Vanguard: a song by David Rovics

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 13 2002 @ 09:00 AM CDT

Viva Rovics!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 13 2002 @ 10:29 AM CDT

and the \"left\" remains divided along sectarian lines while the right consolidates its power.

I know how sketchy working with groups like the ISO can be from firsthand experience and working with groups like WWP is not about alliance building because the ideological differences are too great and their ourstory is way too sketchy.

But if we ever want to pose a significant challenge to the state and invite as many people into such a movement as possible we have to move past our sectarian differences and really celebrate unity in diversity.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 13 2002 @ 10:58 AM CDT

Move past our sectarian differences? What kind of nonsense is this? Should we move beyond our sectarian differences with the neonazis? How about the police? I agree that we should celebrate unity in diversity. The anti-globalization movement is a great example of that unity through diversity. But we have to draw some clear lines and the WWP is clearly on the other side of that line. Everything they are about is hostile to our movements for social change: vanguardism, parasitism, hierarchical organization, centralization, authoritarianism, and so on. They have a proven track record of disrupting the activism of other groups. It\'s very clear that they wish to lead whatever movement they can get their claws into.

Anarchists and anti-capitalists should have nothing to do with the WWP/IAC. The sooner we start treating them like the red fascists they really are, the sooner we can have some real unity through diversity in our movements.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 13 2002 @ 05:12 PM CDT

Chuck, just a suggestion, but your attacks against the ISO would be much more credible if you did not keep deleting our rebuttals from this site all the time.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 13 2002 @ 11:19 PM CDT

I deleted several of your posts in one thread because they were off topic and inaccurate slanders against anarchists. I will only remind you that it is hypocritical to complain about your free speech here when your organization doesn\'t permit internal debate among rank and file members. I will also point out that the ISO is an undemocratic organization that conspires in social change movements to control internal speech so that it adheres to the aprty line of a few self-appointed ISO leaders. I only need to point to the ISO sabotage of the student anti-war movement as a perfect example.

My attacks on the ISO are based on solid criticisms of the organization\'s politics and practice. For example, the ISO is currently involved in an ongoing attempt to slander and diss consensus decision-making in activist groups. This is an attempt to create a more centralized, hierarchical situation that is conducive to the ISO\'s \"interventions\" in activist organizations and coalitions.

For more on the ISO, see: http://www.infoshop.org/texts/iso.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 14 2002 @ 12:01 AM CDT

Erm, to go a bit off topic, is there music that goes with this song? for some reason the word \"folk\" is flashing through my tired little mind, but that\'s just a hunch.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 14 2002 @ 01:13 PM CDT

Yeah, it\'s folk.

You can listen to some of Rovic\'s songs from his website at: http://members.aol.com/drovics/home.htm

Unfortunetly, the vangaurd song isn\'t recorded yet.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 14 2002 @ 03:17 PM CDT

Where the fuck do you get this crazy idea that the ISO does not permit internal debate? Oh, right, it is all those \"former ISO members\" you keep having all that coffee with. And, of course, their word can be assumed to be as good as gold, especially when it just happens to parrot your own party line.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 15 2002 @ 08:25 AM CDT

Okay, opening myself up to the firing squad here....I\'d like to make a bid for tolerance of Marxists by Anarchists....I\'m no fan of the Worker\'s World party, or of how ISO runs themselves, but on the other hand the idea that all Marxists are authoritarians is just not looking at the facts. I think that there\'s a big difference between the Marx that this generation, my generation has encountered and the Marx of previous years....people who are Marxists today have benefitted from the rediscovery of the \'Young Marx\' who was much less fixated on economic determinism than the old and more concerned with people being alienated....and the Young Marx naturally undermines much of the hard core authoritarianism of Leninist organizations....

My point is that most younger people today who call themselves Marxists probably don\'t have and never have had any connection to a cadre organization which would have fed them an authoritarian political program....Some times I feel like I\'m caught in the cross fire between anarchists who only know the Marxism of cadre organizations and Cadres who hate anarchists without end....but the Cadre organizations are relatively insignificant, especially since none are even relatively normal political organizations, even within the realm of Leninism....I think that Marxism has a lot to offer in the way of social analysis, and I don\'t think that independent Marxists who analyze society are looking for something fundamentally different from what Anarchists who do the same thing are looking for...

Both traditions can learn a lot from each other,
I remember reading about an exchange between Makhno and Lenin where Makhno, reporting on the uprising in the Ukraine, justified the peasant uprising by saying that they were as genuine fighters for revolution as were the Bolsheviks in the cities....and after Makhno made it clear that he wasn\'t just a person concerned with pipe dreams Lenin had a hard time dismissing his stance.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 16 2002 @ 05:34 PM CDT

I have no problem, in principle, with anyone criticizing the was the ISO \"runs itself\". The problem is that most people on here seem to have no fucking clue about it, and just spread lies and slander--e.g., that we supress internal dissent, that we \"hijack\" movements, that members act according to \"orders\" given by some authoritarian cabal, etc. It is so far from the reality of how the ISO operates that it borders on science fiction.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 02 2002 @ 01:20 PM CDT

I think we understand how the ISO operates internally. I\'m sure there is some internal discussion on issues, but the leading cadre calls the shots on what the line is going to be for the ISO and the branches. One only needs to look at what the branches do to see this centralization at work. We also know from former members that certain branches intervened into their personal lives, going so far as to criticize relationships or bumper stickers on cars. Finally, I\'d like to know why ISO branches don\'t have their own websites? At one time, several branches had their own websites.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 16 2002 @ 05:38 PM CDT

One more thing-why is it that when anarchists particpate in political events, they are building the movement, while when socialists do they are opportunistic \"parasites?\"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 26 2002 @ 02:03 PM CDT

Maybe because they\'re opportunistic parasites?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 27 2002 @ 09:48 AM CDT

No, I do not think so. Having been a memeber for about a decade, I think I would know it by now if I were an opportunistic parasite. I think another contributor on this site nailed it--anarchists just assume that all social movements are somehow naturally theirs, and they therefor have a natural right to participate in them. Anyone else--ISO, RCP, DSA, assorted liberals, whoever--who tries to voice an opinion, put forward their point of view, or participate in any way whatsoever, is by definition an opportunistic parasite. In the final analysis, the term \"opportunistic parasite\" means, \"not an anarchist.\"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 03 2002 @ 06:06 AM CDT

That someone else was me. I\'ve watched anarchists use slander, for example the use of the term \"authoritarian\" as their standard method for over a decade as well. All political groups in the world that are not them are by their very nature \"authoritarian.\" By using tag lines, they avoid real political debate.

In fact, being called a mass murderer, tyrant, etc. by people who have never read a single history book is pretty fucking common when dealing with anarchists. That said, I think the assholes are definitely in the minority. It\'s just that no other anarchists check their movement\'s sectarianism in print.

And, by the way, I do think the ISO regularly attempts to leach off of social movements in a destructive way. If you ever want to talk about why without rhetoric or vitriol,I\'m game.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 03 2002 @ 10:47 AM CDT

Thanks for the word, burningman. I think you\'ve got these folks figured out. As for explaining to me why the ISO \"regularly attempts to leach off social movements in a destructive way\" (no \"rhetoric or vitriol\" there!), go ahead. But something tells me I have probably heard it all before.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 02 2002 @ 01:06 PM CDT

I\'m not surprised that ISO Guy finally fesses up to being a long time member. His posts here have always given the impression that he is one of those ISO people who will defend his dysfunctional organization from any criticism, no matter how on target it is.

Of course, you are totally wrong when you say that anarchists think that social movements \"belong to us.\" You\'ve obviously not read anything written by anarchists about working with other groups and social movements. I\'ve been very vocal over the past two-three years in explaining how the anti-globalization movement is many movements, not one big movement. Of course, the ISO, like all vanguardist groups, has a vested interest in proclaiming that there is one movement. It makes it easier for them to gain influence in this unifed movement. Anarchists, on the other hand, are very comfortable co-existing with multiple movements and protest groups. Part of the reason that the anti-globalization movement has been so successful is because anarchists are good about working with other people. We got out and create relationships with allies, instead of selling them papers and trying to get them to join the ISO.

I don\'t recall much being said about the RCP or DSA by anarchists. We will always be critical of other political tendencies, because that\'s what you do to distinguish yourself from them. Anarchists have had problems with the RCP in the past, but they are far more easy to tolerate than the ISO.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 02 2002 @ 01:11 PM CDT

Anarchists do not use the word \"authoritarian\" in a slanderous way. It\'s simply an accurate way to describe the politics of other political tendencies that are hierarchical, centralized, and authoritarian. This is not some recent term used by the anarchists. We\'ve been using that word to describe the nature of authoritarian socialism and democratic socialism for many decades. We also use that word to create an important distinction between *libertarian* socialists and *authoritarian* socialists. The latter favors the socialism of the Soviet Union and Mao\'s China. The former favors true \"socialism from below,\" where decisions are made by workers and not by some enlightened cadre of intellectuals and grad students (the central committee).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 02 2002 @ 01:22 PM CDT

Chuck, what the hell are you talking about? What do you mean that I am finally \"fessing up\" to being a longtime ISO member? I said I was months ago. Did you not see any of my posts from back then? Or were you in such a rush to delete the ones that made you uncomfortable that you did not bother to read them?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 02 2002 @ 02:10 PM CDT

Again, I delete posts that are slanderous and factually inaccurate. I don\'t recall you saying that you are a *longtime* member of the ISO \"going back for a decade.\" This means that you are probably one of the big fish in the organization, somebody who has a stake in the ISO and feels very compelled to defend it by any means necessary. If you are one of the leading cadre, let me thank you for taking the time to post here. We thought we were dealing with one of the smaller ISO fish.

Let me ask you a question: Why won\'t the ISO engage in a public discussion with anarchists? We don\'t even know which ISO member you are.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 22 2002 @ 03:20 PM CDT

I am not aware of any reluctance on the part of the ISO to debate anarchists, Chuck. In fact, Alan Maass is currently engaged in an online debate on the relevance of Marxism with Michael Albert (go to the zmag website if you want to check it out).

As for being a \"big fish\", I do not even know what that means. As I said in an earlier post (which you ignored-thanks, however, for not deleting it this time), you seem to have some basic misconceptions about how the ISO functions internally. It is simply not the rigid, top-down, authoritarian monster you make it out ot be.

My own experience of \"debating\" anarchists is that there is usually little debate to be had. Their ideas about what Marxism is, what the ISO is, etc. are usually pretty much set down in stone before the \"debate\" even begins. Many (not all) anarchists ARE dogmatic, and trying to get them to see things from another point of view is like trying to convince the Pope that there is no God.

The flap over the alleged \"hijacking\" of the antiwar coalition by the ISO is a case in point. According to anarchist dogma, ALL Leninist groups are petty, insignificant sects that cannot do anything but hawk papers and alienate people. The situation at the antiwar conferences thus created a problem for anarchists. It showed that there were plenty of activists out there who liked the ISO, and thought enough of our politics to elect ISO members as delegates to the conferences.

The anarchists had essentially two options:

1) Revise their dogma. Maybe the ISO was not as small-minded and cultish as they had believed. Maybe it would be worthwhile to try and draw distinctions detween groups like the ISO and genuinely nutty cults like the Sparts.

2) Hold to their dogma, and try to \"interpret\" the reality in front of them in such a way that the dogma could survive.

The anarchists chose option two--hench the \"hijacking\" theory. Since the the notion of the ISO honestly earning a place in the nascent antiwar movement was simply a logical impossibility as far as anarchists were concerned, it must have been that the ISO got that place dishonestly. There must have been back room deals, behind the scenes maneuvering, etc. To have believed otherwise would have been an offense against the Faith.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 23 2002 @ 03:46 AM CST

This is the usual slander some Anarchists use against the ISO. I have been a member of the ISO for 2 years now, and i would have left 2 years ago if it were a top down, dogmatic, \"parasitic\" organization. But i is not. I invite any anarchist to come to one of our meetings (as long as they don\'t disrupt it) and then look me in the eye and say that there was no internal debate and that the \"party cadre\" ran the whole show. Furthermore the ISO has never, EVER claimed to be the Vanguard of the working class or a party. And another thing, i find it truly ironic that Chuck0 has been deleting posts as being \"slanderous and factually inaccurate\", when that is a matter of opinion, a lot of things that are said on this website are slanderous and factually inaccurate.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 09 2002 @ 11:10 AM CST

I completely agree with Chuck on this. I just came back from a state-wide anti-war conference in which it was pretty clear the ISO was trying to discredit any grassroots effort that had already been madein order to set up a seperate structure obviously controlled by the ISO. At the meeting, only three people identified themselves as ISO when in fact I knew of at least 5 others that were ISO regulars. This had the obvious effect of making it seem like the ISO enjoyed a lot more support than it did. Also, even though the ISO people were pushing for a seperate student coalition to preserve the student voice(the other grassroots effort was a broad based coalition with quakers, greens, anarchists, veterans, etc.), they had one of their old rank and file there! It was incredibly obvious that they were less concerned with preserving a distinct student voice than to set up an alternative structure that would be under the control of the ISO. They kept on attempting to discredit a conference that had happened about 2 weeks ago(with the AFSC, greens, vets, anarchists, other camous groups, etc.) by saying that it was \"monkeying around with democracy\". The people making these criticisms were not at the conference. From what I heard from Chuck, it seems like this is typical of the ISO\'s attempts to discredit consensus process(what we were using). This isn\'t the only experience i\'ve had working with the ISO. Everytime I\'ve had the dishonor of sharing a coalition with them, they\'ve resorted to scheming, dastardly, and leeching efforts to co-opt and take over what has already been built from the grassroots.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 09 2002 @ 11:12 AM CST

I completely agree with Chuck on this. I just came back from a state-wide anti-war conference in which it was pretty clear the ISO was trying to discredit any grassroots effort that had already been madein order to set up a seperate structure obviously controlled by the ISO. At the meeting, only three people identified themselves as ISO when in fact I knew of at least 5 others that were ISO regulars. This had the obvious effect of making it seem like the ISO enjoyed a lot more support than it did. Also, even though the ISO people were pushing for a seperate student coalition to preserve the student voice(the other grassroots effort was a broad based coalition with quakers, greens, anarchists, veterans, etc.), they had one of their old rank and file there! It was incredibly obvious that they were less concerned with preserving a distinct student voice than to set up an alternative structure that would be under the control of the ISO. They kept on attempting to discredit a conference that had happened about 2 weeks ago(with the AFSC, greens, vets, anarchists, other camous groups, etc.) by saying that it was \"monkeying around with democracy\". The people making these criticisms were not at the conference. From what I heard from Chuck, it seems like this is typical of the ISO\'s attempts to discredit consensus process(what we were using). This isn\'t the only experience i\'ve had working with the ISO. Everytime I\'ve had the dishonor of sharing a coalition with them, they\'ve resorted to scheming, dastardly, and leeching efforts to co-opt and take over what has already been built from the grassroots.

[ Reply to This | # ]