Wednesday, June 23, 2004

Rebuilding the Left

By Tracy McLellan

Read full article...

Posted 06/23 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. There’s a lot of negative things to be said about the ISO, but they can generate excitement with their conferences.

    Posted by micah holmquist from  on  06/23  at  08:28 PM

  2. I wonder what those are.  They’re certainly spot on on the issues.  I know an annual conference would represent a peak in enthusiasm and excitement.  And so their regular meetings and events won’t reach that level.  But I think this is a unique group in their political engagement, their grasp of the issues, and their approach to solutions.  I had a brief exposure to the Madison branch when I lived there.  I drifted away from it a bit thinking they were a bit cliquish and party line.  But now I’m wondering whether that wasn’t me.  Now I am looking to give them another shot.

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  06/24  at  04:11 PM

  3. I can’t comment on the ISO’s internal life as I have no first-hand knowledge, or even probably any second-hand knowledge now that I think about, but politically the group takes the odd position that there were no major problems save for circumstances with the Soviet Union prior to the death of Lenin and then it became “state capitalist” and all wrong. What’s never explained, and which is one of the big problems with Marxism, is how the Soviet Union could have avoided creating a bureaucracy when the advanced capitalist countries couldn’t avoid doing this. The ISO’s position basically can’t explain any the positive roles played by the U.S.S.R. after Lenin due to the position that they were basically capitalist. Similarly issues of how the Soviet bloc was to a large extent independent of the U.S. bloc in terms of economics.More importantly, it is 2004 and by their own account there has been only one sucessful anti-capitalist revolution in recorded history despite the fact that all of the conditions they say are necessary for such a revolution have long been in play. This doesn’t mean that such revolutions won’t happen, but it is baffling how intellectually honest people could look at the situation and not at least question if they only need to continue doing what they are doing.

    Posted by micah holmquist from  on  06/24  at  04:37 PM

  4. I did a few talks for ISO organizers during the run up to the antiwar marches of the past Spring and I had two observations.

    1) They are really on-it in terms of organizational skill

    2) They are very, very WASPy and upper middle class.

    3) They force their members to sell newspapers at a cut-rate.

    4) Holmquist’s remarks on geopolitics...I mentioned the Soviet Union as counterweight in a talk I gave and the audience dug it, but not the ISO organizer who called me a Stalinist (if I am pro-Soviet Union - a nation that had fine moments no doubt, I am a Bukharinite or perhaps Kruschevian)

    Posted by J Cummings from  on  06/24  at  05:35 PM

  5. It is Marxist theory that a bourgeois, that is middle-class, revolution is necessary as an antecedent and interim step toward a full revolution in which the workers seize the means of production and make all the decisions thereof.  This is because capitalism is necessary to fully industrialize and develop which is the precondition of a completely successful socialist revolution.  Once this occurs, theory states, the revolution can be completed by the working classes.  Therefore, at least historically, bourgeois revolution is welcome.  Keep in mind the historical perspective in this view, viz. circa Marx.  It no longer holds today because of the wide industrialization.

    According to those I talked to this weekend, the Russian Revolution was quite spontaneous among the peasant class, and not at all at the prompting of the vanguard, Lenin, Trotsky, and their colleagues.  Russia was a vastly peasant society and not at all industrialized, which was why the revolution was so weak.  An interim government of the peasantry was installed from February to October of 1917, at which time Lenin and the rest came to power.  But again, because the society wasn’t developed and not at all self-sufficient, there were massive practical problems, including widespread starvation.  The Leninist tried to hold on.  They hoped for help from Germany, which was developed enough to sustain a revolution, and which apparently was having similar rumblings.  But ultimately Germany’s revolution failed.  I missed the workshop on the failed German Revolution of 1918-1923, so I can’t speak authoritatively about it.  But it is part of Marxist revolutionary theory that the revolution must be worldwide. 

    I didn’t at all get from those I talked with that “there were no major problems save for circumstances with the Soviet Union prior to the death of Lenin,” although I think “circumstances” is an awfully ambiguous term and cuts a wide berth.  As I’ve mentioned, it was clearly recognized that the revolution happened too soon, without the antecedent necessary bourgeois revolutionary , but the deal done, the Leninist tried to make the best of bad circumstances, and in any event, things couldn’t be worse than the Czarist regime.  Russia was still reeling from WWI, which complicated matters immensely.  Moreover, as documented by William Blum in “Killing Hope,” among others, fourteen allied countries surreptitiously invaded Russia in the early 20s, terrified that an economic model other than capitalism might set an example.  Also, the capitalist/imperialist countries waged a savage and relentless campaign of propaganda about the “red menace.” They would have been quite content were the czarist to remain in power, so long as their privileges weren’t threatened, and to hell with the staggering masses.  Needless to say, this made overwhelming problems impossible. 

    My sense taling to ISO this weekend is that Lenin was a very admirable man, along with Trotsky, and stayed true to the revolutionary consciousness.  In many ways, despite the problems, they were far more advanced than we.  The Leninists immediately made abortion on demand legal.  There were two or three other things the…

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  06/25  at  04:34 PM

  6. “Life of Brian” shows how dangerous and delusional these groups become.  They are effective organizers and get the stars out, but thats about it.  To think of themselves as vanguard is ludicrous..the ISR is second-rate, poor analysis and repetitive catechism.  I rarely meet serious intellectuals among the ISO.  NEFAC on the other hand....

    I know it depends where you are....in Canada, the smartest leftists are anarchists and unorthodox marxists.  My ISO friends had never even read Lukacs or Benjamin...so much for theory...(not that its be all and end all, but to many ISO types Lukacs is a Stalinist.)

    Posted by jordy cummings from  on  06/26  at  07:07 PM

  7. Tracy,Sorry to take so long to respond…The problem is not in say that capitalism is unstable. That certainly is the case as it needs to reinvent itself. Rather the problem is with assuming that a revolution along Leninist lines is inevitable.Does the ISO consider itself to be the “vanguard”? Or just a group working to bring the “vanguard” into formation? The distinction isn’t fine. Lots of groups say they aren’t the “vanguard” but act as if they are.

    Posted by micah holmquist from  on  06/28  at  03:36 PM

  8. Agree with Jordy about “Life of Brian” - amusing but surprisingly useful. I recall Cockburn commenting It was made in response to a particularly nasty Trotskyite sect that had suddenly become in vogue in the UK. However I would not say sectarianism is reserved for only those more ‘orthodox’ socialists. I cannot comment on NEFAC, but certainly some Anarchists are not immune to this - indeed betrayed by their own dogmatic posturings and while decrying Nationalism adhere rigidly themselves to their own set of fetishistic symbols. Conveniety, anyone who differs in opinion or tactics is immedietly branded an ‘authoritarian.’

    Posted by RzG from  on  06/28  at  05:06 PM

  9. I certainly wasn’t trying to say that socialists were worse than others. You name a broad group, and it will have sectarian groupings. Also most people who are “activists,” or at least most of those I’ve run into who are “activists,” tend to be smart but not particularly intellectual. Of course reading the likes of Foucault can lead to cynicism.

    Posted by micah holmquist from  on  06/28  at  05:29 PM

  10. My calling the ISO the vanguard in my article was me; not the ISO.  As far as I know they don’t call themselves the vanguard.  I called them that because they are so far educated on these issues.

    No one’s perfect, that includes the members of the ISO.  But they’re well-educated on the issues, and consistently at the barricades.

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  06/30  at  05:27 PM

  11. At first I thought it article was satire.  Then I realized you were serious.  A real live Socialist!  One who really believes! 

    An honest to God Socialist!

    Posted by Comrade Hejl from  on  06/30  at  10:04 PM

  12. I think that the intellectual-barricade split is both a natural and good thing, if managed properly.  It is true that many Academic intellectuals, writers, are cut off from the street.  And it is true that the street is cut off from much intellectualism - though I am by no means an anarchist, I find it very healthy that people approach social movements from the most anti-authoritarian perspective.  As well, I think much of protest movements are legitimately based on youthful expression. 

    I was a hardcore barricade activist from a young age, and to an extent I still am.  I also, as well as being a journalist and organizer, consider intellectual activity to be the core of my politics.  But I could not have gotten to this “space” without pre-intellectual “movement” stuff.

    I am not a fan of Foucault or a cynic/pessimist.  But I think that the idea of vanguuardism, properly applied, has to do with ideas far more than it has to do with any such “party.” It is not 1917.  I think Doug Henwood has an essay on “Lenin Today” that reflects what I am saying.

    Posted by jordy cummings from  on  07/01  at  01:09 PM

  13. Also, I don’t think the ISO are anti-intellectual, just rigid and somewhat closed-minded, If anything they are to PRO-intellectual.

    Posted by J cummings from  on  07/01  at  01:15 PM

  14. Hi, I’m aaron- a member of the ISO in New York.
    Thanks Tracy for a great review of the Socialism conference; I just came across it.

    The conference was not a “Life of Brian” affair at all! (a film that btw is very sympathetic to the radical left while poking fun simultaneously.) In fact, a wide variety of progressive speakers came and spoke-- Amy Goodman, Alex Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair, David Barsamian, military family members and vets, Peter Camejo, and others-- many of whom have also contributed to the International Socialist Review (as have Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Arundatai Roy and many others). I’m really proud that the ISO has grown and that the ISR has become the best-selling socialist magazine in the country, that can make a real contribution to rebuilding the left.

    Also, there were workshops at the conference that discussed Benjamin, Lukacs and many other revolutionary thinkers. The Left needs history and ideas! But I don’t think it is good and natural to separate ideas from the practical tasks of fighting for a better world.
    Practice has to be the test of theory for activists.

    Posted by Aaron Hess from hess_aaron@hotmail.com  on  07/01  at  03:17 PM

  15. I think that you have a few things mixed apart - with due respect.  Contrary to the binarism that you espouse, I’d say that activism is a test of practice for theory.  By codifying the presupposed meaning of where we are going, regardless of how well meaning, often puts people outside of the ISO orbit off.  Far from being sectarian, I am speaking out of respect, but with a healthy reminder that not all people can spend their entire life ensconced in what is traditionally referred to as “practice.”

    Who is more of a practicioner?  The kid who goes to every barricade and every meeting or the investigative reporter who uncovers truths, the union organizer, the polemicist, mainstream and otherwise.

    I think that while there is certainly a sense of condescension within the intellectual community towards activists, there is also a tunnel vision by activists towards what constitutes ativism, or what the term “vanguard” actually implies.  Because of this, I find undfifferentiatied, non-codified anarchists to be often more talented activists and organizers.

    My own experience not withstanding, I am sure that each chapter and conference is unique, etc.  Yet, the rudeness I recieved after preparing and exercising my labour suggested otherwise to me...I hope I am wrong.  This is precisely why practice should come before theory.

    Posted by jordy cummings from  on  07/01  at  07:37 PM

  16. How many of those pieces in the ISR were written for that publication?  Its often wonderful - and originally from Counterpunch or Znet or some such.  And it also used an obituary of Paul Sweezy to criticize him.

    Posted by jordy cummings from  on  07/01  at  07:40 PM

  17. With due respect to you Jordy, more often than not in this thread I’ve hardly understood what you are saying, let alone how to respond.  “Mixed apart” is not even a mixed metaphor, but rather a non sequitor.  I believe it was you earlier who cited Alexander Cockburn to buttress your argument that there’s something wrong with the ISO.  As my article mentioned, as does Aaron’s comment, Cockburn was at the conference.  As were the others both me and Aaron have mentioned.  This is not some shady fly by night flake of an organization.  Now I’m mixing metaphors. 

    ISO is a group of sincere, dedicated, smart individuals comprising an important movement.  to reiterate, they are consistently at the barricades; as well as in the socialist classroom.  We’d all do well to get on board the train they’re riding on, and to lend a hand.  More mixed goddam metaphors.

    I haven’t a clue as to what this means: “By codifying the presupposed meaning of where we are going, regardless of how well meaning, often puts people outside of the ISO orbit off.” nor the energy to figure it out.  Kahlil Gibran said it simply and clearly many years ago: “A little wisdom that acts is better than a lot that doesn’t.”

    I don’t see why there has to be a comptetition among “[t]he kid who goes to every barricade and every meeting or the investigative reporter who uncovers truths, the union organizer, the polemicist, mainstream and otherwise.” They’re each equally valuable and have their own particular gifts.  More important that they work in concert with one another toward the goals on the left, noble but so disorganized.  Nor do I think we should underestimate “The kid who goes to every barricade and every meeting.” That ought to be considered a very important thing to do.  For all of us.  And we ought to do it with the WISDOM as exhibited by the ISO.  We would do well to accomplish something rather than splitting endless hairs as to the theory of activism.

    As to the ISR, in my not too brief exposure to the mag, most of the articles have been original to that publication.  Indeed, I’m not aware of a single one reprinted from Counterpunch or ZNet.  In any work of art, TV program, movie, book, magazine, etc., advertisement is one of the most fundamental things to me that separates quality and integrity from schlock.  The ISR has no advertisement.  Ditto The Socialist Worker.  Today Alan Maass, editor of the ISR’s sister publication, The Socialist Worker, an excellent weekly, has an original article on Counterpunch.

    You seem to have had a bad experience somewhere with ISO.  Or are making preconceived judgments about them.  If the former, I would suggest you lick your wounds and give them another chance.  If the latter, I would encourage you to open up and check them out.  You ask the question about ISR.  How about you do the research to find out?  As to the obituary…

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  07/01  at  10:51 PM

  18. Again, I am open to having my mind changed.  My problem is less with the ISO per se, but its sense of self importance.  I will say what I said to an ISO person which bothered them, but did not bother either those from other sects, anarchists, etc.

    I said that as a writer, I am both of the movement, from the movement and to the movement.  I.E. If had a book for sale, I would sure speak at an ISO get-up too, but I don’t think that writers have to join one group so as to alienate another.  The best left publications have pieces from various publications.

    When it comes to groups like the ISM and direct action for a specific case, I see no conflict in joining.  But in terms of either the ISO or the Worker’s World Party or NEFAC or anything, I simply won’t.  Only the ISO seemed to have a problem with this, emphasizing their vanguardism.  But again, any group that can get Mike Davis is not all bad…

    What I meant, by the way - is that theory should not guide activism, activism should guid theory....

    Posted by jordy cummings from  on  07/02  at  08:48 AM

  19. As J Cummings said:

    “1) They are really on-it in terms of organizational skill

    2) They are very, very WASPy and upper middle class.

    3) They force their members to sell newspapers at a cut-rate. “

    I was a member for a short time in Chicago. All of this is true. As a matter of fact, I almost was beaten up by part of the cult.

    They push the newspaper bit and are very secretive...of course that was Chicago and I’d be secretive too I suppose!  smile

    I’d never join again not that they would take me back but they are great organizers and know how to move people. Terrific writing in their publications (Lee Sustar, for one). Their youth organizing is some of the best I’ve seen.

    They are going to be a factor IMHO.

    Posted by eddie from  on  07/06  at  08:51 AM

  20. I was wondering if someone could define “cut-rate” for me?  I was a member in Madison briefly, and we sold the paper for an hour on Saturdays.  It was volunteer, and the activity was an organizing and fund-raising tool.  The paper was sold for its $1 cover price - an excellent paper worth every penny.  It was fun selling the paper.

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  07/06  at  12:49 PM

  21. Tracy, I am really sorry that I started this debate because I believe that there are obviously very dedicated people in the ISO.

    What I meant by cut-rate is that youthful members of just about every left organization, not to say right - political organizations in general - the activist core - are often used in ways that if it was a capitalist operation, would be called bad labor practices.

    From what I have been told- regarding the ISO but moreso the Spartacists (who also defend NAMBLA) is that the young kids who are heavily activist-oriented are forced to sell a certain amount of newspapers before they can have any “say” in the organization.  One friend of mine who was ISO felt she had no say at all unless she was a good salesperson.  As well, even granting how these types of sales work, and factoring in production costs, the kids are treated like shit.

    Now some people enjoy this kind of work.  Others think that joining left wing organizations should not have to enter hierarchies that allow one skill set to dominate another, etc.  This is why anarchist structures make sense in activist organizations, even if anarchism itself does not, in my opinion.

    As an aside, it reminds me of when they tried to prevent a union from forming when I was a Greenpeace canvasser.  Left Wing organizations are often horribly exploitive without intending so.

    Posted by Jordy Cummings from  on  07/06  at  01:07 PM

  22. Eddie wrote:

    “I was a member for a short time in Chicago. All of this is true. As a matter of fact, I almost was beaten up by part of the cult.”

    Did the body snatchers come for you in their UFOs as well? I hope you escaped them as well!

    Posted by Aaron from  on  07/06  at  05:42 PM

  23. My name is Joseph and I am a member of the ISO in New York. It seems to me Jordy Cummings, that your friend either had a wrong understanding about what selling the paper is all about, or a bad experience with certain members. We do not force anyone to sell the paper, nor do we devalue their voice within the organization. but the Iso makes selling the paper a very important aspect of the development of its members. The paper is a tool, it is the voice of the Iso and of workers locally and around the world. Selling the paper helps members spread our socialist ideas, as well as meet people, get contacts, and is our openning to meet the everyday person that is sometimes politically active or the person who is not politically active at all and which we wouldn’t meet otherwise, but who is potentially a future revolutionary. In the process of reading the paper and using it to make arguments members gain understanding and confidence in talking about various issues. The paper also deals with issues in the current political climates, thus giving us a feel for strategies. I have been a member of the ISO for two years, and I was one of those young ones that you talk about. I have never been forced to sell the paper or has my opinion been devalued within my branch or any of the branches whose meetings I have attended. I have never found us boasting about who we are, the ISO does not try to out-socialist other groups or claim to be the exclusive vanguard. We train revolutionaries, we are part of the vanguard, the ISO is always growing, but we participate in movements and causes that also strengthen the left.

    I am not talking on behalf of the ISO, I am talking as an ISO member who just casually came upon this, and I just had to say something about it.

    I could talk all day about all the misinformation you have about us, but my advice to you is to come to a meeting, wherever you are, and raise these issues with us.

    Have a nice day,

    Joey

    Posted by Joey from New York  on  07/20  at  05:14 PM

  24. That’s the exact experience i had with the paper.  i was never forced to sell it.  It wasn’t sold at cut-rate prices, whatever that means.  It was encouraged.  And good that it was, because it was FUN selling the paper, getting the freaked out looks from the obedient capitalists about headlines in the paper that shouted out reality rather than the blather in the corporate press.  And it was a tool used just as Joey has said.  That’s all I ever felt it to be. 

    Everything Joey said about the demeanor and bearing of members was just the sense I got.  They didn’t have to say they were the vanguard, because by nature they were.  It would have been as out of place to hear a tree call itself a tree as to hear the ISO, individually or as a group, call itself the vanguard.  After I mentioned to one of the members who I had seen in Chicago at this convention again after having briefly known him in Madison that I was in the midst of confusion about my housing status, he informed me that should it not be solved to contact him and he would help.  It wasn’t necessary as it turned out, but it was securing to know that it was there.  The focus of the convention after all was the work shops, which were phenomenal.  And that was typical of whatever the particular degree of social interaction.  It was, as my article mentioned, a world of which you might want to be a part rather than the reality of this depressing National Security State. 

    I have transportation problems, carless in the disengaged suburbs of Chicago, otherwise I would have, and may in the future, pursued the meetings Joey is talking about.

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  07/20  at  10:22 PM

  25. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    Stalin may have been a break from the socialism of Lenin, but it was Lenin and the Bolsheviks who created the conditions that allowed Stalin to rise.

    How ‘bout Mao, was he a socialist?

    Call me a capitalist roader if you will, but the socialist unwillingness to own up to the legacies of Marx and Lenin is their ultimate downfall.

    Posted by Zeddrick from  on  07/21  at  10:05 AM

  26. Yes, we need to go back to Marx, Lenin, Lukacs, Bukharin even the Marx-Bakunin debates, Guissepe Mazini, cosmopolitics, vanguard vs. brotherhood, etc.  We should also stop pretending that Trotsky was any more or les than he was, and especially stop with the theoretically nonensical “state capitalist” perspective in regards to certain isues.

    My meetings are with my comrades, and we call ourselves the holy order of spectacle-wearing nanny goats.  We have infiltrated a wide range of movements.  Seriouly though, meetings and donations do not a revolutionary make.  Conciousness, a grasp of Hegel and Vico, and a fighting spirit does.

    Posted by j cummings from  on  07/21  at  06:15 PM

  27. I think it’s absurd to blame Marx and Lenin for the conditions that gave rise to Stalin.  They after all had a large antecedent in the czarist regimes.

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  07/21  at  09:06 PM
    28. Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. {/if}

    Next entry: From Saddam, With Love

    Previous entry: My Iraqi Week

    [ads]

    Support Press Action