which affiliation is yours

CWI for me too.

I think the IMT has a more correct perspective than the CWI and that has manifested itself with the gains of the IMT in revolutionary or pre-revolutionary situations such as in Venezuela and Pakistan.

Like what?

Like working in the PPP and through that building a party of thousands and certainly being the most influencial group there thanks to our correct tactics.

I wonder how much longer the PPP will have mass support with their backstabbing attitude they have towards the concrete class struggle.

Also having the correct attitude to the Bolivarian Revolution and through that being the most influential Trotskyist group in Venezuela with widespread support and hundreds of activists.

"The correct attitude" being uncritical support of Chavez's policies and trying to maneuvre yourself into an "advisory role" towards him? Please

So clearly we beat you!

Yeah, because this is a petty game and whoever scores more points, wins...

If you succeed at building independent working class organizations, only then will I admit the IMT is "correct".

I'm CWI. I wasn't aware you were in the CWI Holden.

None at the moment. But I'm working towards joining the IMT.

I suppose I'm ideologically affiliated to the CWI, they're the best of what's around, to quote a Dave Matthews song.

I suppose I'm ideologically affiliated to the CWI, they're the best of what's around, to quote a Dave Matthews song.

And you should really become active again, we need you

IMT

"The correct attitude" being uncritical support of Chavez's policies and trying to maneuvre yourself into an "advisory role" towards him? Please

Christ... Sorry but a lie doesn't become truth when repeated enough. Furthermore I think a tendency who seems to be totally abscent in the important fight against reformists and 5. colomnists in Venezuela should be a bit more humble. I know it's easy to say "well they are all reformists, we must build a new party", however if it was so easy I don't think the left would be in the situation it is in now. PSUV youth is an exellent example of why not to isolate oneselves http://www.marxist.com/venezuela-psu...h-congress.htm

the best of what's around, to quote a Dave Matthews song

WTF, never quote Dave Matthews!

That's middle management blues crap.

BTW, Teis, we have been active with PSUV in Venezuela and they claimed that we were CIA and threatened us. Apparently being critical is frowned upon by bureaucracy.

I wonder how much longer the PPP will have mass support with their backstabbing attitude they have towards the concrete class struggle.

Anyone who studies the tradition of the Militant tendency will understand that they always took a flexible attitude so that they stood with the masses against the labour leadership when they turned around and took a "backstabbing attitude". During the right-wing Wilson government they remained linked to the labour party and the young socialists. The sectarians all laughed and declared from on high that the Labour Party was dead.

The trouble with sectarians is they are scared of bureaucracy. Case in point: the PPP. Flexible tactics inside and around the workers' parties. Every sectarian group thinks it has discovered something new when they see that the leaders of workers organisations betray the rank and file.

The IMT has recognised the fact that the bourgeoisie is now using the PPP to do its dirty work and then discredit it. That is why they are concentrating on open work. Such as this:
http://www.marxist.com/pakistan-rall...mperialism.htm

The IMT's attitude towards the PPP several months ago is very different to their attitude today and rightly so. The CWI is wrong. Simply put, nothing has changed in the workers organisations. They always swung to the left and right. The working class always adheres to them only to have their illusions shattered by events. The CWI only knows how to condemn the working class for its mistakes.

The correct attitude" being uncritical support of Chavez's policies and trying to maneuvre yourself into an "advisory role" towards him? Please

Q-collective, that is a lie and it's a pretty disgraceful lie at that. Read some criticisms of Chavez's programme. You've obviously not been to marxist.com so I've done you the service of picking out some bits to save you the exertion:

We therefore welcome the nationalisation of the Banco de Venezuela as a step forward. But the main objective has not been yet attained: the elimination of the economic power of the oligarchy and the establishment of a real socialist workers' state.

We naturally support every progressive reform and every nationalization. But partial reforms cannot solve anything fundamental. Partial nationalizations will lead make it impossible for the market economy to function, without putting anything in its place. It will lead to shortages, a decline in investment, inflation and unemployment. This is already happening.

But if President Chavez and other leading figures of the Venezuelan revolution go beyond the necessary politeness of diplomacy and trade deals, and in some way give "revolutionary" credentials to the Islamic clerics, then Iranian workers will see this as an endorsement of the hated regime they are fighting against and a dismissal of their yearnings for justice and a decent standard of living. This would only serve to undermine the support for the Venezuelan revolution inside Iran, support which as the Bolivarian revolution advances will become more and more necessary.

The reason it's a disgrace is because comrades of the IMT have been involved in struggling for nationalisation, leading the factory occupations, have been intervening heroically in the PSUV youth, have been spreading the ideas of marxism on a massive scale (see Alan's book launch), on the campuses, in the factories. To reduce all this to "maneuvring into an advisory role"? You ought to learn to be a little more humble.

Because cliffites don't have much to laugh at these days after their political project disintegrated?

"Not all that active" is a huge understatement in my case.

I could have sworn I had more than 15 posts though!!

I prefer spend my time being active in real life. With school, work and occasionally having a bit of a social life, that really doesn't leave many hours in the day for discussion boards.

Random Precision, if your really in the IST/SWP I find your latest comment to be quite a gem of the best humour on this board in a very very long time

Hmm I would have thought, some in the same tradition though I suppose, splits and such.

Teis,

Yea, the IST minority section in the US became Left Turn, which then dropped socialist pretenses and now is just a "anti-capitalist" volunteer magazine of the same name.

The majority became the International Socialist Organization, which just parrots the British SWP line even though they are not affliated.

The best part is both organizations said they were more left-wing when they split.

Thanks for clearing that up

Its a bit of a stupid poll, seemingly out to draw the battlelines in the RevLeft Trotskyist's and their CWI Vs IMT turf war - there ar eso many more tendencies than just these two.

I'm a member of the IST.

In my opinion only the IMT and CWI uphold the genuine traditions of socialism , while the CWI has derailed to ultra leftism it still remains closer to trotskyism than all the other tendencies.

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.