat principled in their own disgusting way, refused to play.

Perfect example of what I mean when I call the IBT simply a disintegrating, insular, do-nothing anti-Spartacist hate cult.

Some of us here take program a lot more seriously than we do gossip or the numbers game. Even if what you said were true, and I don't think you've convinced anybody here that it is, so what? I would say it's pretty sad that an organization that supposedly decides upon its positions through angry vendettas has uniformly better positions and politics than one that I suppose we're expected to take seriously. If we wanted to join an organization with hundreds of thousands of members, in order to feel loved and popular, we'd run straight to our local bourgeois party headquarters.

Opposing independence for Quebec is a better position? Sounds to me much more like Maple Leaf Canadian chauvinism.

The IBt doesn't want to become popular with the general public, they are too insular for that. They want to get popular among the lefties they hang out with, which the SL definitely is not.

Opposing independence for Quebec is a better position? Sounds to me much more like Maple Leaf Canadian chauvinism.

It might sound that way, just as having a military side with ISIS might sound like abetting "Islamo-Fascism." The great thing about Marxist methodology is that it allows those who use it to pierce through reflexive and intuitive impressions that often mask correct political conclusions.

People who want to see the respective groups' attempt to do this in a debate on this very issue, and not just hear somebody on a forum sling mud and name-call, can consult http://www.bolshevik.org/Leaflets/brock.html I'd be interested in hearing from disinterested people regarding who in that debate seemed more interested in employing a Marxist methodology, and who seemed more interested in trying to mud-sling without any argued out political content.

It should also be noted that the position that the IBT currently defends on the position is the exact same one that the ICL defended up to the mid-1970s, when I guess they too were chauvinists.

The IBt doesn't want to become popular with the general public, they are too insular for that. They want to get popular among the lefties they hang out with, which the SL definitely is not.

I am sure I speak on behalf of everybody in this group and on this forum when I say that we're very pleased to have you here so you can tell us what the secret motivations of various political groups are.

Probably the best proof of my assertions is just a look at the BT website.

http://www.bolshevik.org/

What do you see?

Whereas the left, the working class and the entire world has been agog over events in Greece, the colossal SYRIZA betrayal, you have nothing on the IBT website for half a year by now about Greece. And what do you have instead?

The third article from the top, published one month ago, called "Leninism vs. The New Social Democracy" discusses Syriza in its first two paragraphs, setting it within the context of criticizing leftist illusions in rebuilding social democracy, often through forming popular front coalitions. You would have known this if you had read the article. Not even read them, really. All you have to do is perform a simple google search, and you'll see that Syriza has been the focus of a considerable portion of the IBT's material over the past year. In this years 1917, there is a lengthy article about Syriza, which people can read at http://www.bolshevik.org/1917/no37/i...ng_crisis.html

Now, it's true that the front page of the site isn't jam-packed with articles covering a broad range of news stories currently on the front pages. That's a reflection of the group's size, which you seem hung up.

A bunch of postings that are either reminiscences about ancient BT glory days or pinpricks directed against the only thing the IBT really cares about, namely dissing the Spartacists and sucking up to any ex-Spartacists they can find. Oh yes, finally they get around to Corbyn, guess they couldn't avoid that being as they have a few people in London.

"Dissing the Spartacists" as in making political criticisms, or gossiping? There's a difference, I hope you realize.

Thus you have a lengthy piece by an India expert alleging that the Spartacists got some minor details wrong about faction fights among Indian Trotskyists in--the 1940s?

Oh, so it is a political criticism and not mud-slinging gossip. You just don't like it because they criticize a group you like. Yet you insist that it is supporters of the IBT who are part of a "cult." Interesting.

What makes this exceedingly ironic is that, if you peruse the Orthodox Trotskyist social group and the forum posts of the people who belong to it, the only person among us who seems dead-set on inserting attacks against a specific group into a disproportionate percentage of his participation here is...well, you. I get along quite well with the other "orthodox trotskyists" on the forum, regardless of their affiliation, and don't feel the need to condemn them as centrists anytime a discussion about a specific point of Trotskyist politics comes up. I think I criticized the ICL one time in my 100+ posts, and only then it was in response to your earlier claim insisting that the ICL's position on Corbyn was no different than the IBT's, but that the IBT wanted to make it appear otherwise out of obsessive hatred. In real life, because of my political sympathies, I am usually called a "Spart" despite it being technically incorrect. I don't correct people, because I see no point in distancing myself from a tradition that I largely want to uphold. On a similar note, I see no need to go on a constant warpath against the ICL folks (or IG folks, who also seem to be a constant target of yours), just as ICL or IG sympathizers - you being the lone exception - see the need to go on a warpath against me or any other supporter of a group claiming to uphold the Spartacist tradition.

But best of all, you've got them sucking up to the Platypus bunch, whose leader left the Spartacists because he thought they were too down on US imperialism. And if you think I'm kidding, check 'em out.

"Sucking up"? And what, precisely, is the political content of this characterization? It can mean anything from "How dare they agree to even talk to them?" to "They are refusing to bring up any disagreements and are saying only positive things about them!" So, let's get political and move away from the boring subpolitical characterizations: what do you mean by the phrase?

Let me produce some quotes, they're pretty rich.

IBT: "On the basis of his experience, Chris and his comrades apparently concluded that the SL’s version of Leninism, which had presumably sounded plausible enough when they joined, had some deep flaw that needed to be transcended. Looking around, they perhaps found that the rest of the left was, in one way or another, just as bad. But in fact the SL in this period was not a genuinely Leninist organization, and therefore I think the founders of Platypus were fundamentally mistaken in their assessment of the Leninist-Trotskyist tradition. To be fair, the Platypus society has continued to show some respect, at least in terms of the reading lists they distribute, for elements of the tradition they rejected."

Response from Platypus leader: "I will say to Tom, one little personal note, there was no break between me and the Spartacist League over any political disagreement.... It was actually my personal demoralization.... And I would sort of push back on the issue of whether me and Richard got turned off to the question of Leninist politics for ever more. No, but I think that we were clear as the Spartacists were clear...."

So the IBT tried to enlist these renegades into their SL-as-Stalinoid-cult obsessions, and the Platypoids, somewhat principled in their own disgusting way, refused to play.

At a meeting attended by many leftists besides people affiliated with Platypus, an IBT supporter said that Platypus exists as a result of a "fundamentally mistaken" assessment of "the Leninist-Trotskyist tradition." The crux of the talk was a criticism of various academically-oriented or social-democracy-oriented ways of trying to build a revolutionary movement. Platypus was one of the targets.

This, in your view, is "sucking up" to them and trying to enlist them. I suppose the latter part is right. The IBT does try to engage people who disagree with them, while pulling no political punches, in order to win them over to the correct program. I suppose the alternative to this is sealing themselves off in a defeatist and abstentionist position.

Perfect example of what I mean when I call the IBT simply a disintegrating, insular, do-nothing anti-Spartacist hate cult.

I thought they were engaging ("sucking up to") the "Platypoids" in hopes of "enlisting" them. That doesn't sound "insular" to me. You're constructing so many attacks at this point that they are beginning to contradict one another.

Opposing independence for Quebec is a better position? Sounds to me much more like Maple Leaf Canadian chauvinism.

This claim is dishonest. Just because Leninists don't advocate independence for a particular nation at a certain time does not mean they are chauvinists against that nation. We would still defend that nation's right to self-determination if it so chose. Not everywhere, nor at all times, do Leninists advocate for the independence of any particular nation. The IBT believes joint class struggle between Quebecois workers and English Canadian workers is very possible (in fact, it has clearly occurred!), thus they oppose advocating independence at this time, as any Leninist would under the same circumstances. O how awful! This, the IBT's position on Quebec, is also the position the iSt held for many years. Was the iSt chauvinist when it held this position? What is fundamentally different about the IBT's position towards Quebec than that position which Leninists have held towards any other nations that they, either presently or historically, haven't advocated independence for? One could surely argue that the IBT's position that joint class struggle can occur and has occurred between French Canadian and English Canadian workers is wrong, but to amount their position to anti-Quebecois chauvinism is beyond ridiculous. It's a slanderous lie, plain and simple.

This claim is dishonest. Just because Leninists don't advocate independence for a particular nation at a certain time does not mean they are chauvinists against that nation. We would still defend that nation's right to self-determination if it so chose. Not everywhere, nor at all times, do Leninists advocate for the independence of any particular nation. The IBT believes joint class struggle between Quebecois workers and English Canadian workers is very possible (in fact, it has clearly occurred!), thus they oppose advocating independence at this time, as any Leninist would under the same circumstances. O how awful! This, the IBT's position on Quebec, is also the position the iSt held for many years. Was the iSt chauvinist when it held this position? What is fundamentally different about the IBT's position towards Quebec than that position which Leninists have held towards any other nations that they, either presently or historically, haven't advocated independence for? One could surely argue that the IBT's position that joint class struggle can occur and has occurred between French Canadian and English Canadian workers is wrong, but to amount their position to anti-Quebecois chauvinism is beyond ridiculous. It's a slanderous lie, plain and simple.

The Canadian Spartacist position on Canada was ambiguous on whether or not independence was a good idea, back when the leader of the Canadian IBT was the leader of the Canadian Spartacists. After he left, the contradiction was resolved, with the IBT group coming out clearly against independence and the ICL group coming out for.

Sure joint class struggle all over the North American continent and indeed worldwide by workers from different nations is desirable. But opposing Quebec independence, and even at one point advocating voting no in one of the independence referendums in an atmosphere of vicious anti-French chauvinism in English Canada and with the pro independence party in Quebec usually the main Quebec political party, is exactly backhanded capitulation to anti-French chauvinism.

The biggest event in Quebecois history was when Trudeau sent the troops in and declared martial law in to suppress worker strikes and make it clear that any attempt at Quebec independence would be suppressed by force. It became clear not long after that that one had to support Quebec independence exactly to *make possible* joint class struggle and clear the air from national conflict, just like Lenin, correctly, supported Norwegian independence from Sweden. As a result of said independence, the unity of the working classes of Scandinavia was increased, not hampered.

Were the Canadian Spartacists a bit slow on the uptake on this, under the leadership of the guy likely to replace Logan as IBT leader when he fully retires? Yeah. His departure was a good thing, now the Spartacists have a presence in Quebec and the IBT, of course, doesn't.

Here's a good short Spartacist piece on the question.

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/888/quebec.html

And here's an old Spartacist polemic vs. the IBT on the question.

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/arc...004/BT-827.htm

I suggest that you post a link to what you consider the best IBT position statement and the best IBT polemic vs. the ICL, and then we can just let the readership judge for themselves.

The third article from the top, published one month ago, called "Leninism vs. The New Social Democracy" discusses Syriza in its first two paragraphs, setting it within the context of criticizing leftist illusions in rebuilding social democracy, often through forming popular front coalitions. You would have known this if you had read the article. Not even read them, really. All you have to do is perform a simple google search, and you'll see that Syriza has been the focus of a considerable portion of the IBT's material over the past year. In this years 1917, there is a lengthy article about Syriza, which people can read at http://www.bolshevik.org/1917/no37/i...ng_crisis.html

Now, it's true that the front page of the site isn't jam-packed with articles covering a broad range of news stories currently on the front pages. That's a reflection of the group's size, which you seem hung up.

"Dissing the Spartacists" as in making political criticisms, or gossiping? There's a difference, I hope you realize.

Oh, so it is a political criticism and not mud-slinging gossip. You just don't like it because they criticize a group you like. Yet you insist that it is supporters of the IBT who are part of a "cult." Interesting.

What makes this exceedingly ironic is that, if you peruse the Orthodox Trotskyist social group and the forum posts of the people who belong to it, the only person among us who seems dead-set on inserting attacks against a specific group into a disproportionate percentage of his participation here is...well, you. I get along quite well with the other "orthodox trotskyists" on the forum, regardless of their affiliation, and don't feel the need to condemn them as centrists anytime a discussion about a specific point of Trotskyist politics comes up. I think I criticized the ICL one time in my 100+ posts, and only then it was in response to your earlier claim insisting that the ICL's position on Corbyn was no different than the IBT's, but that the IBT wanted to make it appear otherwise out of obsessive hatred. In real life, because of my political sympathies, I am usually called a "Spart" despite it being technically incorrect. I don't correct people, because I see no point in distancing myself from a tradition that I largely want to uphold. On a similar note, I see no need to go on a constant warpath against the ICL folks (or IG folks, who also seem to be a constant target of yours), just as ICL or IG sympathizers - you being the lone exception - see the need to go on a warpath against me or any other supporter of a group claiming to uphold the Spartacist tradition.

"Sucking up"? And what, precisely, is the political content of this characterization? It can mean anything from "How dare they agree to even talk to them?" to "They are refusing to bring up any disagreements and are saying only positive things about them!" So, let's get political and move away from the boring subpolitical characterizations: what do you mean by the phrase?

At a meeting attended by many leftists besides people affiliated with Platypus, an IBT supporter said that Platypus exists as a result of a "fundamentally mistaken" assessment of "the Leninist-Trotskyist tradition." The crux of the talk was a criticism of various academically-oriented or social-democracy-oriented ways of trying to build a revolutionary movement. Platypus was one of the targets.

This, in your view, is "sucking up" to them and trying to enlist them. I suppose the latter part is right. The IBT does try to engage people who disagree with them, while pulling no political punches, in order to win them over to the correct program. I suppose the alternative to this is sealing themselves off in a defeatist and abstentionist position.

I thought they were engaging ("sucking up to") the "Platypoids" in hopes of "enlisting" them. That doesn't sound "insular" to me. You're constructing so many attacks at this point that they are beginning to contradict one another.

Sigh.

Yes, the IBT doesn't engage in as much personalist mud-slinging gossip vs. the ICL in general and longtime ICL leader Robertson as it used to. Because, after the exposure of IBT leader Logan, described by longtime famous Trotskyist mass leader Edmund Sammarakkody as "that monster," that is no longer really something the IBT can get away with anymore.

The oh-so-polite gentle critique of a notoriously pro-imperialist grouping like Platypus, indeed it seems even with absurd hopes of recruiting from them, shows that the IBT is only insular with respect to revolutionaries and working people. Anybody who left the ICL for whatever reason is who the IBT wants to recruit from. Hell, they even sucked up to Ian Donovan in England, infamous for physically assaulting a female Spartacist, and lately a Zionist.

Sure the IBT wrote plenty about SYRIZA, until push came to shove, stuff happened, and masses of leftists and working people in Greece finally realised that SYRIZA had betrayed them. In other words, until it mattered and not since.

As for the cultist nature of the IBT, or more particularly of Logan's own group in New Zealand, that I'm afraid is pretty notorious by now. The link I posted earlier gives some of the gory details. I can assure you that that is not a perception unique to the Spartacists, any New Zealand leftist would tell you that they are a weird cult.

The Canadian group, as I said earlier, actually is a political not a cultist phenomenon, as they differ from the ICL on the single most vital question for the Canadian working class. I expect that when Logan leaves this mortal coil, Masters will try to find a way to distance whatever then is left of the IBT from that embarrassing legacy.

One more thing.

....

(On the India piece-ET)

....Oh, so it is a political criticism and not mud-slinging gossip. You just don't like it because they criticize a group you like. Yet you insist that it is supporters of the IBT who are part of a "cult." Interesting....

Actually, I thought the piece was interesting and worth reading. For all I know, on the historical Indian trot details I wouldn't be surprised if the author had it right (though on the overall question of constituent assemblies and the ICL position he was thoroughly unconvincing)

But that this occupies the website instead of Greece etc. was characteristic.

Sigh.

Yes, the IBT doesn't engage in as much personalist mud-slinging gossip vs. the ICL in general and longtime ICL leader Robertson as it used to. Because, after the exposure of IBT leader Logan, described by longtime famous Trotskyist mass leader Edmund Sammarakkody as "that monster," that is no longer really something the IBT can get away with anymore.

You're back in autopilot mud-slinging mode. You must be sighing because you find it tiring. So do we. Nobody here really cares to discuss Bill Logan or James Robertson. These are personalities of present interest only to people who know them outside of a political context or who are trying to evade political discussion. Bringing them up in every post is a sure sign of - how shall I put it? - "insularity" of a particularly bizarre type.

The oh-so-polite gentle critique of a notoriously pro-imperialist grouping like Platypus, indeed it seems even with absurd hopes of recruiting from them, shows that the IBT is only insular with respect to revolutionaries and working people. Anybody who left the ICL for whatever reason is who the IBT wants to recruit from. Hell, they even sucked up to Ian Donovan in England, infamous for physically assaulting a female Spartacist, and lately a Zionist.

I don't see how telling a group of people in no uncertain terms that their entire organizational existence is premised on a serious error is being "gentle" with them. Perhaps in a world where a person is looking to find a reason to spin even de rigueur political activities as sinisterly reactionary, or when they can't, to bring up politically irrelevant personalities.

Sure the IBT wrote plenty about SYRIZA, until push came to shove, stuff happened, and masses of leftists and working people in Greece finally realised that SYRIZA had betrayed them. In other words, until it mattered and not since.

Until push came to shove? What are you even talking about? The IBT, along with the IG and the ICL, was critical of Syriza when it mattered the most, when workers in Greece and around the world had illusions in them and it was incumbent upon revolutionaries to swim against the tide and put on record the necessity of pursuing an independent proletarian course. It's easy to oppose Syriza now. Even members of Syriza are opposing Syriza. Now is also the critical moment to explain to workers that Corbyn is also betraying their hopes, that he will continue to do so, and that he doesn't represent the proletarian base of the Labour party. Now is not the time to ride the Corbyn bandwagon by opportunistically talking about how he is "Tony Blair's worst nightmare." That is a title so cringe worthy that I would expect it to be adorning the masthead of a Cliffite publication. To their credit, the IG hasn't done this, only the ICL has. I was seriously shocked by it.

As for the cultist nature of the IBT, or more particularly of Logan's own group in New Zealand, that I'm afraid is pretty notorious by now. The link I posted earlier gives some of the gory details. I can assure you that that is not a perception unique to the Spartacists, any New Zealand leftist would tell you that they are a weird cult.

Yes, they are notorious. And old. And at this date, entirely irrelevant politically. You may as well invoke the name of James Cannon to pass political judgments on Barnes' Castroite SWP. I expect you'll keep bringing Logan up again and again because that's basically the only card you have to attack the IBT, one of your preoccupations here, which is odd considering how small and irrelevant you claim they are. Nobody on the forum has any interest in it, and this is the last I'll bother responding to it. If you want to play out the unfair stereotype of a raving Spartacist loony oblivious to the people around him, go right ahead. I'm trying to be comradely, but you seem hellbent on making that impossible.

Sure joint class struggle all over the North American continent and indeed worldwide by workers from different nations is desirable. But opposing Quebec independence, and even at one point advocating voting no in one of the independence referendums in an atmosphere of vicious anti-French chauvinism in English Canada and with the pro independence party in Quebec usually the main Quebec political party, is exactly backhanded capitulation to anti-French chauvinism.

The biggest event in Quebecois history was when Trudeau sent the troops in and declared martial law in to suppress worker strikes and make it clear that any attempt at Quebec independence would be suppressed by force. It became clear not long after that that one had to support Quebec independence exactly to *make possible* joint class struggle and clear the air from national conflict, just like Lenin, correctly, supported Norwegian independence from Sweden. As a result of said independence, the unity of the working classes of Scandinavia was increased, not hampered.

What determines whether or not Leninists advocate indepedence for a particular oppressed nation is not whether there exists a certain level of chauvinism against that nation by the oppressor nation nor whether or not particular nationalist parties are popular among that nation's population. If the reason to advocate Quebec independence is to allow joint class struggle to become possible once again between the two nations' workers, then that would mean that national conflict between Quebecois workers and English Canadian workers has erased the possibility of joint class struggle, that joint class struggle cannot occur. The Bolshevik Tendency argues it has occurred and is still very possible. I think they give a good job of presenting their position here in a debate with the Trotskyist League.