What's your opinion on the green party

[Jimmie Higgins]

It means that organizing an explicitly revolutionary left is not the immediate primary focus/goal of your present activities. Your reply basically amounts to trying to slap new labels, through introducing all sorts of tortured discussions on "lesser-evilism" and the like, on what we both agree, functionally, you and your party are doing. It's a waste of everybody's time here.

What does it mean to "organize" an irrelevant and practically NON-EXISTANT revolutionary left? IMO under current conditions, views counterposing the ability to build up revolutionary socialist forces to the development of a more general resistance to attacks on the working class, only compound sectarian and insular tendencies on the revolutionary Left. A pure working class movement won't materialize out of nothing, so a working class movement will develop probably out of more general struggles of trade unions, anti-oppression movements, and so on. Trying to help build such movements is not counterposed to building up revolutionary groups and politics within these braoder developments and the ISO specifically maintains its own views and identity in these movements - hence why we get called "sectarians" or "just trying to steal people from the movement to join our group". But really our understanding is that the more people are confident enough to struggle, the more we think that it is likely that revolutionary politics and strategy will become relevant to them. We also think class and radical politics and strategies are necissary for even the broad movement to get anywhere, so the more we can try and convince people that racism isn't just about some "bad apple cops", the more an anti-police brutality movement will be able to actually make some ground. In turn this would bring more credibility to a class anyalysis of oppression and fight-back.

So really it's not about "saying radical-sounding things" but of trying to figure out what is potentially possible in a movement that will both help that movement make gains and develop it in a politically healthier direction. We don't always suceede at this, sometimes we might accidentally marginalize outselves or not present a strong enough independant strategy by misjudging the mood of a coalition or movement; but we try and learn from this and devlop our practices and members.

I think your criticisms are abstract as you've preseted them here. If you do not think that a more general struggle, a "new Left", would be a development with much more favorable conditions for greater class radicalization, then what? What is your immediate view of what radicals should do subjectivly, have you a concrete alternative? How do we get from here to there with the modest revolutionary groupings that exist today?

The ruling ideas of any age are the ideas of the ruling class. In periods of low struggle, most people are not going to be revolutionaries? So therefore an increase even in general struggles will produce conditions much more favorable to class radicalization than an absense of struggle. Because radical politics are marginal currently, most struggles which arise are going to be mixed and politically confused - this is everything from the Immigrant Rights movement which was quickly co-opted by Democrats to Occupy which was simply repressed and not politically organized enough to mitigate that. But, these struggles will raise the questions and possibilities for revolutionary ideas to gain a hearing and organic resonance with workers and the oppressed and activists. Within these struggles there are also battles over tactics and politics in which revolutionaries can argue for and potentially begin to win.

Obviously not any struggle has the potential to develop in a favorable way. There are pleanty of liberal campaigns that really have no value despite how popular they might be currently and are moralistic and indvidualistic. But other struggles might have some modest initial demands but a potential to develop a stronger radical core and I think it's important for revolutionaries to try and develop these and support and develop that radical edge or sentiments within the movement.

I think the way to proceed here is by asking a simple question that requires a simple answer of no more than single sentence. Does this "broad left" you're creating contain people who are liberal, social-democrat, or otherwise pro-capitalist?

Yes, most workers and the oppressed are one of or a variation of these currently.

How do they become revolutionaries, how do they become convinced that these politics are correct? Through polemics no one reads? Through one-on-one argument and recruitment?

What subjectivly is possible for revolutionaries right now and in what ways might these small and scattered forces with little hearing among workers? What can we do when class anger is high, but consiousness, organization, and confidence are low?

If not through the development and maturing of revolutionary class forces within struggles of a more general left, where is mass radicalization going to come from?

[Lucretia]

What does it mean to "organize" an irrelevant and practically NON-EXISTANT revolutionary left? IMO under current conditions, views counterposing the ability to build up revolutionary socialist forces to the development of a more general resistance to attacks on the working class, only compound sectarian and insular tendencies on the revolutionary Left. A pure working class movement won't materialize out of nothing, so a working class movement will develop probably out of more general struggles of trade unions, anti-oppression movements, and so on. Trying to help build such movements is not counterposed to building up revolutionary groups and politics within these braoder developments and the ISO specifically maintains its own views and identity in these movements - hence why we get called "sectarians" or "just trying to steal people from the movement to join our group". But really our understanding is that the more people are confident enough to struggle, the more we think that it is likely that revolutionary politics and strategy will become relevant to them. We also think class and radical politics and strategies are necissary for even the broad movement to get anywhere, so the more we can try and convince people that racism isn't just about some "bad apple cops", the more an anti-police brutality movement will be able to actually make some ground. In turn this would bring more credibility to a class anyalysis of oppression and fight-back.

So really it's not about "saying radical-sounding things" but of trying to figure out what is potentially possible in a movement that will both help that movement make gains and develop it in a politically healthier direction. We don't always suceede at this, sometimes we might accidentally marginalize outselves or not present a strong enough independant strategy by misjudging the mood of a coalition or movement; but we try and learn from this and devlop our practices and members.

I think your criticisms are abstract as you've preseted them here. If you do not think that a more general struggle, a "new Left", would be a development with much more favorable conditions for greater class radicalization, then what? What is your immediate view of what radicals should do subjectivly, have you a concrete alternative? How do we get from here to there with the modest revolutionary groupings that exist today?

The ruling ideas of any age are the ideas of the ruling class. In periods of low struggle, most people are not going to be revolutionaries? So therefore an increase even in general struggles will produce conditions much more favorable to class radicalization than an absense of struggle. Because radical politics are marginal currently, most struggles which arise are going to be mixed and politically confused - this is everything from the Immigrant Rights movement which was quickly co-opted by Democrats to Occupy which was simply repressed and not politically organized enough to mitigate that. But, these struggles will raise the questions and possibilities for revolutionary ideas to gain a hearing and organic resonance with workers and the oppressed and activists. Within these struggles there are also battles over tactics and politics in which revolutionaries can argue for and potentially begin to win.

Obviously not any struggle has the potential to develop in a favorable way. There are pleanty of liberal campaigns that really have no value despite how popular they might be currently and are moralistic and indvidualistic. But other struggles might have some modest initial demands but a potential to develop a stronger radical core and I think it's important for revolutionaries to try and develop these and support and develop that radical edge or sentiments within the movement.

Yes, most workers and the oppressed are one of or a variation of these currently.

How do they become revolutionaries, how do they become convinced that these politics are correct? Through polemics no one reads? Through one-on-one argument and recruitment?

What subjectivly is possible for revolutionaries right now and in what ways might these small and scattered forces with little hearing among workers? What can we do when class anger is high, but consiousness, organization, and confidence are low?

If not through the development and maturing of revolutionary class forces within struggles of a more general left, where is mass radicalization going to come from?

Once we've cleared away all the smoke being blown in your response, we see that -- yes -- the broad left you are building is one that contains people who are not necessarily anti-capitalist. You are deliberately trying to strengthen, and are making arguments to expand, an entity that is in no way revolutionary. Or as you put it, you attract people into the broad left first, then presumably later make them revolutionary after they work with you for a period of time by springing on them all the narrower more divisive and "sectarian" arguments about the need for revolution (I'm guessing this is somehow supposed to be different than stageism, but I fail to see how).

In light of this, I have a follow-up question. How do you claim you are building a revolutionary movement and party if your primary political task right now is building a political entity -- an "alternative to the Democrats," to use your phrase -- that is not revolutionary, in a way that makes it perfectly acceptable and welcoming to those who are not anti-capitalist?

How, on a practical level, is that possible? What kind of arguments are you using to attract people to this "broad left"? Revolutionary arguments? That just makes no sense at all. To repeat: you claim that the ISO is fighting to build a party/entity/grouping that is explicitly revolutionary and socialist, but at the same time you admit that your goal is to build a "broad left" that appeals to people who aren't anti-capitalist, and is therefore NOT explicitly revolutionary. There's a massive tension here you aren't reconciling on a practical level, and instead are dancing around it by issuing long, meandering posts that try to address it on a theoretical level.

If you put forth explicitly socialist analyses in your propaganda and agitation at the movement activities you participate in, in what sense are you "building a broad left' rather than attempting to build a revolutionary left? On the other hand, if you are putting forth generic arguments like "tax the rich" and "ditch the democrats," I fail to see how you are trying to build revolutionary consciousness in the movements you're working in.

[JAC0BIN]

Another reformist party, sad part is they look good compared to the democrats and republicans.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Once we've cleared away all the smoke being blown in your response, we see that -- yes -- the broad left you are building is one that contains people who are not necessarily anti-capitalist. You are deliberately trying to strengthen, and are making arguments to expand, an entity that is in no way revolutionary.

Not in opposition to or counterposed to building revolutionary politics, but a broad left as opposed to pasivity and cynacism and demoralization and lack of struggle. Not counterposed to rebuilding a revolutionary left in the US, but as part of the dynamic process in which an organic revolutionary left can emerge. Given that in non-revolutionary times only a minority of people engaged in movements will probably become radicals, healthy movements that can connect to the class struggle and potentially head in a radical direction (though most likely initially confused) are the forum out of which a more generalized revolutionary current will develop.

Or as you put it, you attract people into the broad left first, then presumably later make them revolutionary after they work with you for a period of time by springing on them all the narrower more divisive and "sectarian" arguments about the need for revolution (I'm guessing this is somehow supposed to be different than stageism, but I fail to see how).

I guess that would be stage-ism, but it's also comically far away from how we operate and a strange and mechanical view of consiousness. You present it here as though we recruit people to reformism and then try and recruit them to revolutionary marxism; you are confusing building on an induvidual level and building a more general struggle in which marxism and other revolutionary ideas contend for the way forward for struggle. It's a process in which revolutionaries can begin to connect with workers and people struggling against oppression and build some organic credibility and connections.

We try and support things that will help develop a "broad left" because such a development will allow for potential mass radicalization - or at least the development of a revolutionary current. We don't argue for people to be convinced of refomrist ideas and then "spring" revolutionary ideas onto them. That's a silly view. Of course we'd like to convince everyone to be revolutionaries, but it's just not going to happen with everyone at this point - so then what? Not try and contend for the influence of class-based ideas in movements, leave everyone who sincerly wants to fight austerity to only reformist arguments and strategies on offer?

Again you provide no alternative. Should we relate to movements by going to where workers are struggling, trying to recruit as many as we can and then leave? So people already accuse us of this, but they are just as mistaken as you arguing the exact opposite. The reality is inbetween. We do try and build our own group while also trying to popularize radical arguments inside movements. But we also realize in non-revolutionary times, only a fraction of those workers angry enough to want to fight will actually become revolutionaries. What will help create conditions for more radicalization? More struggle, more sucessful and politically deepening struggle.

In light of this, I have a follow-up question. How do you claim you are building a revolutionary movement and party if your primary political task right now is building a political entity -- an "alternative to the Democrats," to use your phrase -- that is not revolutionary, in a way that makes it perfectly acceptable and welcoming to those who are not anti-capitalist?

What? First, you never answer any of my questions to you and you're asking me a follow up question? Please.

Our primary immediate task is not specifically "building an organizational alternative" to the Democrats. This is the potential we saw that might have developed out of the Green party in 2000 because in 1996 and 2000 they ran Nader basically on a platform of opposition to Democratic betrayals. We saw it as something that might help a "new Left" to solidify, but we do not have a speficic goal of some electoral platform - our position is that such formations need to always be judged against the specific circumstances and potential at a given time. The US ALWAYS needs a political alternative to the Democrats, but that doesn't mean that any and all alternatives are worth trying to build or support at all times. I think that's why, in retrospect, it was a mistake and mis-estimate of the anti-war movement to think Nader would be able to rally an anti-war opposition to Bush and Kerry. Likewise it would have been a mistake to think that a protest campaign could rally vauge disatisfaction with Obama and opposition to austerity. A healthy Occupy movement maybe could have pulled something like that off because they would have had a wide hearing and a wide grassroots organizing potential. But I think the lack of enthusiasm around the 3rd parties who ran against Obama show that outside of a more organized opposition, such leapfrogging in consiousness is unlikely under present conditions.

How, on a practical level, is that possible? What kind of arguments are you using to attract people to this "broad left"?

We are not "trying to attract people to the broad left", our understanding is that most workers who are angry and want to fight will probably be attracted to the broad left, but that revolutionaries have a role to play in arguing both for the ultimate aims, but also for immediate aims and tactics within these movements which will grow the movements in size and influence the more they tap into class anger. In addition, the more people struggle, the more expectations are raised and the more people have direct experience in struggles, the more there is a large base for revolutionary ideas beyond what induvidual or small groups of radicals can convince through propaganda and agitiation on a one-on-one sort of level.

If you put forth explicitly socialist analyses in your propaganda and agitation at the movement activities you participate in, in what sense are you "building a broad left' rather than attempting to build a revolutionary left? On the other hand, if you are putting forth generic arguments like "tax the rich" and "ditch the democrats," I fail to see how you are trying to build revolutionary consciousness in the movements you're working in.

So you are using slogans to argue against the poltical arguments we make in movements? Sure we can have a sign that says "All power to the worker's councils" and we would agree with that - but that is not the point of a slogan. "All power to the Soviets" only works when the question of power is a popular question. Slogans are simple rallying points. The arguments we make in movements however are things like: in anti-racist struggles, arguing for a class rather than post-modern/I.D. politics view of oppression because this will not only further a class understanding, but a movement on this basis IMO would become stronger, more effective, and have a higher likely hood of radicalizing further. In the anti-war movement generally a lot of the general arguments we had in the movement were over supporting Democrats, imperialism, and supporting resistance in Iraq. These are the general political arguments and in addition, one-on-one we try and convince people of the need for socialism, invite people to our study groups and meetings etc.

But my question remains... how do we help conditions to build a revolutionary left, how does this develop in the absense of struggles? What does it mean to have a theory of organizing the vanguard when no real vanguard can develop out of a demoralized class? Studying and propaganda activities and so on are of course always possible and always essential, but beyond the one on one things how can we link revolutionary ideas and tradditions to the class if struggle and consiousness are starting at a low level? If not through a more general struggle, how does a vanguard drawing revolutionary conclusions emerge?

[TheEmancipator]

Depends on the type.

The progressive greens are those who wish to invest in technology, in green energy, look towards a fairer economy. They are social democrats with the added objective against fighting against climate change. They also tend to to be of upper-middle class. They will no doubt be criticized by most of the violent revolutionaries here as a result.

The conservative greens are those who want us to to live like cavemen in order to save the planet. They are nutters and go fundamentally against any Marxist/Revolutionary thought of progress. And yet these are the hippy folk a lot of the Che Guevara lovers living in the 60s like to court.

The epicuran greens are just lazy, minimalist dudes who like throwing barbecues and eating biological food. All that "live healthy" stuff. Pretty boring to be honest.

[Lucretia]

We are not "trying to attract people to the broad left", our understanding is that most workers who are angry and want to fight will probably be attracted to the broad left, but that revolutionaries have a role to play in arguing both for the ultimate aims, but also for immediate aims and tactics within these movements which will grow the movements in size and influence the more they tap into class anger. In addition, the more people struggle, the more expectations are raised and the more people have direct experience in struggles, the more there is a large base for revolutionary ideas beyond what induvidual or small groups of radicals can convince through propaganda and agitiation on a one-on-one sort of level.

My goodness you are slippery. We now see you proclaiming that you are “not trying to attract to people to the broad left,” yet earlier on this very same page we see you claiming, “We try and support things that will help develop a 'broad left' because such a development will allow for potential mass radicalization.” Which is it? Are you trying specifically to develop a broad left or aren't you? No wonder every one of your responses has been filled with long, meandering paragraphs. It's tough to be concise when you're not arguing a logically consistent position. And it's frustrating for me, because it's impossible to have a rational discussion with somebody who is on opposing sides of every issue, then gets angry when you try to pin him down on one of the sides. By the way, I am not trying to single you out personally for not being able to reconcile these issues. I think they are systemic problems the ISO has as a result of effectively abandoning the Leninist party-building model, including the existence of formal political program. The result is reflected in frequent strategic confusion about what the long- and short-term goals are, and we see these issues manifest in your posts here.

By the way, before I'm accused of taking your quote of context, we clearly see your rationale for building a “broad left” in the paragraph I quoted from: "Of course we'd like to convince everyone to be revolutionaries, but it's just not going to happen with everyone at this point - so then what? Not try and contend for the influence of class-based ideas in movements, leave everyone who sincerly wants to fight austerity to only reformist arguments and strategies on offer?"

There are a few things in this larger quote that need to be unpacked here. “So then what?” you ask after noting that the masses of workers aren't revolutionary and aren't likely to become revolutionary anytime in the near future. Well, gee, I guess we have to stop trying to promote revolutionary class consciousness in our propaganda lest we sound – to use your word – “utopian” by “calling for all power to the soviets” (which is, of course, an idiotic caricature that confuses revolutionary agitation with revolutionary propaganda). What do we do instead? Well, here's where the indirect and euphemistic description of “building a broad left” comes in: You “contend for influence of class-based ideas.” Well, what class-based ideas? The idea that the interests of the ruling class are objectively antagonistic to the the interests of the working class, and that workers therefore should work to overthrow the bourgeoisie? Well, I doubt that. Because earlier you disparaged such propaganda by conflating it with making a agitational calls for giving power to non-existent “soviets.” So again, one is left wondering what these “class-based” ideas are, if not ideas that are directed at reflecting back to workers their reformist political views about working within the confines of capitalism to rescue it from itself.

How is this supposed to be anything other than a justification for jettisoning revolutionary party-building in favor of “unifying” people around struggling for reforms in the hope that this will at some later point grow over into a miraculous birth of revolutionary class consciousness? Again, you can try to employ euphemisms here, but what you're arguing is obvious to any leftist who is paying attention to what you're saying (and what you're trying to avoid saying explicitly).

[Jimmie Higgins]

My goodness you are slippery. We now see you proclaiming that you are “not trying to attract to people to the broad left,” yet earlier on this very same page we see you claiming, “We try and support things that will help develop a 'broad left' because such a development will allow for potential mass radicalization.” Which is it?

If someone says: "we are not trying to go for a swim, but we need to swim across a lake to get where we are going", you'd accuse that person of wanting to drown people. If someone tilled soil you must think they are playing in the dirt in OPPOSITION to harvesting crops. Yeah these analogies are inexact because those are defined parts of a larger set process and there is no such formula or specific order for revolutions.

At any rate, we are "not trying to build a broad left" AS OPPOSED OR COUNTERPOSED to building a revolutionary party. You keep making these things counterposed and I am arguing that without a broad left there will be NO REVOLUTIONARY LEFT.

So our ultimate goal is NOT a "broad left" but we recognize in this time of LOW struggle, that those who will not be instantly won to revolutionary ideas will have taken a step forward if brought into action. This broad left is the atmosphere out of which a mass revolutionary current can develop. Radical sects can attract induviduals whereas mass struggle can produce much more widespread consiousness and action.

Again: a braod left in our context is a postive move counterposed to inaction and demoralization, not in opposition to building a revolutionary current.

Beyond that, I am done with you. I do not think you are serious about a genuine discussion, you have repetedly insinuated that I have lied and not ONCE have you answered any of my questions. This is not a real debate or discussion or exchange, you have nothing to offer.