Orthodox Trotskyist groups and parties

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.

...

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.

I agree with the sentiment that Spectre of Spartacism is making here. I care more for issues of program than for seemingly apolitical personal issues, dating back decades before I was even born, that occurred between what are now 80 year old, inactive men. It's irrelevant to what Spectre of Spartacism, Emmet Till, or Fourth Internationalist thinks are programmatically correct positions for Trotskyists to uphold today.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So now Logan, erstwhile longtime lider maximo of the IBT is irrelevant? Ha, maybe a split is brewing.

Last I heard, unlike Cannon Bill Logan is still alive, kicking, and leading what I suppose in sheer numbers is at least a third of the IBT. Indeed, the only "IBT section" whose membership can't be fit into a phonebooth. Saying he is "irrelevant" is about like saying talking about "comrade Delta" is irrelevant when talking about the British SWP.

Actually, I have to take that back, as "Delta" has been out of the SWP for years now, and, much more importantly, it's (a) still not quite clear what exactly he did and (b) even if everything he's been charged with is 100% accurate, the things Logan did were far, far worse,

You say the forum here is disinterested. Maybe they are, but I am interested, because number one, those sort of crimes that were committed by Logan need punishment and two, I have personally had all too much contact with the IBT in my experiences. So yes, I have a bug up my butt about you jerks.

And PS, it's quite typical that you think it was important to criticize SYRIZA when that was idle entertainment with no possibility of real effect, but now that SYRIZA is discredited and people in Greece just might be looking for better alternatives, and the world left is wondering for the first time in a while if maybe something more radical than tailing things like SYRIZA is called for, your organization yawns and posts what amounts to trivia on your website. Insofar as your group is anything other than an anti-Spartacist group, something written all over your website, it's an insular discussion circle happier posting on the website than ever doing much. Even on Corbyn right under the IBT's nose (who knows, maybe the IBT British group couldn't quite all squeeze into one phonebooth) frankly the IBT took over a month even to crank out a leaflet.

I agree with the sentiment that Spectre of Spartacism is making here. I care more for issues of program than for seemingly apolitical personal issues, dating back decades before I was even born, that occurred between what are now 80 year old, inactive men. It's irrelevant to what Spectre of Spartacism, Emmet Till, or Fourth Internationalist thinks are programmatically correct positions for Trotskyists to uphold today.

The things Logan did were not "personal issues," they were crimes. If an organization is (or maybe at this point was?) led by a psychopathic criminal, then that is what is important about it, not whatever political positions it may claim to have.

PS: to avoid misunderstanding, when I say "punishment" I mean Logan should be ostracised from and driven out of the workers movement, not that he should be arrested or something.

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.

OK, now we have presentations of both positions. If there is desire to have more debate on the question, I'd think it would be better to have it in the Politics forum than here, where the readership is more limited. This is after all an extremely important question for the both halves of the Canadian working class.

So now Logan, erstwhile longtime lider maximo of the IBT is irrelevant? Ha, maybe a split is brewing.

Last I heard, unlike Cannon Bill Logan is still alive, kicking, and leading what I suppose in sheer numbers is at least a third of the IBT. Indeed, the only "IBT section" whose membership can't be fit into a phonebooth. Saying he is "irrelevant" is about like saying talking about "comrade Delta" is irrelevant when talking about the British SWP.

Actually, I have to take that back, as "Delta" has been out of the SWP for years now, and, much more importantly, it's (a) still not quite clear what exactly he did and (b) even if everything he's been charged with is 100% accurate, the things Logan did were far, far worse,

You say the forum here is disinterested. Maybe they are, but I am interested, because number one, those sort of crimes that were committed by Logan need punishment and two, I have personally had all too much contact with the IBT in my experiences. So yes, I have a bug up my butt about you jerks.

Nobody here is interested in your insular flamebait.

And PS, it's quite typical that you think it was important to criticize SYRIZA when that was idle entertainment with no possibility of real effect, but now that SYRIZA is discredited and people in Greece just might be looking for better alternatives, and the world left is wondering for the first time in a while if maybe something more radical than tailing things like SYRIZA is called for, your organization yawns and posts what amounts to trivia on your website. Insofar as your group is anything other than an anti-Spartacist group, something written all over your website, it's an insular discussion circle happier posting on the website than ever doing much. Even on Corbyn right under the IBT's nose (who knows, maybe the IBT British group couldn't quite all squeeze into one phonebooth) frankly the IBT took over a month even to crank out a leaflet.

I don't think criticizing Syriza when it was surging in the polls and had already won a substantial percentage of the Greek parliamentary seats was "idle entertainment." This kind of constant spin of yours, the fact that you refer to me as "you jerks" when I am not a member of the IBT, among many other strange things about your posts, demonstrates to me that your sole interest here is in being a party patriot and playing the role of attack dog. That's your choice. It won't get your far on this forum, and in fact it will just confirm to a lot of the reformists who plague the forum that their worst suspicions about ICL supporters are correct. At this point, I'd advise you to rethink your strategy. Or don't, since it appears you look down on the idea of winning people over to your political line ("sucking up to them"). It's no skin off my back either way. Whatever the case, I have no interest in continuing to engage your subpolitical chatter.

The things Logan did were not "personal issues," they were crimes. If an organization is (or maybe at this point was?) led by a psychopathic criminal, then that is what is important about it, not whatever political positions it may claim to have.

PS: to avoid misunderstanding, when I say "punishment" I mean Logan should be ostracised from and driven out of the workers movement, not that he should be arrested or something.

Call it whatever you want, you were still muddling the discussion of program by bringing up every Spartacist claim about the Bolshevik Tendency since 1980 dealing with decades-old, politically irrelevant issues that neither I nor Spectre of Spartacism cares about. I'm more interested in dealing with issues of program than the drama of 1980's Trotskyism.

Call it whatever you want, you were still muddling the discussion of program by bringing up every Spartacist claim about the Bolshevik Tendency since 1980 dealing with decades-old, politically irrelevant issues that neither I nor Spectre of Spartacism cares about. I'm more interested in dealing with issues of program than the drama of 1980's Trotskyism.

I think this sums up the level of unhealthy obsession: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yU1knfz15xI

In all seriousness, if a group I hitched my wagon to had recently come out with an article headlined "Corbyn: Tony Blair's Worst Nightmare!" I'd be trying to muddy the waters by bringing up forty year old trivia and membership size, too. Actually, on second thought, no I wouldn't. I'd consider why I was supporting the group in the first place. I guess this difference in approaches is why Emmett and I have chosen to support the groups that we have.

One other thing I'd like to add, on the subject of "hate cults," is that (a) everything Logan was accused of those many years ago happened when he was in the SL, not in the IBT or its forerunners. If anything, the "dossier" that Emmett is dredging up in every other post reflects the internal culture of that group at that time; the BT has denounced the behavior described in the dossier, and there's not one scintilla of evidence that any behavior like that has ever occurred within the BT, though I'm sure Emmett will giddily respond with pages of unsubstantiated gossip and hearsay to the contrary. And (b) Emmett's startlingly vindictive take on this issue, demanding the head of somebody for something he did forty years ago, basically discounts the possibility that a person can change. When you think about it, this is an odd assumption for a revolutionary to make, since the idea behind revolutionary politics is that people can change in profound ways - otherwise, what's the point of revolutionary politics? Of course, there's no consistency between that and Emmett's fixation on Logan because the latter issue is a way to dodge revolutionary politics and its related issues, not to pursue them. Discussion of Logan's actions from forty years ago doesn't clarify any political issues, doesn't help us to discern whose program is superior, etc. One would think that a revolutionary would be interested in that, but then I think it's becoming clear that he and I have different understandings of what revolutionary politics are and how to advance them.

I think this sums up the level of unhealthy obsession: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yU1knfz15xI

In all seriousness, if a group I hitched my wagon to had recently come out with an article headlined "Corbyn: Tony Blair's Worst Nightmare!" I'd be trying to muddy the waters by bringing up forty year old trivia and membership size, too. Actually, on second thought, no I wouldn't. I'd consider why I was supporting the group in the first place. I guess this difference in approaches is why Emmett and I have chosen to support the groups that we have.

One other thing I'd like to add, on the subject of "hate cults," is that (a) everything Logan was accused of those many years ago happened when he was in the SL, not in the IBT or its forerunners. If anything, the "dossier" that Emmett is dredging up in every other post reflects the internal culture of that group at that time; the BT has denounced the behavior described in the dossier, and there's not one scintilla of evidence that any behavior like that has ever occurred within the BT, though I'm sure Emmett will giddily respond with pages of unsubstantiated gossip and hearsay to the contrary. And (b) Emmett's startlingly vindictive take on this issue, demanding the head of somebody for something he did forty years ago, basically discounts the possibility that a person can change. When you think about it, this is an odd assumption for a revolutionary to make, since the idea behind revolutionary politics is that people can change in profound ways - otherwise, what's the point of revolutionary politics? Of course, there's no consistency between that and Emmett's fixation on Logan because the latter issue is a way to dodge revolutionary politics and its related issues, not to pursue them. Discussion of Logan's actions from forty years ago doesn't clarify any political issues, doesn't help us to discern whose program is superior, etc. One would think that a revolutionary would be interested in that, but then I think it's becoming clear that he and I have different understandings of what revolutionary politics are and how to advance them.

Firstly, an apology to you, SOS, for assuming you were actually a member of the IBT. Whatever my disagreements with you I don't like engaging in slander, and as far as I'm concerned, accusing someone of being a member of the IBT is a grave slander.

Is this group a good place to discuss the crimes of Logan? Actually, it's the perfect place, as whereas indeed this might be considered boring ancient history on a general Revleft forum, here we have a little clot of 23 or so people all of whom consider themselves to be orthodox anti-Pabloist Cannonist Trotskyists. Which these days boils down to Spartacists, ex-Spartacists, semi-Spartacists and, formally at any rate, supporters of the Lambertiste "FI."

Which by the way, if anybody has noticed, is going through a major factional explosion with the majority faction in the flagship French POI quite likely on the verge of kicking over remaining "orthodox Trotskyist" traces.

So yes, anyone who considers him or herself an orthodox Trotskyist ought to be very interested in these matters indeed.

However, at this point we probably have discussed this out, and plenty of relevant links have been posted. I will only note that thinking Logan's crimes were all committed when he was leading a Spartacist group on the other side of the planet from the rest of what would later become the ICL Spartacist is simply wrong. Links I have posted already include much concerning the bizarre cultist activities of Logan as head of his "Permanent Revolution Group" in NZ. There is plenty of evidence indicating that this is one tiger who has not changed his spots.

For more from an insider who is far from fond of the SL, even accusing the Spartacists (without evidence) of doing the kind of things Logan does, check out the report on the IBT nowadays from another "orthodox Trotskyist," S. Trachtenberg of the "Revolutionary Regroupment" grouplet.

http://www.regroupment.org/main/page...lizations.html

Firstly, an apology to you, SOS, for assuming you were actually a member of the IBT. Whatever my disagreements with you I don't like engaging in slander, and as far as I'm concerned, accusing someone of being a member of the IBT is a grave slander.

Is this group a good place to discuss the crimes of Logan? Actually, it's the perfect place, as whereas indeed this might be considered boring ancient history on a general Revleft forum, here we have a little clot of 23 or so people all of whom consider themselves to be orthodox anti-Pabloist Cannonist Trotskyists. Which these days boils down to Spartacists, ex-Spartacists, semi-Spartacists and, formally at any rate, supporters of the Lambertiste "FI."

Which by the way, if anybody has noticed, is going through a major factional explosion with the majority faction in the flagship French POI quite likely on the verge of kicking over remaining "orthodox Trotskyist" traces.

So yes, anyone who considers him or herself an orthodox Trotskyist ought to be very interested in these matters indeed.

However, at this point we probably have discussed this out, and plenty of relevant links have been posted. I will only note that thinking Logan's crimes were all committed when he was leading a Spartacist group on the other side of the planet from the rest of what would later become the ICL Spartacist is simply wrong. Links I have posted already include much concerning the bizarre cultist activities of Logan as head of his "Permanent Revolution Group" in NZ. There is plenty of evidence indicating that this is one tiger who has not changed his spots.

For more from an insider who is far from fond of the SL, even accusing the Spartacists (without evidence) of doing the kind of things Logan does, check out the report on the IBT nowadays from another "orthodox Trotskyist," S. Trachtenberg of the "Revolutionary Regroupment" grouplet.

http://www.regroupment.org/main/page...lizations.html

PM me if you ever want to take a break from your witchhunts to discuss politics. In the meantime, enjoy yourself. The floor is yours.

For lurkers who might be reading this and want to learn more about what this weird obsession Emmett has is all about, and want the IBT position on the Logan matter, you can look at http://www.bolshevik.org/Pamphlets/L...-Contents.html . A view from a former SL member can be found at http://www.bolshevik.org/letters/SteveHletter.html .

In all seriousness, if a group I hitched my wagon to had recently come out with an article headlined "Corbyn: Tony Blair's Worst Nightmare!" I'd be trying to muddy the waters by bringing up forty year old trivia and membership size, too.

"Corbyn: Tony Blair's Worst Nightmare!" is quite an awful title for an article in a paper which supposedly espouses Bolshevism. The content of the article itself isn't much better. It opens with a quote which states, "Corbyn could lose, be deposed, go wrong but I love that sound, that beautiful soft sound of Tony Blair sobbing." Not exactly the way a Bolshevik would begin an analysis of Corbyn. The next logical step can only be "Clinton: Republicans' Worst Nightmare!"

PM me if you ever want to take a break from your witchhunts to discuss politics. In the meantime, enjoy yourself. The floor is yours.

For lurkers who might be reading this and want to learn more about what this weird obsession Emmett has is all about, and want the IBT position on the Logan matter, you can look at http://www.bolshevik.org/Pamphlets/L...-Contents.html . A view from a former SL member can be found at http://www.bolshevik.org/letters/SteveHletter.html .

Nah, I'm good. Have said all I want to say, unless somebody has an interesting point to make.

BTW, is that the piece where the IBT objects to the ICL calling Logan a "sadist" by saying that proves the ICL is down on S&M? Thought that was one of the funniest things I'd ever raid.

"Corbyn: Tony Blair's Worst Nightmare!" is quite an awful title for an article in a paper which supposedly espouses Bolshevism. The content of the article itself isn't much better. It opens with a quote which states, "Corbyn could lose, be deposed, go wrong but I love that sound, that beautiful soft sound of Tony Blair sobbing." Not exactly the way a Bolshevik would begin an analysis of Corbyn. The next logical step can only be "Clinton: Republicans' Worst Nightmare!"

We can be quite sure that war criminal Clinton has never called for her fellow war criminal Bush to be tried, unlike Corbyn. The Spartacist headline is accurate, and intersects nicely with the nationwide working class revulsion against Blair and Blairism that has washed over England.

Many opportunist leftists (not to mention anyone in particular) in our current atmosphere of defeat and demoralization ever since the demise of the Soviet Union leading to masses of formerly pro-socialist people worldwide thinking that "socialism may be a nice idea in theory but in practice it never works" have been snatching at every dubious leftish non-alternative that has popped up in the last few decades, from the Zapatistas to ecologism to "anti-globalism" to Occupy to SYRIZA to a dozen other things I could mention.

Now, when in England you see an actual turn to the left, with the moribund Labour Party instead of becoming a bourgeois party going back to being a reformist Social Democratic party as angry workers flock back into it inspired by Corbyn's left rhetoric and actual leftish positions on some questions, one gets to see that sectarianism is just the opposite side of the coin of opportunism.

So you and SOS object to the tone of the Spartacist response, even though the actual position of SOS's favored IBT on events is the same. Well, that tone is appropriate, as the objective of revolutionaries should be to bring a revolutionary program to working people in motion, not to sneer at them.

And now the only serious competitor with the ICL for the mantle of "orthodox Trotskyism" has spoken up. They understand that something serious is happening here, Mr. Jones (I'm quoting Dylan), and tonewise the article is just like the Spartacist coverage, to the point that till I got to the end, I wondered if they would differentiate themselves from the ICL at all.

http://www.internationalist.org/corbynmania1510.html

But they, unlike the IBT, actually end up trying to stake out a different political position. They (besides some mild and somewhat hypocritical tone potshots) claim that the ICL has come out in "critical support" of Corbyn. Which is not true. Yes, the ICL statement did say that the demands put forward by Corbyn in his campaign for LP leadership were supportable. And guess what, though limited they were by and large supportable.

But that is not the same as supporting him, which the ICL did not. Indeed, it could not, as it did not and does not urge people to join or support the Labour Party, in elections or anywhere else. The ICL continues to see the Labour Party as a reformist social-democratic trap, where what is needed is to set the base against the top, not Corbyn's idea of the Labour Party as a Kautskyite "broad church" of the whole working class. And unless and until the Labour Party rids itself of its Blairite bourgeois wing, supporting or even joining the Labour Party, as so many British leftists are doing right now, would be an opportunist mistake.

And here is the new WV statement in the current issue of the paper, which should hopefully help resolve misunderstandings.

http://www.spartacist.org/english/wv/1075/corbyn.html

We can be quite sure that war criminal Clinton has never called for her fellow war criminal Bush to be tried, unlike Corbyn. The Spartacist headline is accurate, and intersects nicely with the nationwide working class revulsion against Blair and Blairism that has washed over England.

Many opportunist leftists (not to mention anyone in particular) in our current atmosphere of defeat and demoralization ever since the demise of the Soviet Union leading to masses of formerly pro-socialist people worldwide thinking that "socialism may be a nice idea in theory but in practice it never works" have been snatching at every dubious leftish non-alternative that has popped up in the last few decades, from the Zapatistas to ecologism to "anti-globalism" to Occupy to SYRIZA to a dozen other things I could mention.

Now, when in England you see an actual turn to the left, with the moribund Labour Party instead of becoming a bourgeois party going back to being a reformist Social Democratic party as angry workers flock back into it inspired by Corbyn's left rhetoric and actual leftish positions on some questions, one gets to see that sectarianism is just the opposite side of the coin of opportunism.

So you and SOS object to the tone of the Spartacist response, even though the actual position of SOS's favored IBT on events is the same. Well, that tone is appropriate, as the objective of revolutionaries should be to bring a revolutionary program to working people in motion, not to sneer at them.

And now the only serious competitor with the ICL for the mantle of "orthodox Trotskyism" has spoken up. They understand that something serious is happening here, Mr. Jones (I'm quoting Dylan), and tonewise the article is just like the Spartacist coverage, to the point that till I got to the end, I wondered if they would differentiate themselves from the ICL at all.

http://www.internationalist.org/corbynmania1510.html

But they, unlike the IBT, actually end up trying to stake out a different political position. They (besides some mild and somewhat hypocritical tone potshots) claim that the ICL has come out in "critical support" of Corbyn. Which is not true. Yes, the ICL statement did say that the demands put forward by Corbyn in his campaign for LP leadership were supportable. And guess what, though limited they were by and large supportable.

But that is not the same as supporting him, which the ICL did not. Indeed, it could not, as it did not and does not urge people to join or support the Labour Party, in elections or anywhere else. The ICL continues to see the Labour Party as a reformist social-democratic trap, where what is needed is to set the base against the top, not Corbyn's idea of the Labour Party as a Kautskyite "broad church" of the whole working class. And unless and until the Labour Party rids itself of its Blairite bourgeois wing, supporting or even joining the Labour Party, as so many British leftists are doing right now, would be an opportunist mistake.

And here is the new WV statement in the current issue of the paper, which should hopefully help resolve misunderstandings.

http://www.spartacist.org/english/wv/1075/corbyn.html

If you replace "Corbyn" with "Obama," this is exactly the kind of apologism I saw in the ISO's shameful coverage of the 2008 general election. Supporters of that group could always and did always cite a footnote in 4 point font on page 17, buried deep within the article, that had a technically accurate assessment of Obama's candidacy in class terms, but the headlines were always slanted toward celebrating Obama. There was no mystery about the political content of these articles, and it wasn't just a question of tone. It was a question of political orientation. The same for the ICL's Corbyn article. The "actual position" and actual program of any group is constituted in part by tone, by how a group orients to those outside of its orbit, as program isn't just words printed on a piece of paper, but actual political relations between people in the class struggle, how people through their practice breathe life into political demands and slogans.

The SL and its affiliates understand this, which is why it is known historically for its highly angular slogans and approach to politics, to clearly cut the reformists and opportunists away from the potential components of a vanguard ("defending the NK deformed workers' state's right to nukes!" being one such angular slogan). This particular Corbyn headline says a lot about where the group is headed, and it's not a good direction. Maybe Corbyn is Blair's nightmare. So what? The role of revolutionaries isn't to write article headlines from the perspective of the bourgeois misapprehensions harbored by incestuous (but infighting) capitalist politicians. It's to take an independent proletarian perspective, from the very beginning, right at the newspaper masthead. If you don't understand this, then the ICL's political rot is far more serious than anybody could have imagined.

As you note, something is indeed happening in the UK. Labour is moving to cast a net to ensnare left-moving workers back into safe parliamentarism. The idea is to resurrect the old Labour left to keep the class struggle within boundaries acceptable to capitalism. That is not a break from capitalist string-pulling, which would be necessary for even critical support of Corbyn's campaign. Your headline does nothing to clarify any of this, and plays into popular parliamentarist notions that the field of battle isn't class-vs-class but instead Blair vs. Old Labour, implying that there's something to celebrate in how the left face of the labor bureaucracy is scaring the right face of it. As I said, that is something I'd expect of Cliffites, since it's a crowd-chasing approach that tacitly orients around bourgeois electoral politics even as it talks left in a highly formal and abstract way. It's a cynical adaptation to sorry state of class struggle around the world, particularly in the West. The more recent WV article, another reprint from its British section, features a less euphoric headline. But the problem is still there: in place of workers versus Corbyn and Blair, the foregrounded attraction is Corbyn vs. Blair. Where's the working-class versus the capitalist labor lieutenants of labor? Where's the class line? The IG article you linked, though underwhelming, does not suffer from these fatal flaws. Look at the lengthy and very good section "No Return to Welfare State Capitalism."

Moreover, you're just flat out wrong in saying that the IG accused the ICL of "critical support" of Corbyn. I assume this was careless reading on your part, but the actual content of the relevant portion of that article stated: "This is hardly critical support in the Leninist sense of exposing the bankruptcy of the reformists. Instead it is fulsome support with a fig leaf saying Corbyn doesn’t go far enough. And it is based on prettifying, i.e., falsifying, Corbyn’s actual program." I couldn't have said it better. As the ICL said in its latest article: "The Spartacist League welcomed the Corbyn campaign, distributing a 12 August leaflet to campaign rallies around the country." Note that they didn't welcome the rising militancy of workers. They welcomed the capturing of those workers by Corbyn's campaign. They welcome the campaign! Truly shocking stuff.

If you replace "Corbyn" with "Obama," this is exactly the kind of apologism I saw in the ISO's shameful coverage of the 2008 general election. Supporters of that group could always and did always cite a footnote in 4 point font on page 17, buried deep within the article, that had a technically accurate assessment of Obama's candidacy in class terms, but the headlines were always slanted toward celebrating Obama. There was no mystery about the political content of these articles, and it wasn't just a question of tone. It was a question of political orientation. The same for the ICL's Corbyn article. The "actual position" and actual program of any group is constituted in part by tone, by how a group orients to those outside of its orbit, as program isn't just words printed on a piece of paper, but actual political relations between people in the class struggle, how people through their practice breathe life into political demands and slogans.

The SL and its affiliates understand this, which is why it is known historically for its highly angular slogans and approach to politics, to clearly cut the reformists and opportunists away from the potential components of a vanguard ("defending the NK deformed workers' state's right to nukes!" being one such angular slogan). This particular Corbyn headline says a lot about where the group is headed, and it's not a good direction. Maybe Corbyn is Blair's nightmare. So what? The role of revolutionaries isn't to write article headlines from the perspective of the bourgeois misapprehensions harbored by incestuous (but infighting) capitalist politicians. It's to take an independent proletarian perspective, from the very beginning, right at the newspaper masthead. If you don't understand this, then the ICL's political rot is far more serious than anybody could have imagined.

As you note, something is indeed happening in the UK. Labour is moving to cast a wide net to ensnare left-moving workers back into parliamentarism. Your headline does nothing to clarify this, and plays into popular parliamentarist notions that the field of battle isn't class-vs-class but instead Blair vs. Old Labour, implying that there's something to celebrate in how the left face of the labor bureaucracy is scaring the right face of it. As I said, that is something I'd expect of Cliffites, since it's a crowd-chasing approach that tacitly orients around bourgeois electoral politics even as it talks left in a highly formal and abstract way. It's a cynical adaptation to sorry state of class struggle around the world, particularly in the West. The more recent WV article, another reprint from its British section, features a less euphoric version of the same problem. Again, the headline foreground Corbyn vs. Blair. Where's the working-class versus the capitalist labor lieutenants of labor? Where's the class line? The IG, though underwhelming, does not suffer from these fatal flaws.

Moreover, you're just flat out wrong in saying that the IG accused the ICL of "critical support" of Corbyn. I assume this was careless reading on your part, but the actual content of the relevant portion of that article stated: "This is hardly critical support in the Leninist sense of exposing the bankruptcy of the reformists. Instead it is fulsome support with a fig leaf saying Corbyn doesn’t go far enough. And it is based on prettifying, i.e., falsifying, Corbyn’s actual program." I couldn't have said it better. As the ICL said in its latest article: "The Spartacist League welcomed the Corbyn campaign, distributing a 12 August leaflet to campaign rallies around the country." Note that they didn't welcome the rising militancy of workers. They welcomed the capturing of those workers by Corbyn's campaign.

Why yes, I gave the IG too much credit there, they did indeed say "fulsome" instead of "critical" support, even though the first 9/10s of the article are absolutely politically indistinguishable from the ICL piece. And indeed the only factual criticism of the ICL they have, the allegation that the ICL stated that Corbyn wanted out of NATO whereas he had already started backtracking on that, is factually incorrect, a blunder on their part.

The SpB leaflet came out on August 12, Corbyn's partial backdown, which he justified by claiming the people of England aren't ready for that yet, was on August 27. And, by the way, the IG claim that the reforms Corbyn called for in his leadership election campaign were all quite achievable now is also erroneous. Forty, even twenty, years ago maybe. Now, quite impossible, British capitalism is in too much trouble for any serious reforms.

The IG headline is disingenuous, as it does not make it clear whether they think "Corbymania" is good or bad. The article itself makes it very clear that they think "Corbymania" is a good thing, whereas you think it is bad, but you can swallow the headline due to the IG's too clever attempt to have their cake in the main part of the article for the general public and eat it too in a little coda at the end to try to distinguish themselves from the Spartacists. So instead of calling Corbyn "principled and honest" as the ICL does, they call him "decent and fairly principled," I guess that is supposed to be different somehow.

Now as for your position, if you can't tell the difference between Corbyn and Obama you are blind. As the IG detailed rather graphically, even raising the spectre of a military coup, the British ruling class is quite able to tell the difference.

One more thing. Since the only real functional section of the IBT is the Canadian section, I thought in order to find out what the IBT's real position is on social democracy, I'd look at the IBT position on the NDP, which is attracting much attention, may even get elected to office, and has gone through an evolution just like the Blairite BLP. And I found .... nothing?

Stuff about Canada at all is conspicuously absent from the site, and the last mention that the NDP even exists is more than four years ago!

I did not expect this. It more than proves the points I've made here about the IBT. It is an ingrown circle interested in pestering the SL and ingroup left politics, with little interest, quite simply, in the working class of the only country where they are more than a tiny handful.

Why yes, I gave the IG too much credit there, they did indeed say "fulsome" instead of "critical" support, even though the first 9/10s of the article are absolutely politically indistinguishable from the ICL piece. And indeed the only factual criticism of the ICL they have, the allegation that the ICL stated that Corbyn wanted out of NATO whereas he had already started backtracking on that, is factually incorrect, a blunder on their part.

The SpB leaflet came out on August 12, Corbyn's partial backdown, which he justified by claiming the people of England aren't ready for that yet, was on August 27. And, by the way, the IG claim that the reforms Corbyn called for in his leadership election campaign were all quite achievable now is also erroneous. Forty, even twenty, years ago maybe. Now, quite impossible, British capitalism is in too much trouble for any serious reforms.

In light of your demeanor on the forum, I think this misstatement of yours was more a matter of you not reading carefully than it was of generously giving anybody credit. The IG didn't accuse the ICL of giving critical support. That's just incorrect, as is your claim that Corbyn's left-labour reforms are characterized by the IG as "achievable under capitalism." The section of the IG article I pointed out to you in my previous post makes explicit that the left-labour reforms that Corbyn extolls are from a bygone capitalist era and cannot be gifted in the same way today. If you are going to spend the time trying to defend the ICL from political criticisms here, at least get those criticisms right.

The IG headline is disingenuous, as it does not make it clear whether they think "Corbymania" is good or bad. The article itself makes it very clear that they think "Corbymania" is a good thing, whereas you think it is bad, but you can swallow the headline due to the IG's too clever attempt to have their cake in the main part of the article for the general public and eat it too in a little coda at the end to try to distinguish themselves from the Spartacists. So instead of calling Corbyn "principled and honest" as the ICL does, they call him "decent and fairly principled," I guess that is supposed to be different somehow.

You keep repeating the assertion that the articles are politically indistinguishable, but here you are claiming that the IG thinks "Corbynmania" is a good thing. I suppose this is you admitting that the ICL thinks "Corbynmania" is a good thing - an interesting admission for readers here to keep in mind. Now, as I said earlier, it's true that IG headline is what I called underwhelming because it is not polemical, but merely factual. But this is not as bad as the ICL's headline and article, which is a positive report on the Corbyn campaign and what it represents! If you go back and actually re-read the IG article you've pasted, which you seem not have really done in light of all the false claims you keep making about its content, you'd see that the IG has the correct position on Corbyn's campaign: that it's a "pressure valve for letting off steam" in a way that traps workers into continuing to support parliamentarism's left face. They do not, at all, think it is a "good thing." Please show me where the ICL's articles on Corbyn arrive at this conclusion, even as they "welcome the campaign."

The rather unremarkable claim that Corbyn is a "principled" social democrat is not the same as saying that his campaign is a "good thing." For revolutionaries, social democracy is a bad thing, and Corbyn's social democratic bona fides are a perfect reason to expose him and what he represents politically, as the IG at least tries to do. As the IG writes, "Authentic Trotskyists warn, as Trotsky did in 1926 and as British Trotskyists did in 1944-46, that the Labour lefts reflect the radicalization of the working masses in order to block it from revolutionary struggle." That blocking, which is what Corbyn's campaign represents, is not something that should be "welcomed." A labor reformist's campaign could be, could be, critically supported along class lines at a later time when Corbyn or other labor lieutenants are elected at the head of a mass movement, when the election would reflect working class self-confidence outside of the parliament, rather than yet another attempt to turn to parliamentarism as a substitute for that extra-parliamentary activity. Then and only then is critical support given to throw the door open, not to help reformists block the door shut. That time has not arrived, and in the meantime, revolutionaries have a duty to point out that Corbyn is actively encouraging this tacitly pro-capitalist buy-in of how political change occurs. The issue isn't that he can never go far enough in the future; it's that he's betraying workers now, even as we write this, and that his campaign has never represented anything other than a betraying bourgeois force.

Now as for your position, if you can't tell the difference between Corbyn and Obama you are blind. As the IG detailed rather graphically, even raising the spectre of a military coup, the British ruling class is quite able to tell the difference.

This is attacking a strawman. I never said there were no difference, only that the cases I compared (support for Obama and present support for Corbyn) are similar in not deserving the backing of the working class or of revolutionaries, that supporting either campaign is crossing the class line.

In light of your demeanor on the forum, I think this misstatement of yours was more a matter of you not reading carefully than it was of generously giving anybody credit. The IG didn't accuse the ICL of giving critical support. That's just incorrect, as is your claim that Corbyn's left-labour reforms are characterized by the IG as "achievable under capitalism." The section of the IG article I pointed out to you in my previous post makes explicit that the left-labour reforms that Corbyn extolls are from a bygone capitalist era and cannot be gifted in the same way today. If you are going to spend the time trying to defend the ICL from political criticisms here, at least get those criticisms right.

You keep repeating the assertion that the articles are politically indistinguishable, but here you are claiming that the IG thinks "Corbynmania" is a good thing. I suppose this is you admitting that the ICL thinks "Corbynmania" is a good thing - an interesting admission for readers here to keep in mind. Now, as I said earlier, it's true that IG headline is what I called underwhelming because it is not polemical, but merely factual. But this is not as bad as the ICL's headline and article, which is a positive report on the Corbyn campaign and what it represents! If you go back and actually re-read the IG article you've pasted, which you seem not have really done in light of all the false claims you keep making about its content, you'd see that the IG has the correct position on Corbyn's campaign: that it's a "pressure valve for letting off steam" in a way that traps workers into continuing to support parliamentarism's left face. They do not, at all, think it is a "good thing." Please show me where the ICL's articles on Corbyn arrive at this conclusion, even as they "welcome the campaign."

The rather unremarkable claim that Corbyn is a "principled" social democrat is not the same as saying that his campaign is a "good thing." For revolutionaries, social democracy is a bad thing, and Corbyn's social democratic bona fides are a perfect reason to expose him and what he represents politically, as the IG at least tries to do. As the IG writes, "Authentic Trotskyists warn, as Trotsky did in 1926 and as British Trotskyists did in 1944-46, that the Labour lefts reflect the radicalization of the working masses in order to block it from revolutionary struggle." That blocking, which is what Corbyn's campaign represents, is not something that should be "welcomed." A labor reformist's campaign could be, could be, critically supported along class lines at a later time when Corbyn or other labor lieutenants are elected at the head of a mass movement, when the election would reflect working class self-confidence outside of the parliament, rather than yet another attempt to turn to parliamentarism as a substitute for that extra-parliamentary activity. Then and only then is critical support given to throw the door open, not to help reformists block the door shut. That time has not arrived, and in the meantime, revolutionaries have a duty to point out that Corbyn is actively encouraging this tacitly pro-capitalist buy-in of how political change occurs. The issue isn't that he can never go far enough in the future; it's that he's betraying workers now, even as we write this, and that his campaign has never represented anything other than a betraying bourgeois force.

This is attacking a strawman. I never said there were no difference, only that the cases I compared (support for Obama and present support for Corbyn) are similar in not deserving the backing of the working class or of revolutionaries, that supporting either campaign is crossing the class line.

Picky, picky, picky. Did I make a technical error on how i read one sentence of this lengthy article? I suppose so. But you are trying to turn the article into something which it is obviously not. You may be a better proofreader than I am , but you are trying to read into the article something very different from what is there.

The IG article is an oddity, in that the first 9/10s of this very long article, probably more than the average working class reader will read, welcome the
Corbyn campaign and praise Corbyn, whereas contradictory caveats get thrown into the last few paragraphs. The ambiguous and indeed "underwhelming" headline is meant to hold the two different pieces of the article together.

Is "Corbynmania" among Brit leftists climbing aboard the bandwagon hoping for staff positions in the BLP hierarchy a good thing? No.

Is "Corbynmania" among British workers and youth flocking into the BLP to fight against Blair and Blairism a good thing? Yes.

Do labor officials, opportunist leftists and no doubt Corbyn himself want to channel this good thing into the trap of reformist parliamentarianism? Well yes, that is why the Spartacists even in their very first mass leaflet addressed this as their central criticism of Corbyn.

BTW, there is a big difference between appropriate headlines for a mass leaflet, I think the headline for the British Spartacist leaflet was downright perfect, and proper headlines for an analytical piece, like the neutral headline for the Spartacist "line article" on Corbyn, namely "Corbyn Landslide, Blairite Backlash," a headline I imagine wouldn't bother you or anyone else particularly, but also doesn't exactly grab the reader.

Picky, picky, picky. Did I make a technical error on how i read one sentence of this lengthy article? I suppose so. But you are trying to turn the article into something which it is obviously not. You may be a better proofreader than I am , but you are trying to read into the article something very different from what is there.

A vegetarian orders tofu. The waiter comes out with a platter of beef tips. "Picky, picky!" right? These are not minor technical errors. They relate directly to the essence of the entire piece. You claimed the IG criticized the ICL on the basis that the reforms Corbyn is pushing for could be attained within capitalism. The IG specifically said they couldn't be, and that wasn't the basis of their criticism.

You also claimed that the IG accused the ICL of giving "critical support" to Corbyn, when the IG was clear that the ICL was to be criticized for departing dramatically from the critical support tactic as espoused by the Bolsheviks.

The IG article is an oddity, in that the first 9/10s of this very long article, probably more than the average working class reader will read, welcome the Corbyn campaign and praise Corbyn, whereas contradictory caveats get thrown into the last few paragraphs. The ambiguous and indeed "underwhelming" headline is meant to hold the two different pieces of the article together.

I have read this article, certainly a lot more closely than you (as evidenced by your multiple wildly inaccurate representations of its content). Nowhere does the IG "welcome" the Corbyn campaign. One of its subheadings clearly spells out why the Corbyn campaign is a trap for workers. This can only be denied by somebody who either hasn't read the article or is trying to misrepresent its contents in order to be a party patriot.

Is "Corbynmania" among Brit leftists climbing aboard the bandwagon hoping for staff positions in the BLP hierarchy a good thing? No.

Is "Corbynmania" among British workers and youth flocking into the BLP to fight against Blair and Blairism a good thing? Yes.

This is where you depart from Bolshevism, and into reformism. Fighting against "Blairism" (whatever that is) by flocking to the Labour party, in its present incarnation, and backing Corbyn, is not a good thing. It is a trap, as spelled out clearly by the IBT and IG articles. For some reason, the ICL, particularly its British section, is unable to grasp this. What you've said in this group has confirmed that these aren't just one-off slips. They are a clear and undeniable signal of a profound disorientation within the ICL, which are becoming more common (if I had to speculate) as a result of your former Lider Maximo JR no longer anchoring your politics in a nominally Trotskyist direction. Whatever the reason, you are trying to cover this up by misrepresenting other groups' positions or changing the topic of conversation.

Do labor officials, opportunist leftists and no doubt Corbyn himself want to channel this good thing into the trap of reformist parliamentarianism? Well yes, that is why the Spartacists even in their very first mass leaflet addressed this as their central criticism of Corbyn.

The Labour party is under the control of the labour bureaucracy, selling out workers in a context where there is no mass working class struggle to counteract it. If the reformist workers' parties are contradictory formations-and they are-the labour party specifically is clearly dominated by its pro-capitalist leadership. You speak as though it's an open question where "Corbynmania" will be channeled, just as the ISO took a Socratic approach about where Obama's presidency was headed. Where "Corbynmania" will be channeled is decided by the balance of class forces in the UK and within the Labour party. That is why I have stressed all along that the Corbyn campaign has been stamped by its bourgeois origins and purposes from the start. You might want to reclaim this "movement" out of desperation or confusion, but it will fail as a result of your refusal to employ a class analysis of the situation.

BTW, there is a big difference between appropriate headlines for a mass leaflet, I think the headline for the British Spartacist leaflet was downright perfect, and proper headlines for an analytical piece, like the neutral headline for the Spartacist "line article" on Corbyn, namely "Corbyn Landslide, Blairite Backlash," a headline I imagine wouldn't bother you or anyone else particularly, but also doesn't exactly grab the reader.

If you think the primary line of division in British politics and society is Corbyn versus Blair, sure. The rest of revolutionaries trying to uphold the mantle of Trotskyism will take the traditional answer: the primary divide is class, and right now the character of the Corbyn phenomenon is thoroughly bourgeois. Corbyn vs Blair is, at present, a fratricidal spectacle. This can only be changed by a mass struggle that as of yet does not exist. Only then should revolutionaries orient their press around it.

One more thing. Since the only real functional section of the IBT is the Canadian section, I thought in order to find out what the IBT's real position is on social democracy, I'd look at the IBT position on the NDP, which is attracting much attention, may even get elected to office, and has gone through an evolution just like the Blairite BLP. And I found .... nothing?

Stuff about Canada at all is conspicuously absent from the site, and the last mention that the NDP even exists is more than four years ago!

Ask and ye shall receive http://www.bolshevik.org/statements/..._election.html

Ask and ye shall receive http://www.bolshevik.org/statements/..._election.html

My goodness! Does the IBT determine its editorial policies according to what gets posted here? I wouldn't be surprised, actually.

And of course said statement isn't even an article, it's a short quote from comments of an IBT supporter (maybe not even a member?) at a forum where I guess the issue came up.

And doesn't say anything different from their last public statement of four years ago, despite a lotta stuff happening with the NDP in Canada, whose evolution has been different shall we say from that of its elder brother, the BLP.

My goodness! Does the IBT determine its editorial policies according to what gets posted here? I wouldn't be surprised, actually.

And of course said statement isn't even an article, it's a short quote from comments of an IBT supporter (maybe not even a member?) at a forum where I guess the issue came up.

And doesn't say anything different from their last public statement of four years ago, despite a lotta stuff happening with the NDP in Canada, whose evolution has been different shall we say from that of its elder brother, the BLP.

To borrow one of your favorite phrases: "picky! picky!"

My goodness! Does the IBT determine its editorial policies according to what gets posted here? I wouldn't be surprised, actually.

The talk was given on September 25, 2015, which was before you even first posted in this thread. So stop it with your obnoxiousness. It's rather annoying, to be quite honest.

The talk was given on September 25, 2015, which was before you even first posted in this thread. So stop it with your obnoxiousness. It's rather annoying, to be quite honest.

They posted a short excerpt from a general talk about "electoral tactics" here, there and everywhere, I suspect mostly devoted to denouncing the SL for "welcoming" the Corbyn campaign. (Which we are discussing on the Corbyn thread, so I suppose there is no real reason to discuss it here with a much narrower audience). Which they have not posted in full, and they did not see fit to even post said excerpt till after my posting to this group.

Of course that could be a coincidence. Indeed I would imagine there would be at least some complaints in the Canadian IBT membership and periphery about the absence of almost anything about Canada on the IBT website or even the yearly IBT magazine for the last four years. I mean, hey, being as Canada is the only place the IBT really exists, such complaints would be natural.

They posted a short excerpt from a general talk about "electoral tactics" here, there and everywhere, I suspect mostly devoted to denouncing the SL for "welcoming" the Corbyn campaign. (Which we are discussing on the Corbyn thread, so I suppose there is no real reason to discuss it here with a much narrower audience). Which they have not posted in full, and they did not see fit to even post said excerpt till after my posting to this group.

I think it's more likely that it naturally takes a small amount of time to post transcripts and that's why it was posted at the time it was rather than having anything to do with you.

Of course that could be a coincidence.

It's not a coincidence. There was a talk given recently that they then transcribed onto their website shortly after. But still nothing involving you, Mr. Special Snowflake.

It's Indeed I would imagine there would be at least some complaints in the Canadian IBT membership and periphery about the absence of almost anything about Canada on the IBT website or even the yearly IBT magazine for the last four years. I mean, hey, being as Canada is the only place the IBT really exists, such complaints would be natural.

Perhaps, but until we know for sure we'll just continue on and on with obsessive speculation.

Perhaps, but until we know for sure we'll just continue on and on with obsessive speculation.

True. The IBT is simply not significant enough to merit more than occasional casual speculation, even in a discussion group limited to so narrow a category on the political map as "orthodox Trotskyism."

This argument spun originally off my observation that "orthodox Trotskyism," a category formulated by James. P. Cannon, represents those who believe that Trotsky's Fourth International was destroyed by the revision of basic Marxist comments by FI leader Michel Pablo.

And that therefore it should only be applied to those organizations who see themselves descended from the three components of the International Committee he created, namely the American SWP, Healy's group in England, and the Lambertistes in France, and who still (unlike the American SWP, and increasingly unlike the majority Lambertiste faction in their current internal civil war) maintain at least formal loyalty to that tradition.

Could one add perhaps the Morenoites? Moreno's Argentine organization was part of the IC. Granted that Moreno's support for Juan Peron etc. would have made Trotsky puke, but formally speaking, do the Moreno group and its multiple descendants, fairly numerous outside the English speaking world, consider themselves the heirs of Cannon's IC, or did Moreno reject that at some point?

True. The IBT is simply not significant enough to merit more than occasional casual speculation, even in a discussion group limited to so narrow a category on the political map as "orthodox Trotskyism."