which affiliation is yours

Ok I understand that the shift was not really a big theoretical thing in your eyes, I at least appreciate that.

The fact of the matter is that workers will look to the Tories at best and the BNP at worst unless there is a left alternative which what the SP helping to try and build. Yes it's going to take a long time and yes it's going to be difficult. But thats much better than hiding away in the Labour party dreaming of days gone by and ones that are never going to come.

It's a good point that you make in the beginning, yes the workers then just vote BNP or Tories.
However I don't understand your reasoning that to change this we need a new Labour, that is build the Labour Party one time again. Which would mean that you would have to take the exactly same fights again and again, btw it seems your list doesn't grow?
As we wrote in the minority document, before at one point conviently edited out "our tactic is not set in stone". However we have always said in IMT that "the workers will first and foremost move through their traditional parties", what path that takes tactically is another matter, however it never leads us to make absurd judgements about the dead of this or that party.
Now the funnhy thing is that you for one claim that the link between the unions and Labour are of no importance while as far as I can tell from your campaing your most important goal is to disaffiliate the unions from Labour and make them join your "campaign"? How does that match?

And workers are not going to flood back into the party as a result of capitalisms latest crisis because the Labour government are the ones who have made so Britian is going to be one of the hardist hit.

Why so? Historically that doesn't really match up, neither in Britain or other places, I mean Labour was in charge when the "oil crisis" hit and the same about fault could be said considering Ramsay MacDonald and the great depression.

Anyway as dialectical materialist im quite open, and never makes ending judgemetns like "this party is dead" you should take some of that up.

Btw any response to some of the earlier posts will have to wait, im too busy with new work these days, I hope to be able to discuss again soon

I'm not yet officially a member of any group yet(i'm kinda isolated), but i'm definitely an IMT sympathizer. I'm going to join once I move closer to an active branch.

I generally agree with the IMT's 'line'.

In Ireland in particular our ideas that the working class will put on trial their organization and they would try to transform them is nowadays is really happening, with the working class are moving towards the labour, it wouldn't be strange tha CWI and other changes their ideas and try to work inside the labour, although this would cause a lot of problem inside their organizations, because it is the opposite what they put forward during years, and they haven't educated their member for these circumstances, but this has happened before and will happen again ,because they are empricist and they don't understand how the working class enter in the politica arena, and you will see with your own eyes in the next future

Labour in Ireland has an autocratic ex-Worker's Party/Official IRA leadership. Scum.

The question is not whether the Labour ,socialist or comunist parties, i.e the traditional organization can be reformed or not, the point is to understand that the working class which normally don't partcipate in politics, when in priods of crisis , the working class start to participate in politics they start in the union and then in traditional organizations, during this period of crisis this orgnaization suffer crisis and splits, and the marxist should be in these organization to connect with these workers who are starting to question the system. there are many example in histroy, for example in Spain , in the happy 20, there was a soft dictatorship, a leader of the socialist party was a memmber of this government, he was very right wing and this same leader Largo Caballero was the leader of left wing in PSOE, he was called Spanish Lenin , although he was a centrist, The Young socialist with more than 100.000 member asked Andres Nin the leader of POUM (psudotroskist group) to join the party, but They refused because they said PSOE was a bourgoise party and so on, later the Young socialist joined the stalinist

Well, yeah but this brings us back to something else quite important when understanding the situation. Does modern day socialdemocracy have the same basesupport and classbase as that of the PSOE of the 1930's, to take your example?

CWI and proud of it and all thou i disagree with the IMT on some issue i will proudly stand side by side with any marxist we have serious differences but we are comrades first

Obviously they have even more support because in the 30 there were certain bourgoise parties which were part of the Popular Front,and now the socialist party wins election on its own and it's without doubt the strongest working class organization, they have strong link with UGT , although they are not affiliated PSOE, in Britain Unions are even stronger linked., another difference with the 30's is that time there was an anarquist union CNT was the biggest union,now the largest union is CCOO, this union used to be controlled by the comunist party, but not anymore, now the leaders are pro PSOE,but this situation will change because inevitably in this new period the union will have to figth back and a General Strike will be in the agenda sooner than later and the union wiil move to the left

Bourguise parties with control over the unions is hardly something new though or something that would make them less bourguise. Here in sweden for example the greatest blocking against struggling democratic unions is the strong conenction to the socialdemocracy that the union beurocracy has. The solution, of course, would be to kick the beurocracts out and at the same time form a gneuine independent workingclass party. for while the socdems hold control over the beurocrats whatever support they have on the floor is simply a result of a lack of alternatives.

Workers' International League - IMT

Workers' International League - IMT

Wait a minute, I thought you were CWI. Did I sway your opinion?

Yeah, what's with that?

Yeah, what's with that?

You still got me Q

You still got me Q

That's true

Also, the new CWI forum just saw the light of day. If you're interested, join now!

Also, the new CWI forum just saw the light of day. If you're interested, join now!

I'm already a member although I haven't been on for a few days.

The forum is for the moment down sadly.

My main problem with the IMT is that it is reformist.

How is the IMT "reformist"?

Could you please explain why recognising the fact that old labour is a fully bourgeois party that is no longer seen by workers as "their" party is ultra-leftist? Just repeating the word doesn't make it true or anything. And you're certainly the first one claiming it that I come across.

But that's just Britain, not all IMT comrades work within social-democratic parties. Trying to create a 'revolutionary party', isolated from the workers movement, is 'ultra-leftist'.

But that's just Britain, not all IMT comrades work within social-democratic parties. Trying to create a 'revolutionary party', isolated from the workers movement, is 'ultra-leftist'.

The problem is that you didn't provide the answer to the question whether or not the CWI "tries to create a 'revolutionary party' isolated from the workers movement".

What Rakunin said. The CWI isn't doing independent work everywhere, but adopt a flexible approach according to the circumstances. For example we work inside the SP (Netherlands), Die Linke (Germany), SYRIZA (Greece), PSUV (Venezuela), PSOL (Brazil), NPA (France), to name a few. And where we do open work, mostly due to the lack of a workers party, we call for the broadest possible unity. In the UK we participate in No2EU and in Belgium we have a united election list with, among others, the LCR (USFI), to name just two examples in the Euro elections.

So, what ultra-leftism?

The problem is that you didn't provide the answer to the question whether or not the CWI "tries to create a 'revolutionary party' isolated from the workers movement".

The CWI isn't doing independent work everywhere, but adopt a flexible approach according to the circumstances. For example we work inside the SP (Netherlands), Die Linke (Germany), SYRIZA (Greece), PSUV (Venezuela), PSOL (Brazil), NPA (France), to name a few. And where we do open work, mostly due to the lack of a workers party, we call for the broadest possible unity. In the UK we participate in No2EU and in Belgium we have a united election list with, among others, the LCR (USFI), to name just two examples in the Euro elections.

So, what ultra-leftism?

Perhaps I didn't phrase that particularly well. I obviously don't believe it is the intention of the CWI to isolate itself from the workers movement but rather that this is an inevitable outcome from creating a small, 'revolutionary' political party with no mass membership or support. To me that is ultra-leftist. I even think the CWI recognises this to some extent by having "cadre parties" that still have to work within mass organisations such as trade unions and broad fronts on various issues, and I think they may well return to the IMT's position on mass political parties in the struggles ahead.

P.S. I wish Joe Higgins, Irish CWI candidate for the European parliament, all the best this Friday!

Perhaps I didn't phrase that particularly well. I obviously don't believe it is the intention of the CWI to isolate itself from the workers movement but rather that this is an inevitable outcome from creating a small, 'revolutionary' political party with no mass membership or support. To me that is ultra-leftist. I even think the CWI recognises this to some extent by having "cadre parties" that still have to work within mass organisations such as trade unions and broad fronts on various issues, and I think they may well return to the IMT's position on mass political parties in the struggles ahead.

So, you're then questioning the need for separate revolutionary organisations? Do we all have to dissolve ourselves in big mass parties? The IMT doesn't hold that line as they also have separate organisations. So, your point eludes me.

So, you're then questioning the need for separate revolutionary organisations?

No, just 'revolutionary parties' that attempt to compete with mass political parties.

The IMT doesn't hold that line as they also have separate organisations. So, your point eludes me.

My point is that there is no basis at this point in time for building an alternative to Labour/any social-democratic or large 'communist' party. Given a revolutionary situation where the majority of the workers within said organisations become disillusioned with their reformist leaderships then, and only then, should Marxists break away or (if they're in a position to) take the reins from the reformist right. That's just my opinion. I also think CWI and the IMT should be one organisation. I don't see why people couldn't work within Labour etc. if they want while others work on establishing another party.

No, just 'revolutionary parties' that attempt to compete with mass political parties.

A few posts back I refuted this and made it clear that where large activist parties exist, we're active in them.

My point is that there is no basis at this point in time for building an alternative to Labour/any social-democratic or large 'communist' party. Given a revolutionary situation where the majority of the workers within said organisations become disillusioned with their reformist leaderships then, and only then, should Marxists break away or (if they're in a position to) take the reins from the reformist right. That's just my opinion.

Point is that the old workers parties have, without exception, progressively collapsed in the last twenty years or so. Activists have since long turned their backs on these parties, enabling the bureaucracies of these parties to have an unchallenged move towards the right.

I also think CWI and the IMT should be one organisation. I don't see why people couldn't work within Labour etc. if they want while others work on establishing another party.

I agree. Principled unity is the key word here. Where we can disagree on tactics, strategy or even theory - principles should stand as a binding factor to all communists. Especially between the IMT and CWI which are in all but semantics identical.

A few posts back I refuted this and made it clear that where large activist parties exist, we're active in them.

Fair enough.

Point is that the old workers parties have, without exception, progressively collapsed in the last twenty years or so. Activists have since long turned their backs on these parties, enabling the bureaucracies of these parties to have an unchallenged move towards the right.

But they were always dominated by the right, even when implementing "left-wing policies", such as in the United Kingdom at various points throughout the latter half of the 20th century.

I agree. Principled unity is the key word here. Where we can disagree on tactics, strategy or even theory - principles should stand as a binding factor to all communists. Especially between the IMT and CWI which are in all but semantics identical.

Of course it would have to be on a principled basis. I actually think these are the sort of differences that ought to exist between comrades and that it would strengthen our movement; lending it more diversity and flexibility in strategy and tactics. I personally would be opposed to unity with the SWP though, the way things stand at present.

But they were always dominated by the right, even when implementing "left-wing policies", such as in the United Kingdom at various points throughout the latter half of the 20th century.

While that is certainly true, it is beside the point. The reason entryism was first proposed by Trotsky was to reach out to the activists, to build strong communist organisations. Now that the old workers parties are devoid of activists or any inner party life for that matter, entryism has become a pointless waste of time and energy.

Of course it would have to be on a principled basis. I actually think these are the sort of differences that ought to exist between comrades and that it would strengthen our movement; lending it more diversity and flexibility in strategy and tactics. I personally would be opposed to unity with the SWP though, the way things stand at present.

Differences will always exist and being able to cope with them within an organisation is a clear sign of a healthy party democracy.

While that is certainly true, it is beside the point. The reason entryism was first proposed by Trotsky was to reach out to the activists, to build strong communist organisations. Now that the old workers parties are devoid of activists or any inner party life for that matter, entryism has become a pointless waste of time and energy.

That is certainly a gross simplification. There is quite important differences from country to country.
Also on the point of entrism I think you fail to use any of the lessons of Militant, which is a bit disturbing considering CWI still use that connection as propaganda when it suits them. Labour in the 50'ies when Militant started entrism was actually largely devoid of activity. That some parties are devoid of activity at a given point doesn't neccessarily mean that this will always be so.
At those times we should use time on independent activity instead of trying to build new labour parties that falls into obscurity when the mass of the class start to move.

P.S. I wish Joe Higgins, Irish CWI candidate for the European parliament, all the best this Friday!

http://www.joehiggins.eu/2009/06/vid...ictory-speech/

Also, I am bit too drunk to debate right now, but ithink basicly your view, and most IMt members view, of CWi is basicly a misrepresentation.

http://www.joehiggins.eu/2009/06/vid...ictory-speech/

Also, I am bit too drunk to debate right now, but ithink basicly your view, and most IMt members view, of CWi is basicly a misrepresentation.

While undoubtedly an impressive and heartening victory; one MEP will achieve little. The Socialist Party has made relatively significant gains over the past decade or so in Ireland but beyond Joe Higgins' individual success it has failed to harness mass working class support. The swing to the left by many workers and poor people has been soaked up by Labour, squeezing out Sinn Féin. Unless effective opposition to Labour's right-wing leadership can be mounted they will lead these workers and poor people straight into a Fine Gael-led coalition government, with inevitably disastrous results for all concerned.