Talk:International Socialist Organization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] State capitalism

Tony Cliff did not originate the theory of state capitalism. Max Shachtman and James Burnham did, and Trotsky wrote a book specifically attacking this theory called "In Defense of Marxism." Readers of Wikipedia deserve to know the true theoritical origins of the ISO, so they can judge for themselves whether this group is Trotskyist. Please do not attempt to hide the origins of the ISO by deleting this information from the article!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.21.154.24 (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2006.

This isn't accurate. The theory developed by Shachtman and Burnham was "Bureaucratic Collectivism," which equated the Soviet and Nazi economic forms. Although the ISO comes out of the left wing of the Shachtmanite tradition, the theories of bureaucratic collectivism and state capitalism are not the same, and Tony Cliff criticizes the former in State Capitalism in Russia. Opponents of the ISO sometimes try to conflate the theories, but they are neither the same, nor compatible. Cadriel 15:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support for Nader campaign

Nader is a definite opponent of socialism, a supporter of immigration controls, and an advocate nationalism and reformism. Readers of Wiki deserve to know about the contradiction between the ISO's stated goals and the way it directs its members' energies. Please do not delete an explanation of Nader's politics, because these are the politics that the ISO is helping to propogate through its campaigning activities!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.21.154.24 (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2006.

[edit] expulsion

The ISO got expelled from the IST (International Socialist Tendency) a couple of years ago due to a dispute over the war in Kosovo. The details, internal documents etc were put on line at the time. Secretlondon 10:29, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)

The ISO was expelled from the IST due to a turf war with theSWP/UK. But the actual dispute that led to the expulsion was over the ISO's attitude to anti-globalisation with reference to Seattle. I have the internal documents from an SWP NCer.

Jock Haston

[edit] This is a rather anti-ISO entry

This entry on the ISO isn't very subjective. It sounds a lot like someone formerly affliated with (and embittered by) the International Socialist Organization wrote this piece.

It seems to imply that the ISO has grown to its present size by initiating splits in other left-wing organizations. That doesn't seem like a very viable strategy for growing to 1000 members, clearly the ISO is doing something right for so many people to join it.

The author of this entry should go back and reconsider if perhaps their criticisms aren't somewhat unfairly biased for personal reasons.

[edit]

The original text was copied from the old Red Encyclopedia. The original author, John Metz, is a member of the Socialist Party USA. He no longer maintains the Red Encyclopedia so the information was out of date. When I first started this article (there wasn't one present at all) I did leave a comment saying that it needed a lot of work.

SonofRage

[edit] ISO comments

The ISO struggles with internal democracy like ALL organizations (unless they just give up and are fine with hierarchy). Former members have animosity proportional to thier commitment to the ISO. As membership is very time consuming, this often leads to angry breaks. But in all, they are trying to get the balence between "democratic" and "centralism" right. And as the largest group of revolutionary socialists in the US, they play an important role in shifting the frame of debate to the left. We'll see if thier size and influence can increase enough to have a real impact.

[edit] Recent Changes

hmm, the recent changes have taken out a lot of the history.

SonofRage

I just rewrote the entire entry for accuracy and NPOV but the old entry still shows up. Is there a problem withthe wiki?

Jock Haston

[edit] someone just added a whole lot of anti-ISO material; reverted

64.252.73.225 has added a whole lot of blatantly NPOV statements to the article:

"With their authoritarian tendencies, attacks on anarchism and anarchists, historical revisionism on radical labor politics, cult-like recruiting tactics, and bizarre social manipulations of groups, many anarchists have asked the $60,000 question: are these folks paid, and who pays them?"

"In the left, all one has to do is follow the money, to see who controls the politics. More research will reveal specifics on the relationship between the ISO and the Center's stock "trust fund". These "trustifarians" simply wear a blue collar."

This paragraph:

Work with other political tendencies has not always been harmonious. The organization is controversial in some circles, primarily for its practices in coalition work. Critics have charged that the ISO frequently latches on to more popular causes, such as the anti-war movement, as a way to recruit members, and sometimes attempts to take over related organizations at both the national and local level. It has been accused of recruiting and exploiting naive college students.

Became this:

Work with other political tendencies has not always been harmonious. The organization is controversial in some circles, utterly obnoxious in others, primarily for its manipulative and dishonest practices in coalition work. ISO tactics involve latching on to more popular causes, such as the anti-war movement, as a way to recruit members, and attempting to take over related organizations at both the national and local level. These activities are usually directed and coached by the organization's paid leadership in Chicago, IL. The ISO has been accused of recruiting and exploiting naive college students. Most though, however naive, soon leave the organization and often, activism altogether due to the almost cult-like environment of the organization.

Etc...

Worst, the links to the websites of the magazine, newspaper, etc, were replaced by links to an anarchist critique thereof. I can't see that as anything other than vandalism.


edit: decided this is sufficient to just revert it back to before the arrival of 64.252.73.225. If you want to include some of those criticisms, go ahead, but do it in NPOV terms.

[edit] changed order

I changed the order of "activities" and "criticism" to be more in line with most of the other organizational entries I've seen. It seemed strange to have criticisms before activities. The activities section is also a bit paltry; it would be good to have more info here if possible.

[edit] Odd change

Someone anonymous made an odd little change to this talk page, removing a mention of John Metz; I've rv'ed it. Rafaelgr 21:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

After that, noticed some snide comments added in various sections by an anonymous user; I am removing them. Please try to come up with something useful to say next time. I'm also expanding on the ISO's international relations, something I'd been meaning to do for a while.Rafaelgr 22:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United Front

I find the recent change adding "vanguard cadres" to be unclear or misleading. First, because "vanguard cadres" is not a phrase I've ever heard before; I know what the two words mean and I understand what the author is going for, but I think it's a strange formulation. Second, because the concept of the united front already encompasses this. I am going to try instead adding a half-sentence to specify what the United Front is. Catsv 17:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)catsv

Okay, I took a stab at it, not sure it's the best explanation of united front... someone else can try! Catsv 17:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)catsv

[edit] Revolutionary socialist v. Trotskyist

71.246.91.63, what do you think is the largest revolutionary socialist organization in the U.S.? I understand that revolutionary socialist and Trotskyist are certainly not synonymous; my understanding was that the ISO was the largest of both in the U.S. Is this incorrect? Catsv 20:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Catsv here, though I'm making no changes because revert wars are bad. Of course there are non-Trotskyist revolutionary socialist organizations; are any of them currently existing in the United States larger than the ISO? Not that I know of, and unless someone can name one, the description is accurate and should stay. "It is inappropriate for the ISO to describe itself as..." doesn't cut it as an explanation. I suppose it's possible that the argument is that the ISO isn't revolutionary at all, but reformist. Without getting into the factual dispute, there, I think in general we should defer to self-description regarding membership in political categories, absent very compelling reason not to do so. DKalkin 1/18/06
"Revolutionary Socialist" has no definate meaning. It is used by groups like the American ISO and the UK SWP to distance themselves from Stalinism but also from reformism. Other groups also refer to themselves as revolutionary socialist, some of them belive that the term should not apply to Trotskyists (whether orthodox or not). However, I see know reason why the ISO don't have as much right as any of the other groups to be described as revolutionary socialist. The other issule is whether they are the biggist Revolutionary Socialist group, I don't know about this. Even if we take RevoSol in its widest sence is there a larger group?--JK the unwise 10:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear that at least in the last decade or so ISO has been the largest in the US, with somewhere over a thousand members. At minimum, this is the consensus on the Marxmail[www.marxmail.org] list. Solidarity (US) would be next, with several hundred. After that you get into the low hundreds, with the Maoist groups and orthodox Trotskyists. The Communist Party (USA) is the only other contender I can think of, which is a hard-to-compare case. The Wikipedia article claims they have 5000-odd members, but I don't think that means quite the same thing as being a member of a cadre organization. I also don't know whether you'd still call them revolutionary - their website still uses the term, but without much explanation, and they vote for Democrats. Kalkin
Given that the ISO implicitly considers Trotskyism to be "revolutionary socialism," I believe it's much more appropriate to say that they are the largest and most active Trotskyist group in the United States (which is indisputably true), rather than that they are the largest revolutionary socialist group in the United States (which may, but also may not, be true).
As an aside, Maoist groups and anti-revisionist groups, at least in the U.S., don't usually ID themselves as "socialist" or "revolutionary socialist", at least not in speech. They self-ID as communist and "revolutionary communist". But that is a minor point that is irrelevant to this conversation. 71.246.67.218 20:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd say ISO self-calls themselves "Trotskyists", although I'm far from 100% sure Drunken Pirate 04:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The ISO refers to itself as "revolutionary socialist" much more often than it uses the term "Trotskyist", though I think it believes the latter applies too. 71.246.67.218 was talking about Maoists and orthodox Trotskyists.
Coming back from the aside, I'm not sure the ISO considers Trotskyism to be "revolutionary socialism." "The Real Marxist Tradition," yes - that would be even more specific, Cliffism. But I think Maoism, or say council communism, while outside "the real Marxist tradition" would still be "revolutionary socialist" for the ISO. Regardless, I'm not sure why the ISO's allegedly sectarian definitions are relevant to the apparent fact that it's the largest "revolutionary socialist" organization by a more widely accepted definition. Kalkin 04:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Speaking as a member, the ISO does not really worry that much about the exact use of the term 'revolutionary socialist' (though I think if we did we probably would not include all Maoists, since they don't necessarily advocate anything we'd see as socialist); we'd rather know what a group of people is actually about than try to stick a label on it. If we go by "groups that call themselves revolutionary socialists and seem to take the description seriously, whatever they mean by it", I agree that the only other concievable contender in terms of size and influence is the CP, and that they probably don't qualify for the reasons Kalkin pointed out.
Incidentally, although more flamboyant Maoists refer to themselves as Revolutionary Communists, there are also groups like the Freedom Road Socialist Organization which tend to refer to themselves as Socialist or Revolutionary Socialist. I have been led to understand that FRSO members informally put that organizations's membership at 2-300 though official numbers are sometimes higher. Rafaelgr 18:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be more clear to define the ISO as "far left" (or extreme left) as groups that call themselves simply communist (like the cpusa and French Communist Party) are better described as simply "left" --Musaabdulrashid 00:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] added meeting and member sections

Made a members and meetings section, sorry, should have marked edit as major. Not sure if there is a template for this kind of addtion. Drunken Pirate 00:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] criticism section

I don't want to get in an edit war, especially with someone whose motives I'm probably sympathetic to, so I'm not restoring the previous criticism section. However, I strongly disagree with the removal of this sentence by 69.86.137.220 on 19:22, 2 February 2006: Some critics have charged that the ISO "latches on" to more popular causes, such as the anti-war or Green movements, as a way to recruit members, who are then indoctrinated to a specific and uniform party line in a "cult-like" manner. While the accusations are fairly silly, they're quite common among some sections of the left, as evidence by how many times something like this has been added to this article, usually at greater length and without any attempt at NPOV. Their existence should be recorded. Without this (still fairly minimal) explanation, the point that the ISO has been criticized "sometimes for its aggressive efforts to build its own organization within broader coalitions" is pretty much impossible to interpret. Kalkin 00:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reverting to trotskyist again

I reverted to the "Trotskyist" designation again because it is indisputable that the ISO is the "largest and most active" TROTSKYIST organization in the United States, but it is NOT indisputable that the ISO is the "largest and most active" REVOLUTIONARY SOCIALIST organization in the United States. 71.255.214.234 22:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basis of edit changes

I have reverted 'Trotskyist' to revolutionary socialist for three reasons.

First, the latter fits the self-description of the organization-- it is what members call themselves, and it is repeated in "Where We Stand" , the ISO's basic programmatic statement.

Two, there is no dispute on the radical left that the ISO is the biggest organization advocating revolutionary socialism. Also, referring back to the US SWP's history in an entry on the ISO, as has been done a number of times, is interesting but not worthy of being the second sentence of an entry on an entirely different organization.

Lastly, the reason why the ISO fits the designation "revolutionary socialist" and not "Trotskyist" is that a major part of the basis of the group's raison d'etre is a critique of Trotsky's formulations at the end of his life concerning the class nature of the USSR, the Transitional Program, etc.

In addition, I have eliminated the references to "cult-like" in the criticisms section. To say that one has heard others call the ISO "cult like" is not sufficient rationale to include it. It functions as a cheap unsubstantiated smear, not critique.

Likewise, I have eliminated an email link supposedly detailing the ISO's financial status. The information cited in this "Anarchist FAQ" do not substantiate its sources and makes totally speculative claims about the financial basis of the organization.

[edit] Regarding new anti-ISO links

It's incredibly disgusting how much investigative reporting there is going on into socialist organizations or just left organizations that want to change the world for the better and not used to expose the corporations, the police, the twin parties of capitalism, etc.

This left cannibalism will lead to nothing but finger pointing and will lead to the further disintergration of not only the revolutionary left but the left that identifies with the politcs to the left of the democratic party.

AAHHHH!!


[edit] Erased new "criticisms" =

I erased some new speculative comments in the criticism section about the "overwhelmingly white racial make-up of the group" and other speculative charges about the lack of democracy, etc. Given that all leadership positions in the group are elected and immediately recallable, the poster would need to offer some proof to back up this charge. Please justify critique and read wikipedia's section on POV carefully.

[edit] ISO white? undemocractic?

White?

Well, I would love the ISO come out with stats of its member composition. Or better yet, just go to their summer conference and you will be floored by the overwhelming number of white people - of course some non-whites here and there.

Undemocractic?

Why are some of the people on the steering committee still on there for years and years? This I find undemocractic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.84.167.89 (talk • contribs).

[edit] criticism

The existence of criticisms in notable forums, not the validity of those criticisms, is the criterion for including them. See WP:NPOV:

Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of debates. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed.
We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.
Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band", we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It's important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe ..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and subjectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name.

Kalkin 23:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Deletes

Kalkin, I have erased your "criticisms" because they lack evidence. Can you prove that the racial composition of the ISO is "whiter" than the general population? What informs your assertion that ISO leadership structures are "rigid" when ALL positions of leadership in the organization are 1>Elected and 2.Instantly recallable.

We can have a revert fight about this, but I will win because I can PROVE that the structures of the ISO's leadership are eminently democratic. Now, you may argue that the culture of the ISO is undemocratic or authoritarian, and perhaps try to back that up. Otherwise you are just vandalizing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.59.154.137 (talk • contribs).

I didn't add that criticism or make the comment on the talk page above that you're apparently responding to. I sign my contributions. I've marked the comment above as unsigned by an anon IP, as well as yours. Use four tildes in a row to sign with time and date.
I've just expanded the criticism section a great deal, sourcing each attack and adding sourced responses. However the charge that the ISO is white is one that I removed, because it's clearly false and more importantly, it's not made in the available criticisms online.
I don't want to engage in a revert war, and in fact I don't believe the ISO is undemocratic. I do believe that the criticism should be included, because it's made all the time and can be sourced, along with a response (as it so happens, the very response you make, although I hadn't read your comment when I inserted it).
I've moved the critical External links to Notes because I used them to source criticisms. Kalkin 22:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] todd chretien

I'm not sure why this is a seperate section. It's very short and seems like it ought to go under Activities. Anyone have a reason otherwise? Kalkin 22:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No dispute. I'll do it. Kalkin 01:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edited criticisms section

I edited the criticisms section. Simply put, the length of the criticisms section was excessive-- longer than any of the other sections actually describing the history and politics of the ISO!!! The idea that one disputed incident of redbaiting at SFSU should be in a Wikipedia article about the ISO is ridiculous. Same goes for the "criticisms" of every Democratic Party supporter (John Lacny) who once was a member. The updated "criticism" section was the work of someone with a serious ax to grind, so it was edited.

I will happy to have a revert fight with Kalkin or anyone else about this (I'm on the computer all the time) about this, it's absurd to turn a Wikipedia article into a come-one-come-all opportunity to slander the ISO. It's not happening.

[edit] Criticism section cancelled

Alright, I've had it. Someone who really hates the ISO has thrown up a whole mish-mash of unfounded attacks on the group with more unsubstantiantiated charges of "authoritarianism" and lots of links to infoshop.org (a website controlled entirely by ONE ANARCHIST) and Democratic Party supporter John Lacny's article 'The Joy of Sects'.

I'm getting rid of the whole section. Come up with a fair one. This is a wikipedia article about the ISO, not about what two or three people on the internet think about the ISO. I will keep erasing this nonsense.

[edit] ISO article edits

Ryan: The idea that one disputed incident of redbaiting at SFSU should be in a Wikipedia article about the ISO is ridiculous.


Dave: I guess this is true, it is a highly specific incident. How would one go about adding something about the hundreds of documented first hand accounts of this type of behavior on the part of the ISO? I'm new here, so I can definitely accept the removal of everything if criticisms are not part of this encyclopedia format. But is it possible to leave some criticism? Oh, so you know, I am the guy who wrote "ISOnuts", a link you deleted. I didn't post it here though, I think the html trail would show that? Nor did I tell anyone to. I found it was on wiki on a websearch.


Ryan: Same goes for the "criticisms" of every Democratic Party supporter (John Lacny) who once was a member. The updated "criticism" section was the work of someone with a serious ax to grind, so it was edited.

Dave: You say "every democratic party supporter" and then give one example.Also, does being a supporter of Democrats invalidate his analysis? That seems like a logical fallacy to me. I'm not a democrat. I've never been a member of ISO. I added those links as I thought they represented many primary source accounts of dealing with the ISO, and that maybe they balanced the other links, which include some positive views. Again, if this is not appropriate for this format I can totally accept the edit. I just find your justifications to be confusing, Wikipedia rules aside, which is why I'm responding to what you wrote, not calling for the sections to be put back in.

Ryan: I will happy to have a revert fight with Kalkin or anyone else about this (I'm on the computer all the time) about this, it's absurd to turn a Wikipedia article into a come-one-come-all opportunity to slander the ISO. It's not happening.

Dave: I don't see a need to fight. Kalkin is a member of the ISO so maybe you are misinterpreting here. He told me at his discussion page. Since that is publicly viewable I guess he's not trying to keep that a secret. I suppose he could be lying, but it didn't seem like it. It wasn't Kalkin's doing just so you know, although he did reformat some of what were mostly my adds.


Criticism section cancelled

Ryan: Alright, I've had it. Someone who really hates the ISO has thrown up a whole mish-mash of unfounded attacks on the group with more unsubstantiantiated charges of "authoritarianism"

Dave: Are first hand accounts considered unsubstantiated? Also, is someone's opinion of the ISO the proper indicator of whether the links were relevant? I added them because I thought the content added some balance, and a view at a broader interpretation, mostly from the political Left. I guess I had a different view as a historian of what sources may be useful to a reader. Also many of the articles you deleted contained direct quotes from ISO member's own writing. Certainly their existence on the websites with their handles and so on substantiates these things were said. But I don't want to be a jerk. Probably what I should be doing is asking if there is any place on wikipedia for such information. For example, maybe an article on anti-authoritarianism? I don't know. It probably exists already and I have not yet searched. I was hoping you might have some advice on where criticisms could go, if at all. I understand this is not a debate site, but it seems that criticism can count as a subject of its own.


Ryan: and lots of links to infoshop.org (a website controlled entirely by ONE ANARCHIST) and Democratic Party supporter John Lacny's article 'The Joy of Sects'.

Dave: I have seen stuff censored on infoshop, including a pro-ISO response to my article that I would have liked to have seen! But I don't think the fact that a site has one owner/moderator whatever the proper term is, should disqualify it as a source if the material cited represents somethin relevant. I'm not sure why you put Anarchist in caps. Does it carry a negative connotation, or are you just capping it because most anarchists are heavily anti-ISO? Perhaps the ISO article is not a two sided article. But could it be? I'm honestly asking because I don't know. You seem to indicate below you would accept a rewritten criticism section.

Ryan: I'm getting rid of the whole section. Come up with a fair one. This is a wikipedia article about the ISO, not about what two or three people on the internet think about the ISO. I will keep erasing this nonsense.

Dave: I hope this doesn't come off as rude, but I respectfully disagree with your assessment that the links represented the views of two or three people on the internet. The infoshop links contained complaints that poured in from activists accross the country (same for the indymedia and indybay links), and the SAW site links, which ended up at infoshop contain the political views of ISO members and non-ISO members who had been labelled McCarthyites. It seems very relevant to understanding but maybe there could be a page on the criticism of the ISO? Arguments and counterarguments? I don't know. I may be misinterpreting this site by thinking it exists to inform broadly, when in fact it is more of a referrence. I may be wording that wrong. It may sound dumb, I've used encyclopedias, but never tried to write for one. Also the Stephen Shalom link was a really interesting piece on the ISO view of the Iraqi resistance, as was one of the other articles. I guess I thought they were scholarly and relevant, but again I probably missed the point of what I thought was a two sided article. After I saw the deletions,what I did was go to check the article on the American Nazi Party, and there was no criticism section so I assume this is the norm for articles on organizations. If it is consistent I'm fine with it. Thanks for reading this, Motopu 03:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] criticism section

I had reformatted a number of criticisms that have been repeatedly added by giving them sources, and adding responses. I think this is better than leaving them off. A summary of the common criticisms of the ISO and defenders' usual responses is something worth making easily available on Wikipedia. The only link to infoshop I believe was to Lacny's article hosted there. The San Francisco State section is probably not notable and was given disproportionate space; I didn't remove it but I probably should have. But the rest should stay. If in some way it's not fair say why; the criticisms are sourced, people make them, whether they themselves are fair is not the point. Many of the criticisms are available only online but that's to be expected for anything about a relatively small group like the ISO. Stan Goff for example is not just some guy online, even if he's not exactly a leader of the movement.

People who seem to be ortho-Trots have repeatedly removed "revolutionary" from "revolutionary socialist organization." Thus I added self-described to make it indisputable. That's not fair either though, sounds snotty. We could go back to Trotskyist, but that's understating the facts - the ISO is also larger than any Maoist groups, etc. I don't really have a solution.

People keep attributing the criticisms to me. This is a mistake. Please note I did not add the criticisms and do not agree with them. Kalkin 05:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The merry-go-round

Deleted the gigantic "criticism" section again, which was AGAIN longer than any of the sections dealing with actual history, activities, and politics of the ISO.

This is a wikipedia article. It is not an opportunity to meticuolously compile every anti-ISO attack from anonymous 'experts' on the internet. The question is what is excessive. And when you see an absolutely gigantic "criticism" section, filled with every John Lacny and Chuck Munson being treated as some kind of authoritative source about the ISO, that's absurd. It's a slander campaign disguised as even-handedness, and it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I repeat: I will keep deleting. This is a wikipedia article, not Infoshop.org.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.137.220 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Deletion Person

Why don't you just add more to the article or response to the critism. I mean, I don't see why just delete the whole thing. Why not create a new section on the politics of the ISO? I mean, I don't find what you are doing as productive.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.194.56.4 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Chuck Munson?

Hi Ryan, You keep alluding to Chuck Munson, but the one set of articles linked to infoshop, a two parter, is from the SAW listserv, featuring posts from ISO members, and this was posted to infoshop. I think Chuck wrote an intro to it, but his writing is not in the body. The other two of this type are on indybay.If you are going to insist that the links section is dominated by Chuck Munson I think you need to present some evidence. I can appreciate the general idea of you wanting to maintain a format for the encyclopedia, but I continue to find your justifications to be fallacious. Maybe you could try working with us, addressing our points instead of acting unilaterally? I also think it is a bit weird to see you battling with an ISO member over an alleged slander campaign against the ISO. Thanks for your time. I await your response, Motopu 22:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm Chuck Munson. First of all, I want to clarify several misperceptions about Infoshop.org. I am the primary webmaster and librarian for Infoshop.org, but the project is run by a collective that is incorporated as the Alternative Media Project. Secondly, the Infoshop page on the ISO was started back in the 1990s as a response to anti-anarchist meetings and articles that the ISO and the SWP (the ISO's sister organization in the UK) had been doing for years. In fact, I attended my first ISO anti-anarchist workshop, probably titled "Marxism vs. Anarchism," sometime back in 1991-92. The Infoshop page was created by several anarchists as an ongoing response to these attacks from the ISO. Complaining about the page existing is like saying that we have no right to respond. The page collects together a variety of articles and criticism on the ISO. It includes a piece written by John Lacny shortly after he left the ISO chapter in Pittsburgh, PA. Lacny was never an anarchist and can probably described now as a kind of pro-union social democrat. Chuck0 03:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Munson is involved in similar attempts to force unverifiable rumor-mill pieces from his personal website. (He is the owner, the domain is his). These articles carry no author, nor are they published in any journals, magazines or similar publications with editorial guidelines. His user history under the name Chuck0 show a clear disposition to these kinds of smearing, and he has been previously banned for editorial issues here at Wikipedia. The issue is not removing criticism -- the issue is verifiability, and Munson's personal culpability. These discussions can be viewed in the Talk pages of World Can't Wait, the International Socialist Organization, the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA and previously on the ANSWER page as well.In the Stacks

Other criticism pieces are staying up, of course, as they are signed and the authors assume responsibility for claims made. Anonymous, unsourced attack pieces from external sites (that do not pass publishing muster, eg: the owner of the site posts an attack anonymously to their own server), are not in any way verifiable. Should this be ignored, any lie, slander or malicious campaign could be conducted with impunity across Wikipedia. This buck stops here.In the Stacks
Jesus Christ. There are links to all kinds of external sites across Wikipedia. You whine and whine and whine about anonymous unsourced attacks, yet you've conducted several anonymous, unsourced attacks against me on Wikipedia. You've even added unsourced attacks to the Wikipedia entry on me. Look in the mirror. You've even added a link to your blog, which according to your arguments would qualify as an anonymous, unsourced opinion site. You don't have a case here that justifies your censorship of these links to Infoshop pages. Chuck0 22:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This is not a matter of whining. It's about making claims you can't back up with facts, hiding behind anonymous slander pieces, and using open forums to conduct irresponsible rumor-mongering.You don't know me. You are doing wrong and should stop posting irresponsible, incorrect, anonymous and unsourced slander on your personal website, and stop attempting to plant such nonsense on the entries related to real organizations that do real work on Wikipedia. The standard is verifiability – which you are consciously undercutting through your efforts. In the Stacks

[edit] Clarification

I am not acting unilaterally. You are the one who eliminated and unilaterally changed the "criticisms" section which had been basically untouched for months.

You replaced it with a 'criticism' section which would reflect your personal, red-baiting view of socialists. And btw. it is redbaiting to single out socialists and attack their ideas simply because they belong to a socialist organization. McCarthyism destroyed thousands of lives in the US and it unfortunately still has a hold on some in the US Left. You should read some of the history of McCarthyism and then re-read your peanuts cartoons updates and your phony tale of 'victimization' and 'harrassment' at the hands of socialists in San Francisco. (I don't think peanuts is 'open source', btw.).

To repeat: this is a wikipedia article about the ISO, not infoshop.org. We can go on and on-- I will not let you turn this article into a vehicle for your redbaiting.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.137.220 (talk • contribs).

--- --- Chuck Munson is active on Wikipedia, as well as his personal website Infoshop.org. He goes through great pains to spread disinformation about a variety of leftist groups. He does not care whether statements are true or false when he makes, or passes on, attack pieces. The only measure is if they can damage. He will not make any edits to socialism-related articles (under a variety of psuedonyms) except to make political attacks. All edits by him should be suspect, and corrected as needed.

[edit] BTW

I have no problems with a substantial criticism section, but it should be fair-- not just a list of slanders like the beginning of your scholarly venture into internet redbaiting, 'ISOnuts'.

Compiling and listing every unsubstantiated attack on the internet is not a democratic or fair way to write the criticism section.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.137.220 (talk • contribs).

You seem to have some time. Why don't you write a criticism section which you think is fair, and we can try to end the revert war? I think the suggestion above for a Politics section isn't bad - it could then outline ISO positions like Leninism, critiques, responses, etc, in a way that gave the ISO side a little more space. It's true it doesn't make much sense for criticisms to get more space than descriptions of actual ISO politics in an ISO article. Alternatively, the Criticisms section could be reduced to, say, the length of the Socialist Workers Party (UK) or Revolutionary Communist Party (USA) sections, formatted similarly with just a sentence outlining criticisms and responses and links to follow. (There aren't many models to use, the ISO article is about as substantial as any article on a presently existing revolutionary socialist organization.) Kalkin 15:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
To clarify my position here. IMO neither the quality of the sources nor the quality of the criticisms themselves is sufficient reason to remove the criticisms. However, the inappropriate amount of space devoted to the criticisms versus description of ISO history, actions, and politics is a valid critique.
The best solution would be to add content; one way to do this would be create a new Politics section which described ISO interpretations of Leninism, etc, and to fold some of the criticisms (Goff on newspaper selling, the orthoTrots on supporting Nader, campus- versus union-focus, into that section or other existing sections. Then the 'taking over movements' stuff could be at a similar length as it was a week or two ago, but now with sources.
A worse solution would be to remove content; not to remove the whole of the criticism section, but just to reduce it in length to parallel those in the RCP and SWP articles.
Kalkin 17:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added some balance

I added some balance to the criticisms section, answering some of Dave Carr and John Lacny's criticims. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.59.26.92 (talk • contribs) 2 March 2006.

While I think that your additions are fine, I think that the critisms section is getting out of control. The whole call and responce set up makes it read like an essay on the merits of the ISO rather the an encycopia article.--JK the unwise 09:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cheap accusations don't add up to arguments

I'm going to refer you fellas to some links where I just got through defending myself against an ISO member who is also calling me a redbaiting McCarthyite. I actually don't have all the time in the world, so I hope you won't mind this short cut. Please keep in mind that throwing these terms is a way that authoritarian groups stifle debate. It might be wise to reflect on how similar this charge is these days in the Left to the charge of someone being a communist during the Red Scare. Also, this claiming victimhood charge, I mean did the ISO censor us or not? Yes they did. Did they dominate SAW meetings or not? Yes they did. Did they limit debate and ensure that only ISO projects were carried out by SAW or not? Yes they did. You can tell me I'm dreaming, and blame me, but I think most people can see how Orwellian this is. Here are the links, I encourage everyone to read them:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/02/1803611_comment.php#1805838
http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/02/1803611_comment.php#1805869

Lastly, I can definitely see the merit in some of the criticisms of certain things being innapropriate for this format. My main objection is the uncritical explanations I've seen here. All manner of charges have been thrown against me, and against Kalkin (and by him against me if I'm reading the entries correctly), that are extremely flimsy, and counterproductive for any kind of academic pursuit. Since you feel you can freely label me a McCarthyite, let me just say I really think your "Dream Theater" shirt is lame.



Motopu 02:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Largest and most active"

Is there a citation for the ISO being the largest revolutionary socialist organization in the U.S.? And how can the claim that it is the "most active" be anything other than POV? Clearly needs a citation as to who claims that. - Jmabel | Talk 20:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

A few months ago I asked somebody who follows groups like the ISO closely for his estimate on their current membership. The ISO doesn't talk about their actual numbers, but internal documents and other sources indicate that their organization is growing slowly, but is more or less stuck at several thousand members. Given the ISO's problem with revolving door members, it's not surprising that their numbers are still stuck on a plateau. The ISO is larger than other groups such as the RCP and WWP and Freedom Road, but given the marginal numbers of people who belong to "revolutionary socialist" organizations, it's not that hard to have 3000 members and be ahead of the pack. Chuck0 18:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I think this claim is unverifiable and should be removed. Firstly, because of talk of 'revolutionary socialist' - the CPA may be larger than the ISO and claim to be 'revolutionary socialist'. Secondly, because we simply can't know the true membership numbers of organisations which do not openly audit their membership numbers. Unless there is something like a serious study on the sizes of such groups, this claim shouldn't be on Wikipedia - particularly as it is prone to fluctuation in any case. Mgekelly - Talk 08:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
It's undoubtedly true. The ISO has a substantial campus presence throughout the country, and are also the largest student group on the left. By number of branches, diversity of political work, and number of cadre -- they are certainly among the top five "revolutionary" groups on the left. In terms of their "revolutionary" bonafides, since no groups on the left are currently carrying out armed struggle, and most of them think such violence divorced from a larger insurrection is akin to "pressure politics" and often does more harm than good, they are revolutionary by virtue of their own self-declaration. Further, no groups on the left are gigantic, so "largest" is entirely relative.

[edit] Lumping people in the wrong categories

Someone wrote this:

"As a majority of its branches are at universities, the organization is sometimes alleged to be catering mostly to privileged college students, and out of touch with the working class.[4] ISO defenders argue that the ISO is rooted in many working class struggles, and argue that insisting socialists must enter stereotypically working class industries helped to destroy revolutionary socialism in the U.S. in the 1970s. Also they claim that this accusation often hypocritically comes from people, like Chuck Munson and Dave Carr, who identify with an overwhelmingly white, middle-class US anarchist scene.[5]"

First of all, I never said that the ISO is "catering mostly to privileged college students," so how can the writer put my name in the list of people charged with this? I hope college students read my pamphlet, and I have nothing against them as a group of people. In fact, at SF State, where I went, most students seem working class to me.

Why am I lumped together with Chuck Munson? He has posted my writing, but I don't identify myself as an anarchist (at one time I considered myself an anarchist poseur, but now I'm not labelling myself). Also, I am Puerto Rican and I live in the Tenderloin. I am not "white", nor am I middle class, nor am I an anarchist. I'm going to do an edit that removes my name from that sentence.

But it is also sort of petty to label the anarchists as white and middle class when the same terms are used to describe socialist groups. I think there is a place for this discussion, but not just to throw around for political points, as if to imply the ISO is somehow more representative of different ethnic groups than anarchists. From my experience in the Bay area this is not the case at all. It is also very POV just to say Chuck Munson's name, and them paint him with a broad brush of white middle class, as if that discredits him, or differentiates him from the ISO in some way. Same goes for calling John Lacny a supporter of the Democratic Party. You may as well put "a supporter of the small capitalist Green party" after every mention of the ISO.

What I do appreciate is that the person didn't just edit every single criticism out, and this shows an attempt at giving a less POV presentation in my estimation. Motopu 15:59, 05 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a common technique in activist circles to bait your opponent with the charge that their group, movement or ideology is "all white" or "middle class." In my experience, this kind of race-baiting comes from leftist groups such as the ISO. Publicly, they talk about "unity of the left" but behind the scenes they diss anarchists as being "all white."
That being said, and as a critic of the ISO, I really think this entry on the ISO should be NPOV as much as possible. It's really unfair to any group or individual if most of the entry on them is hostile or mostly negative criticism. This entry SHOULD have a criticism section, because the ISO is a public group that has been widely criticized acround the left. Those criticisms can be put in a section at the bottom, along with links to websites. Chuck0 03:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I agree with ChuckO that the criticism section should be changed so that it is NPOV.

It's unfair for critics to use the Wikipedia entry of a group to turn it into a place to make every claim against that group, when know open space exists to be able to democratically debate those claims. We don't want to encourage sectarian warfare where the "criticism" entries on groups (anarchist, green, socialist, communist, whateverist) are being filled by their opponents in a totally POV way. It's true that there are plenty of criticisms of the ISO on the left, but there are also harsh criticisms levelled against all kinds of groups (the ISO just happens to be larger/more prominent).

I am not obviously against having a criticism section, but it should be-- excuse the abused phrase-- as fair and balanced as possible (ie. not a 30 footnote essay reflecting one persons POV).

[edit] 69.86.137.220

He doesn't sign his name on discussion pages, but I think this is Ryan Delaney right? I followed the "talk" link next to his number on one of his posts. This guy is on the anti-vandalism watch and he goes in and puts cheap shots like "critics like internet critic Dave Carr (co-writer of this section) " in the criticism section. Because I write criticisms, and some of them are on the internet, he can pigeon hole me and negate everything else I do? I'm looking over his recent edits of this page and it is all personalized attacks on me, labeling me a red baiter. Is this "no POV"? But I notice someone took out the portion of the criticism that covered the ISO's over-use of the term. Looks like that really hit a nerve eh? And please tell me, what part of the criticism section did I "co-write" now that this part has been axed? Talk about sloppy writing. What are the criteria for being a wikipedia badge holder because Ryan's writing has been sub par across the board. He has links to philosophy topics on his page, but doesn't seem to be able to tell a string of logical fallacies from an argument. Lastly, I hope that some day, Ryan drops his ideological baggage (yes you will be embarrassed by your constant crying of red baiting some day, call me in five years) and takes the time to read a bit about the actual history of the Left. Here are some suggested texts for a beginner:

An Introduction to Marxist Economic Theory. Ernest Mandel
Capital, Economic & Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, and The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx
One Hundred Years of Socialism: The West European Left in the Twentieth Century by Geoff Eley
Facing Reality by C.L.R. James
Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord
The Continuing Appeal of Nationalism by Freddy Perlman
The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control by Maurice Brinton
Obsolete Communism: The Left Wing Alternative by Daniel Cohn Bendit
Online article "The Soviet Union versus Socialism" by Noam Chomsky (Whom I am guessing Ryan would consider a red baiter if he read this article).
Anarchism by Daniel Guerin
Organizational Questions of the Russian Social Democracy [Leninism or Marxism?] by Rosa Luxemburg

Ryan, Best of luck with this small list, and I hope it clears up some of your confusion! Motopu 11:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Membership: ISO most definitely is NOT "the largest revolutionary socialist organization in the US"!It's current membership most probably still isn't much bigger than 800, like a few years ago. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.45.209.91 (talk •

contribs) 01:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC).


The ISO very much IS the largest revolutionary socialist organization in the US, with membership larger than your estimates.

What group would you say is larger? There are none, this is just a fact-- inconvenient for you, perhaps-- but a fact nonetheless, Comrade "Motupo". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.138.5 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC).

Communist Party, IWW, Socialist Party USA, maybe RCP... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.45.209.91 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

[edit] International connections

Kalikin, I think you're reading too much into the tea leaves here. Mieville's book was published as part of an arrangement with Brill Academic Publishers and Historical Materialism, where Haymarket does paperback versions of some of their books and tries to sell them to non-academics, and it's the second of these so far (I think). I would suggest that this was more likely to have come out of connections with the USFI than with the IST. Rafaelgr 19:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it - you clearly know more about the issue than me. However, my understanding from talking to other ISO members (I am one) is that some people in the IST, specifically the SWP, are friendlier to us than others, e.g. Mieville lets us publish his books while Callinicos won't even let us bulk-buy his. I presume Mieville could stop his publishers from collaborating with us if he wanted to. And the fact that the split hasn't been universally acrimonious seems worth mentioning in the article. Kalkin 23:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] STOP putting false claims

ISO is simply NOT "the largest revolutionary socialist organization in the US". The claim which has been repeatedly put on the top of the article is biased and should be removed.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.45.209.91 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC).

Can you back that up? Who's larger? Certainly not the RCP, WWP, or PSL, none of whom have more than 300-400 members. Perhaps, the CP? They claim a much larger membership, though the vast majority of their members aren't active as CPUSA members. Also, they've explicitly rejected revolution as the vehicle for achieving political power. I've never heard any revolutionary socialist in the US, from any political tendency, dispute this claim before I read this page.

The ISO has 1,000+ active members.

-Jonah

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.114.215.214 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC).


"Also, they've explicitly rejected revolution as the vehicle for achieving political power. I've never heard any revolutionary socialist in the US, from any political tendency, dispute this claim before I read this page."

Could this statement show any more of a bias from the ISO enthusiasts? I won't go into how the ISO plays the same electoral politics CPUSA plays; however this is nonsensical. CPUSA has never came out with a statement declaring at any one point of time that they "reject revolution" nor is it the place for people here to speculate on whether or not their membership is "active." Further other organizations such as WWP, RCP, and others don't list their membership, and further organizations such as RCP have a larger support base from their membership. So the question of activity of membership and who can we guestimate is bigger is absurd. Please try to keep this article to basic facts.--68.198.123.73 06:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

From the CPUSA's program: "The Communist Party aims for a peaceful transition to socialism, based on all forms of mass democratic expression and social action, electoral and non-electoral, to win and maintain working people’s power. Our Party, with deep roots in U.S. history and culture, with its long-standing principled fight for working-class unity, for civil rights and full equality for all, for genuine reforms, and for maintaining and extending Constitutional rights, is an indispensable component of the coalition needed to win socialism."

http://www.cpusa.org/article/view/758

But whatever, I don't know what the hell you're freaking out about. You're right, the WWP, RCP, etc. don't release membership figures. So who knows, maybe there are 1,000 Maoist recruits underground right now, feverishly learning guerilla tactics under the watchful eye of Bob Avakian, waiting for the appointed hour to throw themselves on the unsuspecting American bourgeoisie.

Anyway, you wrote: "ISO is simply NOT "the largest revolutionary socialist organization in the US". The claim which has been repeatedly put on the top of the article is biased and should be removed."

I didn't change it back, I just asked if you could back that up, since I'd never heard anybody else active on the radical or revolutionary left in the United States dispute this claim before. Not an unreasonable request, I think, since you sounded so very certain.

In two seconds of searching, I found these links that suggest that the ISO is the largest revolutionary socialist group in the US. Take them for what they're worth, none of them seem to be written by members or sympathizers of the ISO or any other current or former IST organization.

http://unrepentant.blogspot.com/2004/10/camejo-and-shawki.html http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/633/633p18b.html http://encyclopedia.codeboy.net/wikipedia/i/in/international_socialist_organization.html

-Jonah

You have already stated yourself that the CPUSA has already a larger membership than ISO. Secondly, the fact that there are a number of ISO bloggers that say they are a large organization, and they don't verify this at all. Oh yes it states they have a large conference, but that conference is open to everyone, even I was there. Needless to say, I am not a member of ISO. Posting blogs up are not a repuditable source, so this does not prove ISO is the "most active" organization. Now whether or not the CPUSA has a "Revolutionary" programme can be argued all day by the various sympathesizers and apologists for "name" organization. That argument would be meaningless to a site like wikipedia, because inevitably such a discussion is POV. CPUSA, for what we know through its history and texts, maintains that it is a "revolutionary" organization. Whether they are in your opinion they are revisionists, reformists, state-capitalists, or whatever label you like. However other Trotskyite tendencies and other various Communist groupings have accussed ISO for the same thing when they supported the Green Party. So this sort of discussion goes in circles.

Your various quips about WWP, RCP, and Bob Avakian and so on just show your sort of narrow view of this discussion. As if insulting Bob Avakian is somehow taking away from the fact that we REALLY don't know how many members other various significant communist groupings have. I am really not sure why ISO wants to hold on to the label of being the largest, because even if it is what they claim...it is still pathetically small. You might have several hundred more than WWP, PSL, or RCP...is it really quite a big deal? I am not sure. Now if the ISO supporters here want to put on the top of this page that they are the largest TROTSKYIST organization...then this would be undoubtly be true; however as long as CPUSA exists still exists with a stated larger membership...you will not be the largest Socialist organization.--68.198.123.73 03:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


Wow, what a discussion this is. You obviously aren't reading a word I write. What I want to know is how the hell you are so fucking certain that:

"ISO is simply NOT "the largest revolutionary socialist organization in the US". The claim which has been repeatedly put on the top of the article is biased and should be removed."

Look, I just quoted the CPUSA's program to you, and you don't seem to have any response to that. Again and again in their program and in Political Affairs, the CPUSA has insisted that they seek a peaceful road to socialism. And you clearly know very little about their past. Actually, they have a long history of disavowing revolution as the means for achieving socialism, dating back to World War II (right before they dissolved themselves into the Communist Political Association in 1944 before refounding the Party at war's end). They've been pursuing a modern version of the Popular Front since the end of the 1950s.

In any case if the question of size is merely a question of paper membership then the DSA is far and away the largest "socialist" group in the United States, even though they are in reality pretty much non-existent and completely invisible. So you can deny that the question of how "active" an organizations membership is, but then it does have some relevance in, um, the real world, no?

Also, only one of the links I posted was a blog, and none of them seem to have been written by ISO members or sympathizers, like I said.

The thing is, I don't care if the ISO's wikipedia page says that it's the largest revolutionary socialist organization in the United States. Once again, I didn't revert the change you made, even though the claim is not in dispute among anyone active on the radical or revolutionary left in the United States for any sustained period of time. But when you took it out originally, you insisted that:

"ISO is simply NOT "the largest revolutionary socialist organization in the US".

I asked if you could back that up. I wasn't even really challenging you, even though you pulled that entirely out of your ass, just interested. But whatever.

Jonah

PS By the way, I wasn't really insulting Bob Avakian, though I certainly consider Stalinism to be the complete negation of Marxism and personality cults to go against everything Marxism is about. The RCP apparently actually did this once. I think it was in 1980, they had several hundred underground recruits - who had been underground, some of them for a while - publicly reveal themselves to be revolutionary Communists. That, however, was when they were substantially larger than they are today. But I digress...

Please save your ideological speech for someone who cares really much about ISO drivel. Anyway the reason on why I don't comment on whether or not CPUSA is a "revolutionary" organization (I don't think they are, nor communist...but then again I don't think ISO is as well), is because it is a purely POV argument. Don't try to patronize me with this "I don't know their past" schtick...or this debating on ideology...it doesn't really quite matter, Wikipedia isn't the place for such arguments. It does no one good to list 40 different organizations opionions on the CPUSA and so forth, they claim to be "Revolutionary" and "Communist," so we take their word for it and label them as such. You don't see Catholics being labelled "non-Christians" by Baptists, because Baptists can quote this part of scripture they don't fulfill.

However I think it is rather ironic, that an organization like ISO which has no history of revolutionary struggle, says there was no history of socialism (revisionist history), and campaigns for the Green Party under the banner to build a "third party" should label CPUSA anything at all. Once again I state ISO ethusiasts should take a deep look at their own organization and methodology before they slander any organizations. It makes me laugh that you accuse CPUSA of being 'Popular Frontists' when it is quite evident that ISO ahs been engage in the same front building, especially on campuses for a while.

Now on activity of membership..lets say the ISO has a 1000 active members...that is still not significant and nothing to be giving praise about. I have stated this before.

Also I don't like cults either...neither do I like 'Stalinism' (though RCP claims no such mantle); however ISO in its fictional history doesn't even confront the issue by actually addressing it properly in a real forum. Too bad ISO is incrediblly dogmatic, "WE never had Socialism, so Cultism isn't our problem." Well it is a problem of MARXIST history, and ISO should address it instead of hiding behind the veil of "well they were State-Capitalists anyway."

--68.198.123.73 19:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


Some final points:

1) I didn't "label" the CPUSA. I quoted their own program to you. I don't think you even read the quote.

2) I guess by the ISO having "no history of revolutionary struggle," you mean that there's never been a socialist revolution in the United States, or at least there hasn't been one since 1977. I suppose that's true in an insane/totally obvious sort of way.

3) I think that debates about whether or not to support specific Green Party and other "third party" campaigns are important. There exists a long history of revolutionaries supporting reformist electoral campaigns during non-revolutionary moments. The Democratic Party plays a specific role in the United States, and in my opinion revolutionaries need to be part of efforts to break the stranglehold that the Democrats have on the left. As we do this we should make clear that reforms can't abolish exploitation and oppression, to do that we need a revolution.

4) However, you clearly don't know what the hell the Popular Front was, dumbass. Originally the name for a perspective developed by the Communist International for CPs around the world, Popular Frontism involves socialists subordinating the political interests of the working-class to those of the bourgeoisie.

Therefore, it makes no sense to say that the ISO is "building" popular fronts, "especially on campuses." Popular Fronts take place at a society-wide level. It's sort of like saying the ISO has abandoned revolution for reform "especially on campuses."

5) On whether the RCP is "Stalinist": What an amazing disconnection from the American left this demonstrates on your part(and yet you feel so confident to comment about different left groups?). The RCP's affinity for Stalin as a key link in the chain of "Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought" is well known. One more time, let me try quoting what a group says about itself (just one of many pro-Stalin quotes by major RCP leaders):

http://revcom.us/bob_avakian/conquerworld/conquerworld_p1.htm

"...it is a fact of history that at that juncture after the death of Lenin, and when the question was very sharply posed of what road to take in the Soviet Republic at that time and the question of whether in fact the socialist road could be embarked on and, if not what must be done, basically, and in the main, Stalin represented the most correct and principally the correct position at that time."

Of course Mao himself always made it clear that he considered Stalin to be a great Marxist. In fact the founders of the RU (forerunner to the RCP) included Stalin as one of the great Marxist leaders whose pictures graced the cover of their Red Papers, the series of position statements that were the first statement of the new group's politics.

6) The last paragraph of what you wrote is pretty much totally incoherent. I think you're saying that the ISO has failed to address the question of "Marxist" personality cults and perhaps Stalinism more generally? I would say in reply that the ISO itself, and even more so the traditional it developed out of, has produced an immense amount of material on the subject.

http://www.marxists.de/china/index.htm

http://www.marxists.de/statecap/index.htm

Also, check out the ISO's website:

http://www.internationalsocialist.org/what_we_stand_for.html

or the website of the ISR.

Or the writings of Duncan Hallas or Tony Cliff at www.marxists.org

You should start with those, then come back and I'll give you more.

-Jonah

Ok let us take a brief look at some of the absuridities here. Firstly ISO talks not just about "revolution in the United States" but of "revolution world wide," The great irony I speak of "having no history," is that there hasn't been yet any significant advancement by the ISO organization OR their Trotskyist brethren wolrd wide EVER. Rather ISO pushes a line that every other group that has successfully taken state power and called itself "socialist" as being "state-capitalist" and so forth. ISO and its "Neither Washington nor Moscow" or today (Neither Bejing, Havanna, north Korea, Columbian Jungles, Nepal mountains, etc.) line hasn't gone anywhere. The formulation is more or less dead. And if ISO pulls out they were the 'most active' from 1990s' to today as a success...well we will see how that will play out...so far, apparently no where.

Now on the CPUSA..I read the quote, and I have stated I PERSONALLY agree with it; however more importantly this is a question of ideology...and ideological questions when pertaining to a site such as Wikipedia will certainly lead to the realm of POV. That is why saying on this site CPUSA is a "reformist 'Stalinist' bourgeois party" just doesn't do.

" think that debates about whether or not to support specific Green Party and other 'third party' campaigns are important. There exists a long history of revolutionaries supporting reformist electoral campaigns during non-revolutionary moments. "

The grand irony of this statement..."Vote Bourgeois when we need to." How particularlly Leninist of a formulation. Whether or not it is non-revolutionary or revolutionary, the action puts ISO within the framework of BOURGEOIS politics, and further shows really the bankruptcy of the organization itself. "Popular Frontism involves socialists subordinating the political interests of the working-class to those of the bourgeoisie."

You said it better yourself...isn't that what ISO exactly does? Now calling me a "Dumbass" just further shows how ISO doesn't know how to speak or debate issues...long history of resorting to this ad hominem attacks. ISO of course never has succeeded in their Front tactics; however doesn't mean they don't try hard to utilize it for themselves...just like them bad 'Stalinists.'

"revolutionaries need to be part of efforts to break the stranglehold that the Democrats have on the left."

Why not go to the masses themselves ratehr than siting in NYU and holding workshops? ISO should take a page from the BBP or current Workers Centers like NMASS and do some correct mass work. The Democrats don't have a strangle hold on the "left," and if they do that Left is 1) Liberal Bourgeois 2) Non-Proletarian. The Masses are not some how in the grip of Democrats and you need to break them free with the Green Party as your sledge hammer. By the way even that plan is failing...how many votes did Nader get last election, perhaps less correct? Also selling your tired paper is not going to make any headway into the masses as well... Stop using tactics that are dated to the 19th century.

Now how you label "Stalinism" itself is just baffling. First let us note...that the ISO doesn't just label groups that agree with Stalin as 'Stalinists' but labels people who have denounced Stalin as 'Stalinist.' Khruschov being an example of one of those anti-Stalin 'Stalinists.' Funnier is that ISO, when it fits their interest, takes the mantle of 'Stalinists' like Che. So it is wide knowledge the term "Stalinist" is merely ad hominem slander, there really isn't a great ideological perspective on it. Philosophers, Thinkers, Revolutionaries, Politicians of all different stripes conviently fit this label for ISO. So whether we talk about Althusser, Mao, Sartre, Buhkarin, Lukacs, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, or any other...they fit this label...You supporting Stalin doesn't make one a "Stalinist." RCP has taken on supposedly the ideology of MAOISM...and that has shades of ideological and philosophical difference from Maoism. IF you read one shred of Maoist literature, you can see that. SO lets all look at it togehter...Juche, Maoism, Althusserian Marxism, Focoism, are not Stalinist...Whether or not Stalin's picture is on their Journal is irrelevant...Engels is there too! ISO thinks of Engels as a "great thinker" do they propose to be Marxist-Engelian-Leninists-Trotskyists?

Oddly enough what is funny about this all...I guess it was the majority of the Bolshevik Party that was itself "Stalinist" and every successful "socialist revolution." Something is wrong...a bit of materialism says so...whatever Trotsky's line was "Trotskyism," "Permantism," whatever you like to name it...hasn't been successful ever. It has still have failed to make even a little break in the West. And in the end...isn't that the only thing that really quite matters?

Now on Personality Cults...What ISO has indeed produce is nothing inherently critical of the Marxist movement...what is produces is nonsense depart from the very practice of the Marxist movement itself. ISO's line basically for anything is "Well that isn't our movement" or "that isn't Marxist" etc, etc. Usually ISO does this from a Humanist moralist position, or some other Psuedo-marxist analysis of the situation. ISO's position is inherently historical revisionism, in that it denies the very existence of SOCIALISM ever. The problem of Cult of Personality is not a problem of "State-Capitalism," it was a problem of MARXISM itself. ISO will of course deny this, but they themselves engage even consciously and unconsciously in this very Cultism. Whether or not it praises Trotsky, Lenin, Marx, and even Che (when they need to). They use these figures themselves as more of a mantle piece.--68.198.123.73 07:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop taking down information about the Northeast Socialist Conference

I posted this information in the "Events" section about the regional conferences occurring this Fall, hosted by the ISO, and someone is taking the post down without any explanation. This is a legitimate event, it has a website (www.nesocialistconference.org), and has been placed in the appropriate section per Wikipedia guidelines.

If you are vandalizing this site, please stop. Ptcollins 01:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually looking back on this article, the Events sub-section sounds more like free advertisement more than anything. I suggest that we delete this section or edit it in a way that takes out the "pluggish" nature of the section. It has no place or meaning in the description of ISO. --Riot Fred 15:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/t/Talk%7EInternational_Socialist_Organization_ee22.html"