The Joy of Sects: Call for Submissions

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 23 2002 @ 10:05 AM CDT

>>Also, I\'m think that most people when they get involved in politics *do* want to find out the
differences between different ideas and groups. After all, that is how people develop their politics --
they think about what people say and do and draw their own conclusions. I\'m surprised our ISO guy
does not recognise this...

And this is the main reason why I engage in critcism of the ISO and other authoritarian groups. Some see this as sectarianism. I see it as the necessary ongoing outreach necessary to differentiate anarchy from authoritarian socialism in th eminds of new and young activists. Otherwise, activists start seeing anarchism as a harder form of socialism where people wear lots of black. There are fundemental differences which go back to the fights between Marx and Bakunin.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 23 2002 @ 09:43 AM CDT

ANY social group has problems with cliqueishness, so it isn\'t something that is an inherent anarchist problem. I\'m disappointed in Ian equivocating the ISO\'s manipulative methods with natural phenomenon in anarchist circles. I see this as not being a huge problem in anarchist circles, because I think that people see a clique where there aren\'t any. I may have a circle of anarchist friends that I trust and associate with, but that isn\'t a clique. To me, a clique is a small group that actively seeks to protect their power. The ISO, on the other hand, is a manipulative organization that actively engages in undemocratic methods.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 23 2002 @ 08:04 AM CDT

ISO guy writes:

\'3) People new to activism. This seems likely, but a bit misguided. Do you really think people new to activism are going to be impressed by a book whose main point is, \"Join us, not them. Here, read this book! See what bad, bad people they are!\" More likely, new activists are going to be disgusted by the whole thing, and say, \"A plague on all your houses!\'

It is a shame that the likes of ISO and SWP don\'t
follow this advice, we would be saved such terrible
Marxist articles on (what they consider to be) anarchism.

But, of course, its *different* when Marxists
slag off anarchists -- firstly, because, well,
it is *Marxists* who do it and, secondly, its usually inaccurrate.

(visit http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append31.html
for an anarchist reply to an SWP/ISO distorted
account of anarchism in one of their pamphlets).

Also, I\'m think that most people when they get
involved in politics *do* want to find out the
differences between different ideas and groups.
After all, that is how people develop their
politics -- they think about what people say and
do and draw their own conclusions. I\'m surprised
our ISO guy does not recognise this...

Lastly, ISO guy complains that \"What does happen is someone comes up and says . . . \"You\'re authoritarians!\" That is not constructive, and it is not helpful. It is smug, self-important, self-rightious, sectarian bullshit.\"

As opposed to calling anarchists \"petty-bourgeois,\" \"eltist\", \"undemocratic,\"
or
whatever else happens to be the favourite of the
party at this particular moment?

utlimately, I feel that the ISO guy is simply
annoyed that anarchists have taken their mode
of political \"debate\" and used it against them :)

anyways, good luck with the pamphlet. The more
people who get to know why Leninism is a flawed
ideology and how bad it was in practice the better.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 23 2002 @ 03:56 AM CDT

Yes, we have a problem with cliquishness. However, this does not compare to the authoritarianism, badmouthing, and takeover attempts of the statist Left.

Furthermore, we are growing, and with that, we are becoming a much more culturally diverse crowd (ie, less rooted in the punk scene). This, in my experience, has had a fantastic effect on the movement in general, making it much more inclusive.

Circuit

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 23 2002 @ 02:46 AM CDT

Every group has their own vice. The statist left has \"sectarianism\", the anarchists have their equivilant - cliquishness. Anarchists function on closed groups of friends getting together, dressing alike, thinking alike and sleeping around within that circle. Then, if someone comes along who is different, they are dismissed and never let in, or worse, something is found or made up to write them off as hopelessly \"counter-revolutionary\".

Anarchists are no better than the ISO, we just use different masks and rationalizations for our arrogant and exclusive behavior.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 23 2002 @ 12:34 AM CDT

I agree. I\'ve been meaning to put together a pamphlet on the ISO, but I have more important things to do. Given the ISO\'s declining influence on activism I\'m inclined to just shelve the project.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 23 2002 @ 12:32 AM CDT

Hey kids, ISO Guy is getting nervous! Now he is whining about how people call his organization authoritarian. I\'ve noticed that ISO Guy is getting more shrill whenever he posts to this board. He has abandoned argument for cheap shots against critics.

\"You\'re authoritarians!\" That is not constructive, and it is not helpful. It is smug, self-important, self-rightious, sectarian bullshit.\"

Here\'s a case where ISO Guy conflates principled critics of the ISO with people who simply say insults about the ISO. The ISO is an authoritarian organization. This is a fact, not an insult. The ISO is hierarchical, centralized, and doesn\'t allow space for grassroots democracy. The agenda for the organization is set by the central committee in Chicago and local decisions are made by the local cadre leaders. This is authoritarianism.

ISO Guy goes on to say: \"The sad thing is, so long as so many people on the Left (or post-Left, if you prefer) make it their top priority to slander, harangue, and harass other Leftists, the Left as a whole is never going to realiz its potential as a force for positive social change.\"

I don\'t know of any anarchists or left libertarians who have made it a top priority to attack the ISO, the Left, or whoever ISO Guy thinks are the good guys. The ISO is simply not important enough to be anybody high priority, but they are organized enough that their little schemes are disruptive to activism. Anybody who cares about the potential for positive social change shoudl be concerned about so-called Left groups that are authoritarian and sabotage our social change movements.

It\'s good to hear that this book is in the works. The intended audience should be rank-and-file activists and it\'s this possibility that scares the ISO. Let\'s hope that this book contains lots of anecdotes from former ISO members so everybody can finally see the facts.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 22 2002 @ 11:42 PM CDT

I recommend that the people working on this project not spend too much time on it.

These groups are annoying, yes, but they\'re also incredibly ineffective in the grand scheme of things. Many of these groups are honestly not worthy of our time.

Circuit

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 22 2002 @ 11:40 PM CDT

Ummm. But y\'all *are* authoritarians. You\'re also quite comfortable with being authoritarians.

I have yet to meet a single trotskyist who is an *anti*-authoritarian. That\'d be a bit of a contradiction in terms, no?

Circuit

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 22 2002 @ 10:20 PM CDT

See? See? I rest my case.

Actually, I will ad one more thing. I have no problem whatsoever with someone coming up and saying, \"Hey, your wrong about this\", or \"You didn\'t do this right\", or \"You need to do this better.\" This is called constructive criticism, and it is welcome and helpful.

Unfortunately, this is never actually what happens. What does happen is someone comes up and says, \"You\'re hypocrits!\", or \"You\'re sellouts!\", or (the current favorite), \"You\'re authoritarians!\" That is not constructive, and it is not helpful. It is smug, self-important, self-rightious, sectarian bullshit.

The sad thing is, so long as so many people on the Left (or post-Left, if you prefer) make it their top priority to slander, harangue, and harass other Leftists, the Left as a whole is never going to realize its potential as a force for positive social change.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 22 2002 @ 08:16 PM CDT

It\'s good for everyone.

We wanna know who you really are in advance the next time you guys show up under some vague front name \"globalise resistance\" or \"anti war coalition\" or some other boring, uncreative name.
After all, if there was nothing to be shamed of with your silly sects, you wouldn\'t feel the need to constantly hide behind fronts trying to lure newcomers in once you got a chance to speak your useless rhetoric to them in that front group. Oh wait, that whole anti-war things you started putting up on the walls was all about new recruits from that campus anyway...

there you go, ISO guy

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 22 2002 @ 07:56 PM CDT

In some places like my town there are none of these groups (probably a result of the lack of colleges - and the sectarian left do tend to be college based). A booklet like this would be keen for anarchos hereabouts who don\'t have any experience with these groups. Hopefully the point would be made that a lot of ISO\'ers etc are committed individuals who can be very nice people and good organizers while criticizing the organization itself for being the top-down authority cult that it is. that is to say, critiquing the organization and its structure and tactics without being assholes.

Organize yourselves!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 22 2002 @ 07:36 PM CDT

Some leftist groups that aren\'t sectarian:
Democratic Socialists of America
Green Party
AFL-CIO
War resisters league
IWW
NEFAC
Mobilization for Global Justice
Global Exchange
Rainforest Action Network
GreenPeace

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 22 2002 @ 05:50 PM CDT

Say, something else just occured to me--who, exactly, is supposed to be the intended audience for this book? I only see a few possibilities:

1) The general public? No way. The general public doesn\'t give a rat\'s ass about all the petty, vindictive squabbling that goes on on the Left.
2) Current members of \"sectarian\" groups? Not likely. Most of us who belong to groups are quite happy where we are. Otherwise, why would we have joined?
3) People new to activism. This seems likely, but a bit misguided. Do you really think people new to activism are going to be impressed by a book whose main point is, \"Join us, not them. Here, read this book! See what bad, bad people they are!\" More likely, new activists are going to be disgusted by the whole thing, and say, \"A plague on all your houses!\"
4) The editors and contributors themselves? This, in my opinion, is who is most likely to be impressed. However, since these folks already buy into the book\'s argument, what is the point?

In any case, to each his own. Have fun.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 22 2002 @ 05:18 PM CDT

Who the hell is there on the Left that you guys do not consider sectarians? That is gonna be one hell of a long book!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 23 2002 @ 10:33 AM CDT

hmmmm.... I fail to see the hardcore cliquishness among anarchists that An-ok (multiple posts above), at least among the anarchists I know. We don\'t dress alike, we have broad similarities in our thoughts but a \'healthy\' amount of differences, and we all have non-anarchist friends [heck, all of us aren\'t vegan either]. Furthermore, we willingly work with non-anarchists in our activism, with the exception of minimizing work with overbearing, authoritarian personalities and organizations.

It is likely that An-ok is generalizing from experiences with one or more particular groups, but I don\'t believe its accurate for the movement as a whole [lest my buddies and I are an outlier fringe].

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 23 2002 @ 02:30 PM CDT

North Amer anarchists can be (not always) horribly cliquish and counter-cultural, which prevents their effectiveness, yes. But that\'s not inherent to anarchism -- whereas top-down cadre style organizing is to marxist leninism. some think it\'s a necessary evil, some worship it, but everyone does it within m-l.

As for leftists smearing other leftists, and that being horrible -- you\'re one to talk. Socialist Worker and ISR always either leave out anarchist influence, participation, etc., or do a smear job. An article called \"Anarchism: How Not to Build a Revolution\" in ISR, e.g. Or within their group meetings and talks, etc. etc.

More, their internal bulletins (I was a member for three months before I knew what m-l was) reveal their fear of anarchist influence, and that they should target left-liberal college activists (those who would join MGJ first) to win them over to m-l instead of having them go toward big bad anarchism, when and if they develop revolutionary leanings.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 23 2002 @ 06:33 PM CDT

Once again, I try to be reasonable and find I am wasting my breath. Good luck on your book, folks. I hope it becomes a best-seller.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 23 2002 @ 09:03 PM CDT

ISO Guy, you aren\'t being reasonable and you know it. Good try.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 24 2002 @ 02:50 PM CDT

I don\'t think that the nature or demeanor of ISO activists should be at issue. I\'ve know more than a few ISO activists, who were intelligent, nice, and dedicated activists. I also wouldn\'t say that they were necessarily authoritarians. There is a humorless, arrogant attitude that ISO members have, but this usually disappears when they leave the organization. You\'d be sullen and hostile too if you had to sell the Socialist Worker.

The problem is not individual ISO activists (other than a few of the hardcore ISO leaders), the problem is with the organization. The ISO is a TrotskyLeninistNader organization that embraces hierarchy and centralized decision-making. Everything is run by a central commitee and individual members have little say in how things are run. Newer members are accompanied to all activist events by long-time members. I suspect that ISO Guy coud never give out his identity, because he would get in trouble with the leadership cadre for engaging in public discussions about the ISO.

The ISO is also a problem because of how it interacts with other activist groups. It conducts these things called \"interventions,\" where ISO members secretly conspire to make changes in a group that are favorable to the ISO. In some cases, the ISO does interventions with the goal of tkaing over an organization or movement. Examples of this include the ISO\'s takeover of the student anti-sweatshop movement and their recent attempts control the student anti-war movement.

These are serious problems of a hierchical, dysfunctional organization. This doesn\'t mean that individual ISO activists are *bad* people. They have just made a bad decision to belong to the wrong organization.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 24 2002 @ 12:32 PM CDT

I am the person who posted this call for submissions that has gotten so many responses. I would like to clarify a few things about the booklet/zine i and a few other individuals are putting together.

First, the idea for the booklet came out of experiences (not ALL bad, mind you) people putting this together have had with sectarian groups. Probably because Boston is a college town, there happen to be many active sectarian groups in the city. We don\'t even have a clear vision yet of what exactly we would like to see come out of the production of this booklet.

Some of us experienced encounters during the anti-war conference in Boston, some of us outside of this. However, this booklet is not solely about the ISO, nor is it merely an attack on sectarian groups. Rather, it is an attempt for those of us working on this to learn more about various sectarian groups (so in a sense, it is a bit of self-education). BUT it is also an attempt to compile information that may be useful to new activists. The latter goal may be more difficult to attain, but at the very least we can clear up, in one piece of literature, what some of the *many* acronyms stand for.

The call for sending in personal experiences with sectarian groups will just give us a little better understanding of how different sects work with other groups and individuals throughout the country, not just in Boston.

Now, I realize that this booklet is a monstrous task, and will only really break the surface, but it is something that this group of people i\'m working with and i find important, or at least interesting.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 24 2002 @ 01:33 PM CDT

ISO asked:
\"Just in time, too, cuz I want to ask you this question: why is it that you dismiss every statement about the ISO current, active members as lies, evasion, or evidence of \"brainwashing\", while automatically and uncritically accepting every statement by disgruntled former ISO members as though it were the Gospel Truth?\"

A very clever statement which is pretty good at putting words in my mouth. ISO Guy\'s modus operandi has changed. He\'s gotten to the point where he has to turn the criticisms of the ISO into some kind of irrational extremism.

Let\'s go over this again ISO Guy. I don\'t accept every statement that I read from anybody. But when you read enough statements that contain similar anecdotes, patterns start to emerge.

There are two sources for information about the ISO. One is anecdotes, both written and oral, from former ISO members. The other is the experience of activists with the ISO. The written statements about the ISO confirm stories that the organization is very authoritarian and controlling of member\'s lives. The ISO is much like a cult, in that it enforces ideological conformity, makes huge demands on the time of its members, and cajoles them into giving lots of money to ISO publishing projects. On the other hand, we have the experience of activists with the ISO. There is much more of that and the complaints are pretty much the same all over the place.

I\'ll also point out that there are some former ISO members who got so pissed at the ISO that they went and formed their own socialist groups. We have one of those groups here in Washington, which was started by some guys who had started the ISO branch in DC many years ago. That\'s a pretty big vote of no confidence if you ask me.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 23 2002 @ 11:11 PM CDT

Hi Reverend--I figured you\'d show up here sooner or later. Just in time, too, cuz I want to ask you this question: why is it that you dismiss every statement about the ISO current, active members as lies, evasion, or evidence of \"brainwashing\", while automatically and uncritically accepting every statement by disgruntled former ISO members as though it were the Gospel Truth?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 23 2002 @ 11:13 PM CDT

I agree that these groups are not sectarian. It might surprise you to know that at one time or another, the ISO has worked with nearly every one of them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 23 2002 @ 11:46 PM CDT

It seems to me a book like this would actually work to deepen sectarianism amoungst the class. We need an understanding of sectarian behaviour that works to subvert the fractures and internal opposition that keeps the class down. this would have to include ( to my mind) the realization that sectarinism is often fueld by the alienation created within us by class society ( or civilization if you would prefer). We often feel so alone and disempowered, or angry and frustrated that we blame those around us for having the wrong ideas ( ie being Baptists, or Marxist-Leninist or pritivists or anarcho-leftist etc etc) and thus thats why we are yet to smash capital and the state( its also divert attention away from the fact that we don\'t really have is sussed ourselves and probably never will).
Sectarianism becomes a spectacular activity where trotskyists can refight the internal battles in the USSR of the 1920 or anarchists can relive the glory of kronstadt by hassling people at paper sales, writing emails and pamphlets etc. Of cause the planetary work machine continues to grind along, and of cause the class struggle continues fighting back, but in less effect form.
Now I think that we have to have robust debate and i\'m harshly critical of ML groups...but the best way to trancsend sects is through open free discussion not by becoming a sect yourself
cheers
Dave

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 23 2002 @ 11:51 PM CDT

I\'m not Chuck0, but I can tell you that the ISO practices, and the conduct of their members, speak for themselves. Every ISO member I\'ve met is either confused or an obnoxious, imposing snotball. Every ex-ISO member I\'ve met (and there are so many to meet) has struck me as reasonable and decent, and having left the organization for precisely those reasons. So, on the one hand, you have a hierarchical party full of arrogant ivy-league wankers busy selling gaudy papers that have nothing in them but simplistic sloganizing and lies about anarchism, on the other hand, you have articulate and free-minded human beings who are committed to activities of real importance. For example, a friend of mine was in the ISO and a campus feminist group at the same time. The local ISO commissars said she had to choose between the groups. I don\'t need to tell you that she made the intelligent choice and put her copies of socialist worker to their proper use as toilet paper. - Ryan

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 24 2002 @ 02:48 AM CDT

\"The sad thing is, so long as so many people on the Left (or post-Left, if you prefer) make it their top priority to slander, harangue, and harass other Leftists, the Left as a whole is never going to realize its potential as a force for positive social change.\"

This is the same Bullshit the Bush admin pushes on us. No dissent! No criticizing us! We must unite against the big bad enemy! What a load of BS.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 24 2002 @ 10:04 AM CDT

Hi...just a few comments on Ryan\'s post...i\'m very sceptical of the idea that there is a direct corrilation between being in the ISO and being a \"bad person\". The point could be made that authoritiran practices are the product of alienation and perpetuate this behavour by maintain a division of labour....yet...as bad as ML politics are the struggle is greater thus, on pickets and facing cops there are often profound moments of solidarity through out the class and cut across what are mainly \"ideological\" divisions. These leads me to think that the best alternative to sectarianism ( which is not just the realm of Leninist, there is much sectarian behavour amoungst the ultra-left and anarchists of all stripes) is the promotion of struggles: this requires openess, trust, forgiveness and understanding. Blaming the Bolsheviks often is little more than swagger and sabre-rattling
cheers
Dave

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 24 2002 @ 02:57 PM CDT

Let me preface my comments by noting that those activists who live where I live, do not have the sheer luxury of sectarianism.
Often I hear anarchist of any particular variety dismiss criticisms of cliquishness by pointing out that formal authoritarian inegalite is not present. This always struck me as odd considering that the least effective force in social conformity is legal or formal sanctions. (At least that is what my sociology book authoritatively dictates.) Much more effective is voluntary internalization of norms in constraining the behaviour of the individual. That said I\'d contrast the current and evolving form of north american fascism (or that of global corporate fascism) to that of now extinct german phalangism. Rather cleverly, somebody once pointed out to me that american style fascism is the measure by which to evaluate that which occurs elsewhere. Think about the means by which corporate culture establishes itself and the efficiency of that method and you\'ll see what I mean.
I would tenously extend the metaphor to the anarchist authority vs. leninist or any formal authority.
But then again maybe it is just the fact that the most \"radical\" groups I encounter are perhaps the SEIU, or some moderate college greens that makes my activism disturbingly academic. (Actually, I did get to meet that Ralph Nader guy through them, an oppressively brooding figure if I ever met one..)

In the end I am not a Marxist. I am also not an anarchist. I am just me. Sometimes I am a Marxist when I use the theories or come across a context demanding a certain praxis. Likewise, sometimes I am an anarchist. It makes life a lot simpler/more complicated not to be an absolutist.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 24 2002 @ 04:07 PM CDT

Chuck, part of your problem is that you have some very basic misconceptions about how the ISO operates internally. I suspect these false assumptions are part of what leads you to interpret so much of what we do and say the way you do. For example:

Myth: The ISO is a rigidly hierarchical, top-down organization.
Truth: ISO branches (a branch is the most basic unit of the organization) operate autonomously (that is, with no guidance or involvement from any national body) 99% of the time. Branch leadership is democratically elected by branch members, with no input or interference from the center. Individual branches are left to organize themselves as they see fit, and the exact form of branch organization varies tremendously throughout the country. Some branches are fairly centralized, others fairly decentralized--most fall somewhere in between. The one constant is that leadership is drawn directly from the local branch membership, democractically elected by that membership, and fully accountable to that membership.

Myth: The ISO does not tolerate internal dissent.
Truth: People within the organization discuss, debate, and disagree about all kinds of things all the time, and do so in the open without any fear of reprisals. In ten years, I know of only one occasion when anyone was expelled from the ISO, and it had nothing to do with their (six people) disagreeing. Rather, it was a response to their active efforts to obstruct and interfere with the group and its activities.

Myth: The ISO attempts to \"hijack\" popular movements.
Truth: The ISO does what anarchists and every one else does in this regard--put forward their own point of view. I cannot understand why it is that when anarchists participate in popular movements, everything is fine and dandy, but when we (or any other non-anarchists, for that matter) do the same, we are denounced as \"parasites\". I think the burningman (no fan of the ISO, by the way) has it right--anarchists feel that all popular movements are somehow \"naturally\" theirs, and that any attempt by anyone else else--be it ISO, DSA, Greens, pacifists, etc--to participate is automatically a sign of \"authoritarian\" manipulation.

I could go on and on, and maybe later I will. If the time I have spent surfing infoshop.org has taught me anything about anarchism it is this--there are an awful lot of anarchists (not all) who do what any insular, cliquish group does: repeat each others myths, and come to believe each others lies.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 23 2002 @ 01:46 PM CDT

Comrade, you must get back to party headquarters to plan the boring revolution!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 24 2002 @ 04:30 PM CDT

A good reference (though not terribly current) for many of the left groups out there is AMERICAN EXTREMISTS: MILITIAS, SUPREMACISTS, KLANSMEN, COMMUNISTS, & OTHERS by John George and Laird Wilcox

It details various groups\' histories, their front groups, etc. It was published in 1996, and it has nothing about the ISO or its predecessor IS-related groups. It discusses the Workers\' World Party, but not Ramsey Clark or the IAC (much less ANSWER). It is a good start, if you want to trace all the groups back to their involvement with SDS or CPUSA.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 24 2002 @ 07:32 PM CDT

Another source to check out is the online Journal of Cultic Studies which has an academic case study of a British Trotskyite group popular in the 1980\'s called the CWI (Committee for a Workers International). The study covers the recruitment process of the group as well as the major mind control techniques it used. The website is connected to a psycho-analytic organization which \"deprograms\" cult members which sounds somewhat cultic itself. But I found the case study to be fascinating. It\'s at: http://www.csj.org/pub_csj/csj_vol15_no1_98/political_left.htm

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 25 2002 @ 07:54 AM CDT

There is no such political entity as \"the Left as a whole\". The goals, strategies, and even some tactics of the authoritarian aspects of the so-called Left are completely and utterly incompatible with anarchism (or any other anti-authoritarian political groupings).

Authoritarians and anti-authoritarians have nothing in common.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 25 2002 @ 10:03 AM CDT

Hi Comrades...
I would really be very sceptical of psycho-analytical studies as psychology/psychiatry is all about normalising deviance of any form.Remeber the attempts to \"treat\" queer people..There is no point siding with the enemy to critique Leninist groupings
cheers
Dave

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 27 2002 @ 06:18 PM CDT

\"Abstaining from bad sects\"

http://www.resistinc.org/newsletter/issues/1999/12/berlet.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 04 2002 @ 12:52 PM CDT

wow - here I am in the Morocco on my way to participate in Freedom Summer, an awesome non-sectarian project of direct action in support of the Palestinian people, when I came across this debate.

I do not miss the United States at all. I just participated in the Spanish General Strike and marched against a \"Europe of Capital\" in Seville with tens of thousands of revolutionaries of all stripes.

But back in the states, All the petty name calling and shit talking, the small mindedness and total isolation from most people. Aren\'t you all sick of it yet? It doesn\'t have to be like this. The left is growing all throughout Europe. And trust me, they have their problems with boring newspapersellers too. But who cares? American sectarian anarchists and not too many others.

I like ISO guy. He is telling the truth and the ringleaders of North American anarchism\'s shitty attitude hate him for it. I think he may be a bit naive on the amount of centralism at play in the ISO, but his experience in a Marxist group are not totally disimilar to mine. Marxists are totally contentious and a vastly more diverse lot in terms of race, class, cultural and dietary habits than the almost completely homogeneous anarchists I\'ve met throughout North America over the past decade.

Anarchists regularly attack others (and each other) with a kind of viciousness that reminds of no one so much as the sparts. The fact that you are young and like to have fun won\'t help you in ten years when you\'re just another sectarian hack with an axe to grind.

So write your book attacking Marxists. And then remember to include as sectarians: The Black Panthers; the young lords; Che Guevara; John Paul Sartre, every single army that fought colonialism, Mao, Students for a Democratic Society, the Sandinistas; the Tupamaros; the Red Brigades of Italy; the Anti-fascist resistance of Italy, Yugoslavia, Russia, Denmark, and France.

Remember to include the fact that the most important thing anarchists ever do is lose. You have never anywhere accomplished anything except lose. Keep talking about Kronstadt and Barcelona and Makhno. Losers each and every one. Why are you losers? Because you are so stupid as to think winning is authoritarian. You have a philosophy of losing. Pathetic. The one thing you have won is the title of \"most self-righteous people on the left\" (whether you want to be in the left or not).

And keep in mind that when anarchist mobilize alone, the crowds are massively small. I was at the marches in New York during the WEF and while anarchists were prominent and did greqt work, people like the good Reverend Chuck0, claimed they did everything. Bizarre to anyone who was actually there.

I don\'t know why I\'m going on. I just wanted to thank ISO guy for the shout out. By the way, I\'ve been working with those 6 guys who got thrown out of the ISO and they are a swell bunch. Left Turn is a decent magazine with some strong contributors. Considering how much I despised Trots for years, consider this my own contribution to anti-sectarianism.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 21 2002 @ 12:28 PM CDT

\"So write your book attacking Marxists.\"

Then lists numerous dictators or supporters of
dictators, with a few notable exceptions...

\"Remember to include the fact that the most important thing anarchists ever do is lose.\"

And socialism exists anywhere? Nope. The most
important thing Marxists do is lose -- and lose
it big time and create one-party dictatorships
and state capitalism...

\"You have never anywhere accomplished anything except lose. Keep talking about Kronstadt and Barcelona and Makhno. Losers each and every one.\"

USSR anyone? Does that exist? Nope. Was it socialist? Nope...

\"Why are you losers? Because you are so stupid as to think winning is authoritarian.\"

Nope. Authoritarian is when one party seizes power and imposes its own dictatorship over the working class. If that is \"winning\" then, well, no wonder Marxism is dying...

\"You have a philosophy of losing. Pathetic.\"

What is pathetic is holding up dictators as some kind of heroes to follow.

\"The one thing you have won is the title of \'most self-righteous people on the left\' (whether you want to be in the left or not).\"

Better self-righteous than apologists for dictatorship and tyranny...

In summary, our Marxist comrade has shown us the necessity of writting this book! Well done!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 28 2002 @ 04:37 AM CDT

Sects. Hmm. I revistited this moribund site as I

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 29 2002 @ 08:22 PM CDT

As usual, burningman does what he can to spread lies and slander about the American anarchist movement. It\'s funny that he characterizes this site as \'moribund,\' since it is more popular than most of the progressive and radical website out there.

The \"left\" is growing here in the U.S. too, thanks to the work of many people, especially the anarchists. I\'m nto wrong when I credit anarchists with the revival of public dissent in the United States.

As for you claim that I claim that I did \"everything\" at the anti-WEF protests: I make no claim that I did everything, but I did a lot of work behind the scenes to make those protests happen. Most of this networking was invisible, but that is why these protests are so efective. They are based on the networking power of the Internet. I was contacted by comrades in Europe who had been doing anti-WEF stuff for years. I contacted comrades in New York who then put together a call to action. Once that call was finalized, I spent alot of time spreding this call around and getting endorsements.

I understand that my hard work often goes unrecognized, because I\'m not the type to go up on stage and make speeches and pretend I\'m a great leader. Of course, there are many people who made the New York protests a success, but burningman is toally wrong when he dismisses my work on the anti-WEF protests.

Typical sectarianism from burningman.

Burningman wishes to convince everybody that anarchists are losers. I think we are all capable of looking at the historical record. The Spanish Revolution? Sabotaged by the Soviet Union. The Russian Revolution? Taken over by the Trots and ended up with the death of millions.

Speaking of loser, why is the anti-globalization movement so successful? Anarchists.

Remember Seattle? Where were all of those paper-selling socialists and communists? Not in Seattle!

Who organized Seattle and the N30 day of international protest against capitalism?

That\'s right: anarchists.

Shove that up your pipe and smoke it, burningman.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 29 2002 @ 08:27 PM CDT

LOL. You Marxists are pretty strange with this nonsense about how good things are in Cuba and the former Soviet Union. If Russians are looking back fondly at the Soviet era, it\'s probably because they remember all of the services they developed in the black market segment of the economy to get around the Soviet government\'s incompetence.

I don\'t recall a big upswell of communists at the time the Soviet Union dissolved.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 30 2002 @ 01:51 PM CDT

Apparently, the ISO has the same definition of \"truth\" as Pravda did - whatever central says is truth. Let\'s go over the \"truth\" of ISO Guy

>>Truth: ISO branches (a branch is the most basic unit of the organization) operate autonomously (that is, with no guidance or involvement from any national body) 99% of the time. Branch leadership is democratically elected by branch members, with no input or interference from the center. <<

This is patently untrue. Ever notice how ISO flyers look EXACTLY alike, down to the same stock photographs, the same font, the same ugly black and white format?

Why do you HAVE to sell Socialist Worker & ISR everywhere? Why do you HAVE to quote from them?

Why did EVERY ISO branch take part in an effort to get rid of consensus at the antiwar conferences? Why did EVERY ISO branch try to invade

Why did ALL ISO branches have to withdraw from the IST & SWP or otherwise be expelled from the ISO?

The answer is that Central has always been in control of the ISO. Central says what the branch leader has to do. Central says how many copies of Socialist Worker need to be sold. Central says that members need to walk a picket line with Union X. By no means does the ISO practice branch autonomy - in every manner, the ISO practices centralism. That\'s just the way it is, and if you disagree with me, check your Member\'s Handbook.

>>Truth: People within the organization discuss, debate, and disagree about all kinds of things all the time, and do so in the open without any fear of reprisals. <<

Here\'s an experiment. Express open dissent about selling Socialist Worker. Say that you disagree with the use of capitalist means (i.e. hucksterism, infiltration, salesmanship) to achieve socialist ends. Then refuse to sell Socialist Worker.

Better yet - why don\'t you call the bullshit that Shawki\'s people stand for, i.e. a \"secular\" Palestine with Israelis and Muslims (a formula for bloodletting on par with the Balkans) what it is - bullshit. Refuse to hold a meeting about it. I dare you.

>>In ten years, I know of only one occasion when anyone was expelled from the ISO, and it had nothing to do with their (six people) disagreeing.
Rather, it was a response to their active efforts to obstruct and interfere with the group and its activities.<<

>>Truth: The ISO does what anarchists and every one else does in this regard--put forward their own point of view. I cannot understand why it is that when anarchists participate in popular movements, everything is fine and dandy, but when we (or any other non-anarchists, for that matter) do the same, we are denounced as \"parasites\".<<

From what I have seen, the anarchists - and I am not one myself - are crucial to movements in that they have an understanding of the role of direct action, and that\'s made my dealings with them work out. Their work has usually been reciprocal -in exchange for their aid they offer their aid.

There are several groups - some of which you\'ve listed - that are ok as far as reciprocating; here I mean the DSA, the Greens, some labor unions. Most Trot groups, however, seek only to take short term political gain by joining groups. The Sparts and their various split groups, the Lurpies, and the ISO.

I encountered both of these types of relationship when I was working in a college anti-war coalition. I was a part of a student government, with access to a rather large budget. The ISO basically mooched off of us; they constantly came to us for cash for buses for events we (and the rest of the student groups in the coalition) didn\'t want to go. We gave them some in the end. What did we get out of it? Nothing. No attendance of our rallies, no desire to even help us out.

I\'m sure the same formula happens on campuses across the U.S. - the ISO comes to a group, offers its aid in exchange for some cash, then chickens out.

>>If the time I have spent surfing infoshop.org has taught me anything about anarchism it is this--there are an awful lot of anarchists (not all) who do what any insular, cliquish group does: repeat each others myths, and come to believe each others lies. <<

Why is it that to be critical of you one is cliquish; yet for the ISO to be critical of Palestinians (i.e. the recent SW article arguing against a two state solution), pacifists (condemned by SW as a \"dead-end\"), or the Cubans (who are not \"real\" socialists) is nothing?

Anarchists are cliquish perhaps, but most likely because the ISO and other such groups have not so much as given them room to breathe and speak. The ISO, on the other hand, is cliquish because it keeps Shawki\'s boys wealthy off of your dues.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 31 2002 @ 11:23 AM CDT

You are so full of shit, BFAB. Chuck, are you listening? Should I even bother to respond, or will you just delete me like you usually do?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 31 2002 @ 12:02 PM CDT

Fuck it-if Chuck deletes this, he deletes it.

Your proof that the ISO is rigidly centralized-that our flyers look alike? Huh?

First of all, they don\'t look \"EXACTLY\" alike. Insofar as they look similar, this is because there is usually one person in a given branch who does most of them (usually someone who has some artistic talent). Plus, many are in fact variations on a template. Sorry, but we would rather spend time engaging in politics than dreaming up pretty flyers.

Why do we HAVE to sell SW & ISR everywhere? Uh, maybe cuz those are our main publications? I am not sure what this is supposed to show.

Why do we HAVE to quote from it? We don\'t.

Why did the ISO take part in an effort to get rid of consensus at the antiwar conferences? Now you are just in fantasy land. The fact is that the pro-consensus people came into those conferences determined to ram consensus down everyone\'s throat. Whgen they did not get their way, they walked out. If they could not control the antiwar movement, they wanted to do what they could to destroy it.

What the hell are we \"invading\" again? Your line got cut off.

Why did all ISO branches have to break off with the SWP? Cuz they engineered our expulsion from the IST. Duh! Do you think many anarchist groups would let me in knwoing I was a member of the ISO?

Central says what the branch leader has to do. There is no \"branch leader\". There is a branch committee, and if you are saying the center controls it, that is a bald-faced lie. As I said before, branch committee members are democratically elected by branch members, and branch committee slots rotate frequently. Insofar as the branch committee exercises \"leadership\", it is in the way of coordinating activity--hench branch committee slots named \"labor coordinator\", \"campus coordinator\", \"new member coordinator\", etc.

Central says how many SWs need to be sold. That is a lie.

Central says members need to walk a picket line with Union X. That is a lie. Decisions like that are made at the branch level.

You challenged me to express open dissent about selling SW. Guess what-I have. Guess what happened to me? Nothing. I am not going to get into the details of why I was hesitant to sell SW in some circumstances. However, the important point is that I was never forced to do so.

Here is a challenge for you, BFAB: provide me with proof that anyone is getting rich off the ISO.

Well, I gotta get back to work. Hope Chuck does not delete this

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 31 2002 @ 12:55 PM CDT

I\'ve been to Cuba and the the only man I met who really hated the revolution was a pimp. He wanted the \"freedom\" to live of the sexual servitude of women and Castro didn\'t give it to him.

The people of Cuba are overwhelmingly in support of the current system against any other apparent alternatives. I met them. I travelled through the country and avoided the party-types like the plague. I met people who fought in Africa against apartheid troops. I met social workers and doctors who volunteered in Haiti and Colombia to support their liberation movements and I came away with many of my own illusions shattered about their fragile society.

And really, Russia is a fucking whorehouse of gangsters and capitalists now. It is anarchy.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 31 2002 @ 12:59 PM CDT

Don\'t let the bastards get you down. The point of Infoshop\'s ceaseless attacks on other revolutionaries is to make debate impossible. They don\'t represent the bulk of decent anarchists any more than the Sparts speak for Marxists. Try to keep things in perspective and see these guys for the shit-talkers and assholes they are. But lot\'s of decent people read this site and might learn something from the very debate they are attempting to smother with lies and slander.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 31 2002 @ 01:57 PM CDT

Thanks friend. Just for the record, I absolutely agree that the vast majority of anarchists--whatever disagreements I may have with them politically--are decent, hard-working, and committed activists. The Spart analogy is a good one.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 31 2002 @ 02:45 PM CDT

Hey Trot-here\'s an idea-try fucking off! If you cannot tell the difference between an anarchist and a Spart, then you need to get your brain checked. You guys are no better than the nazis!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 01 2002 @ 05:12 PM CDT

>>Your proof that the ISO is rigidly centralized-that our flyers look alike? Huh? <<

The proof is that the Chicago office prints all the materials. I never said my entire case rested upon this; there are plenty of other instances of centralization, and I will go over them right here.

>>Why do we HAVE to sell SW & ISR everywhere? Uh, maybe cuz those are our main publications? I am not sure what this is supposed to show. <<

My question is really could you get away with NOT selling SW and ISR? Or would you be expelled, as so many others are?

>>Why do we HAVE to quote from it? We don\'t. <<

ISO Members Handbook has explicit instructions to do so. You don\'t know how many meetings in which I\'ve had an ordinary run of the mill question answered with a sentence beginning \"Well, the latest issue of Socialist Worker says...\"

>>Central says how many SWs need to be sold. That is a lie.<<

So why do all chapters need to have someone whose sole function is to coordinate newspaper sales and report them to Central?

>>Central says members need to walk a picket line with Union X. That is a lie. Decisions like that are made at the branch level. <<

The decision to make an \"intervention\" is made at Central - look at the decision to \"intervene\" in the Teamsters and UPS strikes. ISO Notes are distributed to key members and then decisions are hammered out.

>>Why did the ISO take part in an effort to get rid of consensus at the antiwar conferences? Now you are just in fantasy land. The fact is that the pro-consensus people came into those conferences determined to ram consensus down everyone\'s throat. Whgen they did not get their way, they walked out. If they could not control the antiwar movement, they wanted to do what they could to destroy it. <<

I know for a fact that the Boston conference was planned and put together by people organizing via consensus based organizing. Note that it was consensus based; it wasn\'t absolute consensus. However, on the day of making actual decisions, ISO members got together - and I have seen this with my own eyes - to say that consensus had to go, that decisions (including Points of Unity) had to be made by strict 50 plus 1 majority or else gone, and that their own moderator had to be installed.

This pattern was repeated across the U.S. Sure, the power-grab was not so naked in Chicago and other places (because the ISO had been the conference coordinators). Nevertheless, a LOT of people left those conferences feeling the ISO had thrown its weight around, and not just anarchists.

Face it, the ISO got caught in an intervention in which it sought to gain power. I don\'t need a smoking ISO Notes to know it.

>>Why did all ISO branches have to break off with the SWP? Cuz they engineered our expulsion from the IST. Duh! Do you think many anarchist groups would let me in knwoing I was a member of the ISO? <<

You\'re comparing apples to oranges. First of all, anarchist groups are pretty open to a large array of people; this is because most anarchist groups aren\'t devoted toward power struggles but actually fulfilling their function, i.e. Copwatch, FNB, etc.

Second of all, my point was that the ISO does not practice decentralization and autonomy but pure centralization and strict control; the old formula was that the SWP told the IST what to do, and the IST told the U.S. ISO what to do. When the U.S. ISO didn\'t do the bidding of the IST and SWP, it was expelled; when branches and persons wanted to keep ties with SWP they were expelled (and most of them have since become Left Turn members).

>>Here is a challenge for you, BFAB: provide me with proof that anyone is getting rich off the ISO. <<

Here\'s a challenge for you, ISO Guy: provide me with proof that the ISO is actually putting your dues to good use. Thought so.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 01 2002 @ 10:58 PM CDT

The center does not make all printed materials. Once again, you are lying.

In my ten years of membership in the ISO, I know of only one instance where anyone (in this case a group of six) has been expelled from the group. You imply that people are getting kicked out all the time for not wanting to sell SW. This is a lie.

If someone was determined not to sell SW and try to persuade others to refuse to sell it, then they damned well should get kicked out. SW sales are a critical part of what we do, and if people don\'t want to do it, then they should go elsewhere.

The reason branches need an SW sales coordinator is cuz things tend to get done better if people actually organize them. Sales are reported to the center. They are also reported weekly to each and every member of the branch via email, along with comments about what areas seemed to be the best as far as meeting interested people, which areas have business men who call the cops, etc. I am not sure why you do not believe the center should be told about sales.

The 1997 UPS strike stuff was coordinated by the center because the strike itself was national in scale. Had it been smaller, this would not have been the case.

As I said before, your tale on the antiwar stuff is pure fantasy. Though, I will admit, had I been in Boston, I would have definately argued against consensus.

Consensus is a pretty idea, and it might even work in a small group of like-minded people. However, an antiwar coalition, by definition, is something that brings together people with divergent views together to accomplish a given purpose (i.e. stop a war). In such circumstances, consensus simply does not work. Furthermore, it destroys democracy by forcibly silencing opposition. We all know the thoery--if someone--even one person--disagrees, that person must be persuaded, or else persuade the others. But this is not what really happens. What really happnes is that the minority simply gets tired of arguing, and pretends to agree just to stop the bickering. Thus, their dissenting view is silenced.

In a majority rule situation, the minority still gets to hold its view, even if the group as a whole does not act on it. Later, if the majority decision turns out to be wrong, the minority can say, \"see, we told you so\", and new tactics can be tried instead.

In most consensus situations, what ends up happening is that pretty much everyone gets sick or arguing after a while, and disperses. The important decisions then get made behind the scenes by small cabals of informal leaders. In other words, consensus is a formula for authoritarian rule.

How do I know my dues are being put to good use? When I joined in 1993, we hade about 250 members in the entire country. Now we have about 4 times that many. We have gone from a monthly paper to a weekly one. We have started our own magazine. We have been able to actively participate in a broad range of issues, from labor rights to the anti-death penalty issue to immigrant rights to antiwar work. We have gone from being one of many small leftist groups to one of the largest and most respected (though not by those on this site). Guess what? The ISO has been around 25 years. I wonder how many anarchist groups will last that long.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 13 2002 @ 03:01 PM CDT

Regarding Chuck0\'s personal role in the WEF marches I said nothing at all. But now that he\'s put forward the work he did - I saw right on. Great job. Good looking out. Way to go. I was speaking about his claims that anarchists are the singular reason for the success of the new movments, which is fucking ridiculous.

Interesting side thoughts include how marches are called by people with no public accountability. At least Ramsey F. Clark puts his name up front. But my point was not to diminish you, personally, at all. I respect the hard work you do and that\'s why your sectarian attacks and half-truths are so frustrating.

You think Seattle was all about anarchists? What are you smoking in your pipe? Anarchists got prominence because they pulled off militant tactics amidst a massive crown mainly organized by unions, nader-types and the environmental sector. And there were newspaper sellers all over the place spreading NEWS AND ANALYSIS. The bastards! The point of Seattle was that when different ideas and social sectors WORK TOGETHER we can rock the world. And typically, when communists are out IN THE ACTIONS AND NOT SELLING NEWSPAPERS, you try to pretend they weren\'t there. Don\'t be such an asshole.

People like Chuck0 want us to forget this and get behind Anarchy (TM). And they are wrong, wrong, wrong.

And regarding the history of anarchists losing, that is being united by the belief that victory is \"betrayal,\" I urge everyone to read as many different histories from as many different beliefs as possible on the history of socialism and socialist revolutions. Obviously, what\'s past is past. But to remedy the half-truths of Chuck & Co., some broadness of mind might help.

Just remember, anarchists are obsessed with \"autonomy,\" yet whenever they lose, which they always do, they blame someone else. It takes two to tango, but you guys are always out of step.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 05 2002 @ 11:29 AM CDT

Chuck - does this qualify as slander?

\"Burningman is a troll, people. Don\'t feed the trolls (including the fully paid revolutionary tourists...the ones who take WWP dues and CIA dollars and fly all over the world like BM)\"

Sorry, but I\'m not in the CIA, WWP or any other acronym. I have never been a supporter of the WWP or CIA. I have never taken money from the WWP or CIA. Please remove this, since \'slander\' is one of your criteria for removing posts. And you know, some of us do work for our money.

But, asChuck probably won\'t take this down since it\'s only slander against a non-anarchist, I\'d like to respond quickly to nyc A\'s other comment:

\"my compliments to those INDIVIDUALS from the ISO who actually DID do some work, who contributed to the general open spirit of debate during the meetings, and who by and large helped in making the march a success. I hope you survive the purges when the central command finds out that your all are really smart and rational people.\"

So, let me get this straight. When someone is an asshole in a marxist group, then the whole group is full of assholes. But when someone does undeniably great work, they are an \"individual.\" I think you\'re kind of cutting the feet to fit the shoes.

I also love how when anarchists are assholes, it\'s always them as an individual. You can never generalize about anarchism from the behaviors of anarchists unless you like it. Silly rabbits.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 05 2002 @ 11:18 AM CDT

Jesus, I really see little difference between the
\'leftism\' of ISO, Soc Alt, Sparts, etc.. and the crazy, uniform wearing, cop baiting anarcho\'s who sound like wealthy white kids trashing the world.

Both sets of radicals don\'t have ANY impact on everyday people, workers in America. None at all. So, stop all the pretending!

The janitors fighting for their rights across this country have a thousand times more rrrevolutionary potential than you posers. Get with it and look at Cuba standing up for real against the might of all the world\'s imperialists.

Try actually getting a real job, no, not a coffee shop or borders. Go to the working class and be ready to LEARN more than teach. Also, a little serious reading would not hurt. Check out the writings of Che AND god forbid Castro. His speeches of late have been a model of socialist pdagogy.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 23 2002 @ 11:33 AM CDT

I am an ISO member in New York City who spent many evenings for many, many weeks organizing for the protests against the World Economic Forum in February. The collaboration
which took place in the antiWEF coalition, Another World Is Possible, was a model for the
Left. Anarchists, revolutionary socialists, greens and others worked together to put together
an excellent weekend of action-- particularly the large demonstration on the Saturday,

ChuckO, you are such a liar. You had absolutely zero to do with organizing those protests. All
you did was constantly spam the listserve with attacks on the ISO and other organizations working together with anarchists in New York. You managed to completely discredit yourself
and infoshop among the best anti-capitalist activists in New York. I have the discussion list
saved and I would be happy to reproduce your vile comments, including your threat to show up
and randomly start instigating violence just to piss off people who argued for a permitted deomonstration. Your whole \"intervention\" during the run up to the protest was to argue against
a permit. Well, we got one,and that\'s why 20,000 showed on the streets 5 months after 9/11.
First you tried to rag on the march, saying it was boring (of course, you weren\'t even there!)
but then when you saw it getting a positive reception you tried to claim credit for organizing it!
What a joke. You give anarchism the worst name imaginable.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 25 2002 @ 01:25 PM CDT

God, what has happened when the ISO seems more reasonable than anarchists? That is bizarre to me, but seems to be the case on this thread.

During the WEF actions there was a wide variety of groups involved. At the Another World Is Possible meetings and in terms of actual outreach, groups were as varied as DAN, the ISO, Solidarity, significant Green presence, Refuse & Resist!, as well as sporadic representation from SLAM and a many, many other NYC collectives. The hardcore anarchist element was relatively small, though crucial to the success of the event. WHICH NO ONE IS DISPUTING.

Right now, only Chuck0 is running the (anarchist vanguard line. What a shame.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 28 2002 @ 09:39 PM CDT

A couple comments on the organizing in NYC around WEF:

One: The ISO were indeed present during planning meetings (AWIP), however they took a minor role in doing the shit work (you know like volunteering to work the welcome center...zero, actually). They were generally out front in their interest at organizing the speakers at the rally before the march(hmmmm...), and took a vociferous interest in making the march a \"green\" event, so as to not \"alienate\" the \"working class\".

Two: Anarchists, anti-authoritarians, and those who run with same (meaning those who don\'t like to be bossed around nor stage managed, but for whatever reasons don\'t identify as anarchists.. like RTS, who had by far the largest \"contingent\" of the entire march) were instrumental, that is, FRONT AND CENTER, in pulling off the march as well as the convergence. The ISO? Marginal. Fact. Not interpretation. Anyone who sat through those fucking meetings knows it.

Three: my compliments to those INDIVIDUALS from the ISO who actually DID do some work, who contributed to the general open spirit of debate during the meetings, and who by and large helped in making the march a success. I hope you survive the purges when the central command finds out that your all are really smart and rational people.

Four: Burningman is a troll, people. Don\'t feed the trolls (including the fully paid revolutionary tourists...the ones who take WWP dues and CIA dollars and fly all over the world like BM)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 16 2002 @ 11:26 PM CDT

How about Worker\'s Democracy?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 19 2002 @ 02:19 PM CDT

And NYC A, why don\'t you put your first name down so in case we meet when can have a little chat about your shit-talking.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 20 2002 @ 01:48 PM CDT

In response to NYC A: So there were no ISO members working the Welcome Center? Big deal. If we had brought more members to the meetings, sectarians like you would
have complained about \"stacking\" or accused us of trying to \"hijack the coalition\".

Anarchists played a crucial role in the WEF protest and will continue to be central to the global justice movement. So will socialists.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 20 2002 @ 01:50 PM CDT

\"The ISO were indeed present during planning meetings (AWIP),
however they took a minor role in doing the shit work\"

- A total lie. I spent weeks going to all-night meetings planning for those protests.
Please start telling the truth, it will help your ability to work with other activists.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 21 2002 @ 11:50 PM CDT

Nick, you remind me of a guy I used to seea round political events in Chicago several years ago. Wherever he was, whatever the issue at hand was, he would ALWAYS manage to make sure eveyone around knew three things:
1) He was a union steward.
2) He was a Vietnam veteran
3) It was a hell of thing killing a man.
He was very careful to try and present himself as the only \"real worker\" in a milieu full of posers. I guess he thought having a beard, a ballcap, and union windbreaker made him more \"authentic\" than everyone else.

Oh, yeah-he was also a member of Maoist group. Go figure.

Why don\'t you spend less time attacking people for what you think they are (or are not) and more time engaging in political action. You will fell better about it in the end--I promise.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 24 2002 @ 10:14 AM CDT

you first clark

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 08 2002 @ 03:20 PM CST

I used to be in the ISO and I hated it. When I got out I felt like shouting \"I\'m free\". The ISO made me realize how bankrupt authoritarian ideas are. At least I can thank them for that. The ISO group on my campus would always meet and talk about how they can take over different anti-war commitees. They would tell me, \"you are gonna vote like this\" and it really pissed me off because I have a brain, I can make up my own choices. When I quit, one of the ISO members said \"if you really want to be serious about destroying capitalism, you need to stay in this group. I guess vanguard are the only way to get rid of capitalism. The ISO sucks and so does their paper.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 18 2002 @ 06:17 PM CST

Has anyone in this discussion had any contact with the other cliquetocracies of the American Left? You guys have done ISO v. Anarchy debate to death. How about the clique that led DSA from a membership of 8000 to a membership in the hundreds in less than a decade? How about the tactical intolerance of DSA/Labor Party/SP/Greens toward electoral cooperation of any type? Has anyone ever experience the nonsense called

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 23 2003 @ 04:50 AM CST

You know, it\'s funny, almost everyday I hear people say that the ISO is a over-centralized, sectarian, authoritarian group. I admit that the ISO has its faults, hence I am not a member anymore. However, I spent 3 years in the ISO and never heard from them anywhere near the amount of bitching, whining, and complaints about other groups or idealogies within the left (including anarchists) as I hear directed towards them. Perhaps detractors should wonder why such an awful group is growing so fast, and consider if they are merely attacking the ISO because they lack the confidence, understanding of theory, and dedication that has led the ISO to be the strongest and fastest growing organization fighting for a better future. When you spend more time critizing one group you don\'t agree with then you spend building one you do, not only do you look foolish, but your cause is sure to fail!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 12 2003 @ 12:25 AM CDT

I lived in Chicago the other year and really wish there had been a good, maybe strictly theoretical/historic guide to leftist groups. As it was, I was dependent on the opinions of the very few people I knew.

Question for the day: Both Socialist Action and ISO are Trotskyites. What\'s the difference?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 01:38 AM CST

hi from chicago!
I was wondering how the booklet is going.
ISO is a scummy organization. They have hijacked movements in chicago and at universities across the city. i have met many people who used to go to anti-war meetings and now don\'t because of the \'socialists\'. These people are usually immigrants or working students and have no time for long ass meetings.

I would prefer the ISO destroyed. sounds sectarian doesn\'t it?
well. would you work with nazis? if Nazi party USA came over and said - \"ok so we won\'t kill other races, we won\'t try to censor any of your stuff. we are also against the war in iraq.
We will just spew out our reasons for it. We will talk about how murdering many black people is good because they are black. Also we will have meetings on how to overthrow this government to make sure that the next supports white supremecy.\"

So will anarchists and other groups work with them? they are against the war, they just have their own reasons for it.

Same goes for the ISO. (by the way, after you were kicked out from the SWP shouldn\'t you be national socialist organization?)

Anyways, ISO supports Lenin and Trotsky. Lenin was the founder of concentration labor camps. Lenin also called anarchy infantile disorder. He stole Bakunin\'s idea for state and revolution and then flipped flopped to dictatorship.
When Bolsheviks couldn\'t win mass support they dissolved the groups they were in. (A tactic still used today by ISO - if we can\'t control the group we will f*ck it up or take it over).

Trotsky made a deal with Machno when fighting the White forces in Ukraine. When the anarchist were no longer useful they were declared against the law. There are documents and telegrams available.

Also, if you read the communist manifesto TO THE END the real aims are a highly centralized government with a federal bank. Interesting.

Marx was supported by Engel\'s factory earning. A man with many theory on labor never had a real job. Interesting where the commies get their inspiration.

So here are the people that look at anarchists as potential recruits or immature children to be led. I am an immigrant and I am from soviet union. my family lived the joy that was collectivization. they experienced it on their skin.
It is my duty to make sure that socialism or communism or any other form of government that places a dictator and enforces state rule is never in power again.
You might recognize who i am iso-guy you might not. just know this - in my life time I will see ISO destroyed into obscurity(I have some 40 years left).
That also goes for most authoritarian groups.

After all, by any means neccessary right? I take it to mean many more things then most people.

This is not meant as a violent threat or anything. i know most of you over-react. its a challenge.

I actually beleive in changing my world - not selling papers and hoping someone else does it for me.

iso is growing? yeah i am sure there are tons of workers just waiting to hand over $20 monthly membership. because you have to pay the cadres right?
college kids may be decide to piss off their parents. way to build a revolution. I see the same people selling the paper. doesn\'t look like its growing to me. Know lots of people that quit.

Anarchists need more theory development. Like what are we offering as an alternative?
Though I won\'t see a revolution I will see reason prevail. And I don\'t make empty promises.

Well, its 1:30 am and i need to go to work tomorrow. yeah thats what working class does - work.

Oh yeah there is a great strategy that iso uses that i forgot to mention- enrolling its members into college. I see many members in school for like 10 years. It must be nice when tuition is paid for by the party.

damn you must be bored if you are still reading this. :)

[ Reply to This | # ]