which affiliation is yours

The IST has degenerated I think and the are not part of the trotskyist camp anymore.

Jeez, thats pretty bold to say without any substantial evidence.

I am a member of Imt from 14 year I met Peter Taff, Ted Grant , I went to the one of the rally of the 80, well Iam still amazed for the fact the there are some peopel still agree with CWI, but i I repect all comrade who fight against capitalism although I think they are utterly wrong

I am a member of Imt from 14 year I met Peter Taff, Ted Grant , I went to the one of the rally of the 80, well Iam still amazed for the fact the there are some peopel still agree with CWI, but i I repect all comrade who fight against capitalism although I think they are utterly wrong

Why does that amaze you, exactly?

Because when they split we had the debate they firmly believed that the only problem for growing leaps and bounds as they said in their document was our difficulty to appear as an independent organization , at this stage they didn't want to appear as an independent party and at the beginning I thought maybe they would get something because I remember the facilities , the number of full timer , but everything that we built was demolished , so if you know our history, we with our limited resources and with our difficultiess, we grew,we recruited new member, we had a new center and we have helped to develop the international in America, and Africa , but although in number and especially in quality we are stronger we still have a hard work to do I think you chose the wrong way, comrade

so I mean we grew and we are growing , and we bought and we have a new center and our comrades are helping to developt the organization in south America , I should check my text before sending it ,

Has anybody here done actually any political work in the REAL world?

CWI ... eh ... cake

Officially, no international affiliation. Though with my membership in Solidarity, I'm quasi-affiliated with the USFI. That's also where much of my sympathies lie (though I'm interested in the CRFI, CWI, and the Freedom Socialist Party as well.)

Jeez, thats pretty bold to say without any substantial evidence.

Considering the actions of the swp of late ... its not that irrational really...

However a certain growth in revolutionary situations are at least a part of what confirms a correct perspective.

What do you mean by in line? The statement is vague to say the least.
We have stood side by side with the workers and youth in their struggle against the right carrerists, that's how you win support. It's actually quite simple indeed, and basic abc from a marxist standpoint. With the great thirst for revolutionary ideas in Venezuela, I think that it's nothing short of treason for any proclaimed socialist/communist what ever, not to be involved.

How strong is the IMT in Venezuela actually?

The IMT's approach is highly dogmatic, they don't understand that entryism is a tactic NOT a principle. Venezuela in fact is a quite good example of how the CWI's approach is superior, the IMT is allowed to operate in the PSUV because it uncritical of Chavez's leadership. CWI however, while supporting the Bolivarian revolution does make criticisms of the leadership for the top down approach to the revolution, the growing personality cult around Chavez and lack of focus on organzing and sometimes outright suspision of independant working class activity. This why despite the best efforts of our comrades in Venezuela to intervene in the building of the revolutionary movement, thay have been bureaucratically prevented from joining the party.
The approach of the IMT in Britian is quite frankley insane. They still work within the "Labour" party, where there is no hope of gaining any influence anymore as all the democratic apparatus that the left could once use to gain influence and try to put pressure on the leadership has been destroyed, it's a lost cause. The IMT still believes that just because the unions are still afiliated and that working class people vote for Labour that it can somehow be won back for the working class. As a result the IMT is invisible in Britain. They are in fact like the rest of the Labour left an obstsacle to building a new organization to represent the interests of w/c people, they are obviously comfortable where they are and their propaganda is aimed at keeping people waiting for a day that will never come.
Contrast this to the flexible approach of the CWI, in some countries like Britain and Sweeden we have realized that the organizations that w/c people once looked to have become dead ends and set about trying build new ones. In other places this is already started to pay off as in Greece with the growth of Syriza or Germany with Die Links. The IMT is still clinging to the old orgaizations that have degenerated beyond recovery and as a result their material is out dated and reads like a flash back to the Militant Tendency in a time gone by.
Thats why I joined the Socialist Party and not Socialist Appeal.

Has anybody here done actually any political work in the REAL world?

Yes. There is a reason why I am not often on this website so much, afterall.

I am a member of the IMT, and I will continue to remain loyal to it. Sectarians rant and rave about us due to our growth and successes. In spite of Taaffe's claim that depicted us fading into oblivion after the split, we continue to grow. The CWI on the other hand never grew by leaps and bounds after the split. The "Red 90's" were nothing more than a myth.

The IMT realized that there was a revolution going on in Venezuela when the vast majority of the left continued to deny that one was happening. The sectarians had to play a catch up game in regards to Venezuela and still refuse to go where the workers can be found. They also raise strawman arguments that depict us as taking entrism to be a principle (it isn't.) and uncritically supporting Chavez (also proven to be false.).

We have also had fusions with other left groups in recent times. That is far different than the typical splits that the sects experience (as Ted Grant always pointed out, the sectarians are very lucky at splits and unlucky at fusions.).

I like the CWI far more than the other non-IMT groups out there, but we still have obvious differences. I also think that the CWI should do more to strengthen the theoretical levels of their members, particularly their youth.

Again, the sects make a bunch of noise about us due to our successes. If we were such an epic failure as they say, they would not be spending so much time attacking us.

They are in fact like the rest of the Labour left an obstsacle to building a new organization to represent the interests of w/c people, they are obviously comfortable where they are and their propaganda is aimed at keeping people waiting for a day that will never come.

Hehe, the emergence of a Labour left is an objective fact - you might as well say that the objective situation in Britain is a barrier to the building of "a new organisation to represent the interests of working class people". You weren't far wrong though, the existence of Labour itself is a barrier to the emergence of a "new workers' party". It's incredible language that you are using. It would never even occur to the old trotskyists like Ted Grant to call left Labour workers an "obstacle" even when they had an open party! It's pure madness because these are people you should really be reaching out to.

Contrast this to the flexible approach of the CWI, in some countries like Britain and Sweeden we have realized that the organizations that w/c people once looked to have become dead ends and set about trying build new ones.

In regards to Sweden I don't think you can use that as any form of "succes", a few councilor seats and 1097 "votes for socialism" in the general election. Were the fuck's the perspective in that? Meanwhile the old communist party called the Left party got 324,722 votes, and from what I have seen in Sweden seems to be a big pole of atraction for the youth. So why are you still clinging to the dogma of a "pure indpendent party"?

the IMT is allowed to operate in the PSUV because it uncritical of Chavez's leadership.

You know a lie doesn't become true when repeated often enough by a wide array of parrots.

Btw Paul.
How can you compare Germany were Die Linke was born out of struggles and splits in the traditional workers parties, wich is well in tune with IMT's approach.
With your work in Britain were you supposedly want to build "the new workers party" (a new Labour?) through a petition campaign. Or with your work in Sweden which I dealt with before?

I think the difference is quite clear

As being a member of the swedish section of the CWI I think I can answer some of the claims Teis has made. We did run for parliament last election, but, correctly I believe, most of our focus was on the local councils. And the last election can indeed be considered a success, which by number of councillors makes us the largst party to the left of parliament. What also must be said, overall our main focus is not electroal, but activist. This could be examplified by the fact that, i might be slightly biased here, our most active and succesfull branches are in gothenburg and the west of sweden, where we have no electoral representation. this also ties in as in regards to the left party, who are in many ways "empty". We, as a small cadre-organisation have more active members than their youth section, which typically is the more activist, have in all of gothenburg. they are purely focused on electoral representation and have no concept of building anything outside of that arena. Another fact that needs to be remembered, and is why the CWI in our entryist period never put much focus on The left party, is that a majoirty of their memebership does not come from the workingclass, but rather the middleclass and intelectuals. they have, by their own admission, a very weak representation in the unions and always has had. This is not to say that the left party could never play an important role, but their last election result which was a significant drop from 2002 is a result of them being a left alibi to the social democrats. Something that has not changed with the recent "red-green" electoral alliance, where the left party for the first time ever has entered a formal alliance with the greens and the social democrats, this at a time where they potentially could have, instead, taken a shift to the left and become the start of a real opposition. Working in the left party (or the social democrats) as the IMT does today in sweden serves no purpose. Indeed it has been our main strength that we do not, it is on this basis we have had popular campaigns, in the ninties our youth and students organizion organized protests of 40 000 outside of the parliament, and also played a major role in the anti-war movement around iraq and afghanistan. We can openly oppose both the left party and the social democrats.
I for my part do not think the Open Turn was a change of policy but a continuation of the same tradition in a changed political enviorment after the fall of the Soviet Bloc.

Also, in regards to germany, from what I understand the IMT are still working inside the social democrats, no?

"Also, in regards to germany, from what I understand the IMT are still working inside the social democrats, no?"

No that would be in Die Linke for the most part.

I have to say I don't really think "council-socialism" matters much in the big picture unless of course it would be along the lines of the Militant work in Liverpool and I don't really get the impression thats what's happening south of Stockholm?

However im no expert on Sweden at ESF however it was pretty clear that the left party youth was what attracted most young swedes in the demo.

"Something that has not changed with the recent "red-green" electoral alliance, where the left party for the first time ever has entered a formal alliance with the greens and the social democrats, this at a time where they potentially could have, instead, taken a shift to the left and become the start of a real opposition."

A good point, we see some of the same in Denmark with the Socialists Peoples Party. How is this turn however going to be countered if the opposition folds and split, and other left forces keep to themselves and their own much smaller groupings and "workers parties"? Are the Socialist Justice Party becoming the new big party? You don't even have national presense and are unlikely to get so.

So how is Die Linke (or Enhedslisten) a "traditional massorganisation"?

Well I would say we have a solid base of support in the nnorth of sweden, particulary Umeå and Luleå, our council mebers are merly a result of this base support. So I wouldn't say we have a "council-socialist" approach, as you term it. It is merely another platform for our extraparlimientary work.

Well, first i have to say we do not claim to be the new worker's party ourselfes. Even in countries where we have a relatively significant presence "as ourselfes", so to speak, like Ireland or Sri Lanka, we are still striving to build a broader massorganisation. A new worker's party. Mostly we strive to work through alliances or larger organizations, like SYRIZA, in greece or die linke in germany. In sweden we are one of the leading groups the the september alliance, a leftwing network that demonstrates every year outide of parliament, against the rightwing politics. Hopefully we will be able to create a genuine leftlist for the EU-election through this network. The swedish USFI section has responded positively at least.

When it comes to organizations, such as the Left party, it's not just a matter of how many papermembers they have or how many votes they recieve but in which direction they are heading, and most importantly what base and potential there exists the create a marxist opposition within such an organization. As I said before in regards to the Left partys class character no real such base exist. As such, would oru organization enter into the left party today, with an open marxist profile, not only would we be burdened by their political mistakes but also we would most likely get excluded. Given the lack of active members at baselevel it is very much a top-down organisation.

So how is Die Linke (or Enhedslisten) a "traditional massorganisation"?


I think it's pretty obvious that there is differences between Die Linke and a small group proclaiming a party.
Die Linke has traditions in PDS and the left of the Social Democratic Party, so it's not magically appeared out of a petition campaign to start a Labour mark 2 as seems to be your British comrades goals.
Enhedslisten has traditions from the old communist party and a party called venstre socialisterne and some of it's succes are derived from that, however im my oppinion it sometimes seems to go more and more in the direction of a charity party without any socialist plans behind it's policies but that's a whole nother discussion.

I think part of the difference between IMT and CWI is that you for one think you can skip alot of hard work and make "the new workers party" appear somewhat magically. I don't contest that new parties can be formed that will draw the workers to them or have the potential to. But that will happen after events in the larger workers parties. Parties that hasn't died even though CWI proclaims it time and time again.

I think CWI policies in Germany is way more sound than your policy other places, however it is major flip flop from back in the 90'ies were CWI seemed to think they would be the only force building that party.
Sometimes it seems CWI tend to forget that you aren't an independent factor in history in this point. Even Militant Labour as you called yourself after the split couldn't be that despite it being bigger than any section you have now.

Well, for starters, it's not Labour part two we're after, and secondly, again we are not ourselfes proclaiming to be "the new worker's party". We are a cadre organization so one of our aims is of course to strengthen our own organization, but the other, and most important, is to build a new worker's party. And as you said yourself this is not something that magically springs up out of nowhere. The Campaign For A New Worker's party in England and Wales is such groundwork, and it is, might I add more than just a petition. http://campaignforanewworkersparty.blogspot.com/
And further more, I think it has far more potential of achieving something than working within New labour, at this point. http://www.marxist.net/openturn/index.html
Died? No. been emptied of their classbase? very much so. I will reference the social democrats as it is the party I am most familiar with. currently the average age of an active member in the socialdemocrats is 60 years, though still the largest party predictions has been made that if the party keep losing membership at this rate in 20 years time it will be no more. And these are not predictions made by us but by the daily press.

Well, I would disagree to that. It is quite obvious if you look at documents from the time. Take, for example Rifondazione Communista which we sought to work within, whereas the Woods-Grant-group couldn't see beyond the Democratic Party.

We have always been ready to collaborate with other groups, in order to create a nucleas for a new massparty with a socialist programme. I suggest you look at our work in PSOL in Brazil, in SYRIZA in Greece and so on. So I think, the diffrence between our two groups is primarily our understanding of what effect the fall of stalinism had on the old worker's parties (indeed your group didn't reconcile to the fact that Russia had reurned to capitalism until 1997). I've had members of Socialist Appeal honestly tell me that there is no fundamental diffrence between Labour of today and the Labour of the 1970's. And even there your group seem to be wavering, without much theoretical explanation. it is welcome of course, that you've seemed to, out of necessity I suppose, moved away from some your dogmatism. I think I've said it before but when the new organizations take form even the IMT might catch on.

Let me start with the old old myth you put forward here:

Well, I would disagree to that. It is quite obvious if you look at documents from the time. Take, for example Rifondazione Communista which we sought to work within, whereas the Woods-Grant-group couldn't see beyond the Democratic Party.

When the PRC was formed it is not true that we "couldn't see beyond the democratic party". Falce Martello attended all it's rallies and meetings, that is they did actual work. But yes they didn't throw all their forces in as their was a significant left in the Democratic Party, and the italian comrades didn't buy your comrades arguments that orientating to it at that point would make it possible to recruit thousands. Btw this overexaggeration is quite a trend in CWI as we also saw with the whole "strenght to strenght" talk in the 90'ies. When the left of PDS later left and joined PRC, Falce Martello of course concentrated all of it's forces on PRC. This however doesn't mean we feel the need to declare all the other workers parties dead and "bourgious", since we understand that the workers will first move through their traditional parties, I think that's the main difference between CWI and IMT. We don't confuse tactics with principles, as CWI's constant saying this or that is now dead and "bourgious" suggest your group does.

Now working in a party such as PRC doesn't mean that one should disregard all the workers not voting or being in that party. That however seem to be generally the line of CWI as your comrade paulc so elegantly illustrates earlier in the discussion, were the labour left are an "obstacle", I guess then that the workers voting Labour are also an obstacle or what? Now I know it's not good tone to use a lone post on a forum as an argument, and were it not that I heard these arguments time and time again I wouldn't have used it.

Died? No. been emptied of their classbase? very much so. I will reference the social democrats as it is the party I am most familiar with. currently the average age of an active member in the socialdemocrats is 60 years, though still the largest party predictions has been made that if the party keep losing membership at this rate in 20 years time it will be no more. And these are not predictions made by us but by the daily press.

Well the point is valid in regards to were one should do active work. However everytime the social democratic party goes just slightly left, both Denmark and Sweden, it get's renewed support which shows that people still see it as a workers party dispite what your group might declare. Alot of the time most parties will be quite empty, since well average workers have a life to live. And these parties can swing back to life again. So I don't really think the correct position to take is to just declare them dead and declare the people looking to them as "obstacles". In low ebbs in the class struggle I think forces are better spend doing groundwork in the unions etc instead of embarking on some electorial adventure and "new party building".

We have always been ready to collaborate with other groups, in order to create a nucleas for a new massparty with a socialist programme. I suggest you look at our work in PSOL in Brazil, in SYRIZA in Greece and so on.

Im no expert on Greece. But yes of course one should do work in Syriza despite it's leadership being hopelessly reformist. But one must also orientate towards KKE as it is still by far the largest left party, the secterian nature of their leadership is of course a big obstacle. However it's quite interesting to notice that the recent riots have actually boosted PASOK much more than SYRIZA and KKE, which just shows that it is a big mistake to mistake the advanced layers of the working class with the working class as a whole, as I sometimes get the idea CWI does.
In regards to Brazil, the PT is still by far the largest workers party and have a quite big left. And I think the PSOL are and is a premature split, forces would be more wisely used on the ground like in the "occupied factories movement" were CWI for some reason are nowere to be found.

And even there your group seem to be wavering, without much theoretical explanation. it is welcome of course, that you've seemed to, out of necessity I suppose, moved away from some your dogmatism.

Sorry but it's hard to take serious from an organisation that never have cared to explain how the traditional workers parties were somewhat enmass and from what seems day to day transformed into bourgious parties in the 90'ies.

This however doesn't mean we feel the need to declare all the other workers parties dead and "bourgious", since we understand that the workers will first move through their traditional parties, I think that's the main difference between CWI and IMT. We don't confuse tactics with principles, as CWI's constant saying this or that is now dead and "bourgious" suggest your group does.

Now working in a party such as PRC doesn't mean that one should disregard all the workers not voting or being in that party. That however seem to be generally the line of CWI as your comrade paulc so elegantly illustrates earlier in the discussion, were the labour left are an "obstacle", I guess then that the workers voting Labour are also an obstacle or what? Now I know it's not good tone to use a lone post on a forum as an argument, and were it not that I heard these arguments time and time again I wouldn't have used it.

The labour left is only an obstacle in so far that remains within labour. As I have said, time and again, the crucial question here is classbase.
Let me pose this question to you, why does not the IMT group in America advocate work within the Democrats (as for example the socdem Democratic Socialists of America does)? After all there is a mass of worker's that have illusions in the Democrats, and all the major unions are affiliated to the democrats.

Well the point is valid in regards to were one should do active work. However everytime the social democratic party goes just slightly left, both Denmark and Sweden, it get's renewed support which shows that people still see it as a workers party dispite what your group might declare. Alot of the time most parties will be quite empty, since well average workers have a life to live. And these parties can swing back to life again. So I don't really think the correct position to take is to just declare them dead and declare the people looking to them as "obstacles". In low ebbs in the class struggle I think forces are better spend doing groundwork in the unions etc instead of embarking on some electorial adventure and "new party building".

Now, I am not all that familiar with denmark, but from what I understand the socdems there are to the right even of their swedish counterparts. And from what I gather in my daily activities we're certainly not out of touch with the idea of there needing to be a real worker's party. Indeed it has been debated whetever the socialdemocrats still belong on the leftside of the politicalspectrum. Quite recently a leftwing politicalpaper, usually supportive of the "left bloc" declared all parties in the riksdag bourguise, based on their budget propositions.
Support as in electoral support or as in active layers actually moving into the parties? As I am sure you know there's a crucial diffrence.
The building of a new party starts at the base, indeed the unions play a very important role, as it is in one of the areas where the bourguise character of the exworker's parties is most heavily felt. Taking part in elections gives us the option to publicly attack the ex-worker's parties. And to build something new. Now, as your organization have switched opinions on PRC and Die Linke, would you have rathered these organisations remained within the exworker's parties? this is not to say neither PRC nor Die Linke is "the" new worker's party, they both have their share of problems, with leaderships that are to the rightwing of the base and whatnot.

As for the KKE our organisations is actively campaigning for an electoral alliance with them (rather than PASOK, which, if nothing has changed recntly, your comrades still are a part of).
Well, comrade, it is with the advanced layers we build the nucleus of the mass party.
If the advanced layers are leaving PASOK, what does that tell you about PASOK (or any other socdem party for that matter)? Again, mass support does not translate into massaparticipation in the party.
Well, we're in the process of fusing with another tendency of PSOL that does hold some vital positions within both the landless movement and the unions. Our organisation, it is true has most of it's base on the universities currently, with support from students and teachers union. But you ought to bear in mind that our organization is still rather new in brazil.
The split in PT, which eventually resulted in PSOL was a result of the lack of possibility to build opposition within PT.
And by the way, the polls have shown serious support for PSOL in the coming presidential election, where'd PSOLs candidate as a worst scenario (depnding on which other parties and candidates are running) would end up forth, as best she would win.
So while there is still support for PT, the possibilities build a fighting socialist alternative are tremendous.

Well, then I in turn find it hard to take you seriously, because there's extensive material available on that particular issue. If you do not care for searching for them yourself I could go into it more extensively if you'd like.

Well, then I in turn find it hard to take you seriously, because there's extensive material available on that particular issue. If you do not care for searching for them yourself I could go into it more extensively if you'd like.

Sorry im in a bit of a rush, but just wanted to remark on this short quote.

Yes I read the documents about how terrible the leadership of Labour is, wich is quite frankly nothing more than alot of emotional statements on the terrible state of affairs.
Membership is at a low yes, so was it in the 60'ies. Yes the leadership is terribly rightwing, but that they have always been.
So I have yet to find a coherent marxist analysis of the qualitative change and when it happened. Bear in mind Militant worked in Labour for 40 years and the exactly same arguments was used against them, the low membership and so on and so forth.

Wich is why I reached the conclusion that it is a question of CWI changing tactics, militant labour - SP and then changeing statements and analysis accordingly to fit what ever change that have taken place in tactics. Rather than the change of tactics being based on an extensive and coherent analysis as one of course should

Well, most observers would agree that there was a sharp shift to the right in the socialdemocratic and "communist" parties after 1991. This has also been coupled with all-time lows in membership numbers and activity. Not only that but, the mood among the workers, even those who vote for the socialdemocrats (or Labour) is that it is no longer "their" party. This enabled the rightwing election victory in 06 in sweden for example. As Paulc has remarked, the entryist tactic was never a dogma for CWI, well, most of the CWI. Now, sure the labour and socdem parties has always had more or less rightwing leadership, but unlike when USFI claimed so in 70's, there is an actual emptying of parties. A qualitative change has occured. And it is true that even withinn the CWI it took some time to fully adapt to this change of affairs.
Anyways, I look forward to the rest of your response.
Comradely

Teis
The CNWP, is not just a petition campiagn, it is a campiagn aimed at networking with other left organizations, parties and w/c peope. You're talking here as though the Labour party itself still has any kind of w/c base, I mean really, what planet do you live on?. The unions are still affiliated to Labour but you don't have to be in the party to be in the unions so work in the unions is still of vital importance, thats where you have to go now to in over workers and the aim any way should be to get them to disafiliate like the RMT,PCS and FBU and start a party that will really represent workers. Working in Labour is absolutly pointless because A. they've made so that anyone aspousing revolutionary socialism gets expelled so you basically have hide the fact you're a trotskyist and b. there are no workers left to win over. The Labour party is a completely different creature to what it was 20,30,40 years ago,you don't need to be some kind of theoretical genius to see that and if you deny it you're either thick, mad or both. 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. 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.