This Campaign is not to Destroy or hate the ISO

It's good for the ISO to promote their long-term objectives and what not. That's not forcing their beliefs on you, it's arguing for a vision of the movement.

What is shady is making their politics and leadership the issue.

I am an ISO member in LA. I work with MANY different kinds of people with all kinds of political ideas. If someone doesn't want a paper it is easy to say no... and then go on talking about political ideas, strategies, or what we can do to fight against the war, or imperialism and capitalism.

EVERYONE has ideas (or ideology if you prefer). Anarchists "push" there ideas when they speak or act (especially when their actions "volunteer" other people by provoking confrontations that others are not prepared for), some non-aligned people promote the idea that it is better to be non-aligned, more pure. Even the idea that there shouldn't be groups, only individuals, is an ideological position (and one the reproduces the individualism of this society I would argue).

Some people denounce everyone that is not them as the main way they function. But that is really a handful of people/groups. More common is for debates to breakout over which direction to take things. The reason why people direct there anger at the ISO is because the left in the US is so tiny that a modest sized group that is well organized stands out.

It has more to do with the lack of organizing in the US, than an "manuevering" by the ISO. During the DNC protests in LA the Direct Action Network was probably 200-300 people. It no longer exists. I have all kinds of disagreements with DAN, but I think it is a BAD thing that DAN disintegrated and collapsed. The Fair Trade Network also got very big right after Seattle, then shrunk, and is now mostly an email list. I think that weakens movements, even though I disagree with some of the ideas. Don't blame it on the ISO, we weren't involved in either of those groups. On the other hand, the ISO in LA has grown steadily if modestly, and I think this helps everyone.

The ISO believes that you have to help build actions and movements AND build organizations. It is a good thing to bring together like minded people to sustain a struggle against the whole system, not just one issue. Many other groups do that to. Don't tell me anarchist collectives didn't want to grow after Seattle revived anarchism.

I worked to support the Nader campaign because I thought it would do a lot to weaken the two party duopoly, and make a space for an anti-establishment activist movement. Some people joined the ISO because we were OPEN and honest both about our support AND our criticisms of Nader. But many more people joined the Green Party. I am sure that I personally helped many people become activists for the first time, and that the Green Party was probably the main beneficiary of this. But people at least had the option to focus on green electoral strategies or an activist revolutionary approach.

Everyone talks about how terrible the corporate media is, but doesn't like being offered alternative media like Socialist Worker? Please! We work hard and make a lot of sacrifices to publish alternative media. Our paper is of great benefit to both movements and to socialists. It links up workerplace struggles and issues with movements and international reporting. It has interviews with well known opponents of US policy, like Zinn and Chomsky. The current issue has a timeline of US interventions over the last 150 years, a great resource for anyone trying to argue that the US military is not in the business of invading to defend democrasy, freedom, peace, and love.

Sorry this is long, but I think the tone of previous days posts is destructive. This post is at least focused on how do we better confront the powers aligned against us. We have to start thinking about the long term, and building sustainable movements that can tear down a system based on the suffering of the many, and the untold wealth of the few. It is going to take more than big demonstrations here and there to do that. I am proud of the ISO and our collective effort. I am also proud of the many people that recognize that overcoming divisions imposed by this society is one of the biggest challenges we face.

Bill

First of all, I just want to say that I have nothing against most ISO folks. Most of them were/are relatively inexperienced activists who got sucked in because they didn't know what they were getting into. Individually they can very nice folks but the party leadership is authoritarian and runs the show like a dysfunctional cult. Liberate yourself brothers and sisters! You don't get a free world through manipulation and knuckling under to your "superior's" judgement.

OK here's some first person accounts of former trots. Enjoy.

Personal Account from U.S. ISO - The Joy of Sects

http://www.infoshop.org/texts/iso_sects.html

Personal account from Australian former member of "Resistance":

http://www.infoshop.org/texts/iso_aus.html

No one can tell you more about liberation than your own mind and spirit honed to critical awareness and honest love for unmediated perception and the visceral thrill of freedom.

One of the healthiest things about successful movements is that they make room for internal dissent and criticism. The ISO is like many other vanguardist groups: internal democracy, free speech, and dissent are things to be stamped out whenever possible. You can see this attitude in ISO responses to criticism. They will always make an appeal for the movement to work together, because there are "much bigger problems."

This discussion is precisely about the fact that some groups are poison to social movements. They can talk a big game about being "organized," but the truth is that they aren't organizations, they are cults with high turnover rates. This is why the prey on students and young people. Students are usually inexperienced when it comes to radical politics and they are often looking for like-minded young people. The ISO exploits this like Christian groups on campus. Students need to spread the word that there are alternatives to the ISO, which are *more* organized and internally democratic to boot.

If you are new to this and this political debate worries you, please keep in mind that those of us who are challenging the ISO publicly are veteran activists who are tired of watching them fuck up activist groups. I have no interest in organizing students or getting them to follow a flag or particular organization. Radical students would be best served right now if they organized amongst themselves and asked outside groups to stay away.

well I came on the SF board to see what's going on, and Anti-Capitalist you said it right exactly what I was thinking but you broke it down in a short and elaborate way. I agree w/ what you had to say, thank you. I think that radical/progressive activist should organize within themselves because having vanguard groups only keeps us back and we waste time fighting over the simplest things that other anti-authoritarians/radicals don't need to fight about. We don't want to waste our time that way, so when we work with like minded people we actually get something done instead of bickering.
I personally have decided to become EXTREMLY picky about who I work with from now on. I love the excuse that is used by vanguard groups. "Don't worry about the problems we have, worry about the bigger picture" the sad part is one cannot start fixing and "saving" the world when they can't even take a long look in the mirror themselves and see what they are doing wrong.
Im into building relationships and bonds with people, if that means through talking, discussing, working through consensus..sure it takes longer but the effects and what everyone gets out of it worthwile to me. In the end we are building a better society that way.. so we don't have to keep "saving" and "helping" other races, and cultures... we can empower people to do that for themselves. Screw Charity work, activism is a daily thing, you find the beliefs that you have and you live your life accordingly.. other races, organizations, and cultures don't need to be "saved" we have outlived and survived some of the word tragedies, instead of telling us how to organize and what we NEED to be doing, just walk with us, talk with us, listen to us...and in the end we'll undersand you, we'll share with you, and that's when we'll truly be united and "working together"

Hey ISO member from LA! I think anti-capitalist said it right, folks who are vetern activists know that the ISO's involvement is only leading to a disaster. Why? Becuase we've seen it so many times befor with ISO or other sectarian organizations.

One thing that I've heard from an ex-ISOer that I know, is that many of of the rank-and-file ISO folks like yourself don't even know what is happening. While ISO members are trying to say "we didn't attempt to take over the conference" they don't know the larger picture.

I've been in contact with activists in Boston and Chicago and I attended the Berkeley conf. The leadership of your organization, the ISO, has made a nation-wide coordinated effort to take the leadership in this movement. All the activists from all over say the same things happened at the conference, the ISO leaders presented the same exact proposals, ISO members played a huge role in setting the agenda and facilitating the meetings. IS this just a cooincidence? hardly.

Ask your branch leaders in LA if the ISO is planning a nation-wide to do this? Ask them why students left all the conferences complaining of the same things: lack of democracy, voices being marginalized, ISO dominating the meeting.

Yes, the ISO does organize big on issues, but watch when the war goes away they move to the next big thing. They only play a big flashy role in a movement to the extent that they can promote themselves and recruit more members. Think about, reconsider your membership in ISO. Thanks.

As one who's been barred from ISO meetings after I criticized their simply going along with the union bureaucracy, I don't think that it's just a matter of the ISO being undemocratic or opportunist. I think the issue is that they started out with some ideas that they did not think through and that has become the basis of how they operate. It seems like, through some process of esp almost, that the people who gravitate towards them are those who prefer to operate that way also.

What I've noticed in the anti-war movement is that the ISO totally plays to the least common denominator. Before Sept. 11, when they got invovled in the movement against global capitalism, they helped along that trend that tried to water it down by eliminating the anti-capitalist theme and eliminating the direct action orientation. Since Sept. 11, they have continued in this vein. But they are not alone in this, of course! They have plenty of company in the "progressive" union bureaucrats, the non-profiteers and all sorts of other liberals.

John Reimann
Oakland, CA

They operate the same way up here in Canada. They are opportunistic and backbiters who would rather see groups smashed if they cant get control of them and recruit. One case in point is the group Ontario Coalition Against Poverty. The IS quickly figured out they couldn't make inroads in this growing group. So what do they do? They use every opportunity to bad mouth them. Going so far to support right wing union bureaucrats and social democrats attacks on OCAP. It hasn't worked though. OCAP is respected and growing while people just make fun of the IS.
A couple of IS members here have really bad tempers, especiallyy this one dude. A fun game we devoloped in one coalition was to lay bets on when the vein in his neck pops and he starts raising his voice. It usually happend when another activist who is not in the IS disagreed with their line.

in my experience, the IS in Canada is *not* the same - it's much more open - and i deal with ppl from the IS quite a bit - certainly there's some sectarianism, but I, myself, a card carrying member of the organization, have never felt any pressure to tow a party line...they're quite aware of my affinity for some anarchosyndicalist groups, and my strategy of working within the NDP - and while the IS don't agree with my strategy, they have always been respectful of it. In fact, regarding OCAP, while they have realized that recruiting from the Ontario Common Front might be a fruitless goal, the IS still encourages people to participate in the actions - with positive articles (but not without valid criticism) about 016 in the Socialist Worker...I really don't see this at all. Are you sure you're not confusing the IS here in Canada with the Spartacist League?

If we followed the ISO's politics in Seattle we would have walked around in circles and nobody would even be discussing it now. Luckily the paper hawkers were nowhere to be seen-- and they missed a big oppurtunity to recruit. I agree with John Reiman above. The ISO wants to to take the direct action component out of any oppostional movement that may arise. Locally they have aligned themselves with Gloabal Exchange in trying to channel the movement into totally uninspiring electoral bullshit like voting For Nader and Medea Benjamin. That said now for the anarchists. The night of 911 i was at the infamous bay area warehouse "anarchist" meeting of over 80 people. This disastorous meeting showed that the ISO has no monopoly on idiocy. The anarchist scene is dominated by racially guilt-ridden liberals. The worst is probably the challenging white supremecy workshop people but there are plenty of others who promote internal guilt as a political analysis. I'll stop for now. Any comments?

It is embarrassing to read these emails. If you people
spent half the time organizing as you did wailing and
whining about the ISO you might actually contribute
to the movements instead of spinning Mccarthyite
conspiracy theories against groups and organizations
that are actually doing work. Your frustatration that others win leadership based on politics and organization (i.e that others are won to their ideas), reveals your own insecurities about your politics and your own prostration in the movement. The "war" is being conducted by the US in Afghanistan not. It shouldnt be waged on anonymous listserves against the rest of the movement. Be principled.

I have to say this...John Reiman...you are probably the most unprincipled socialist Ive ever met. Trying to blend in with the anti-ISO, anti-Marxist chorus is pathetic and shameful.

Do the movement a favor....dont agonize, I mean
WHINE, organize!

Dear canadian IS member

Yes I am sure I am talking about the IS in canada.

A few supportive articles in the Socialist Worker (only after an event is successful) does not equal active support and solidarity. Lots of shifty things were done by your members behind the scenes. You should ask yourself why does the IS find groups like the common front and OCAP "fruitless" for recruiting? These are large, organized coalitions full of anti-capitalist activists drawn largely from outside of the university millieu. What does the IS find so scary about that? HMMMMM.

As for confusing the IS for the sparts. Nope I am familiar with them both.

The IS mostly recruits well meaning university students and over time creates annoying opportunistic hacks out of them .

The Sparts draw the socially challenged and over time creates scary cult like hacks out of them.

Don't trust either. Glad they limit themselves to student work and paper selling. All largely irrelevant at the best and destructive, opportunistic and untrustworthy at the worst.

the worst thing is when your in a "coalition" with the Trots, the RCP, and the CPUSA. These goofballs spend so much time killing each other it's a miracle there's any one left standing.

i mean, it's not like there's ever going to be another leninist or vanguardist movement. people used to be drawn to this stuff because the bolsheviks were succesful at capturing and retaining power. But now EVERY SINGLE CP STATE IS EITHER GONE OR ADOPTED A NEW GIG. THAT SH*T IS WAY OLD. WHO COULD POSSIBLY HAVE MISSED THE MEETING??!!

perhaps we should be thankful that while leninism is gone, its duffiest adherents are kind enough to stick around for the abuse. After all the grief they've caused since October 1917, it's the least they could do.

So the more I come to grips of anarchist's politics I am becoming an anarchist or I would rather say that I am a fan of anarcho-syndicalism. Anyway, I am a member of the ISO and I havent seem the lack of democracy at their meetings, but I will say that it seems that ISO notes that are not to be shared with anyone outside the ISO are handed down from the Chicago ISO "HQ". I am going to propose a new plan for the ISO on how it can grow as a democratic socialist group. I am gonna propose that the ISO and all other state and or national socialist groups come together and have a confernce to discuss unification among the socialist groups and after that is done to have open confrences where anarchist and socialist can debate view and all other problems they have with each other. Oh yeah, dont think that this plan is in anyway gonna try to swing all the other groups under an ISO umbrella.....but anyway the main thing is UNITE & FIGHT...

I'd like to hear more about your view of the anarchist scene. Is the challenging white supremacy workshop about guilt or about understanding? Do you think the whole idea of the workshops is ridiculous or do you feel their goal is good but should be handled better somehow? It doesn't seem to me that recognizing one's own privilege equals guilt-ridden.

Aren't all whites privileged by the fact that they are white? They can simultaneously be oppressed by gender, economic class, ethnicity within "whiteness", etc., but being white is more privileged than being of color.

So, you think that because you get to eat take-out less often that you are not privileged in some ways for having white skin?

Given the institutional racism of the police and the justice system ALONE, just walking down the street having white skin gives you an advantage. The police might beat you up anyway for expressing your political views, but you can choose not to express your views. It's harder to choose not to have black skin while out in public.

Pretending that racism and sexism don't exist doesn't make them not exist. This is a capitalist society with institutionalized and individual racism and sexism.

I never attempted to "reduce our social problems to a purely racial analysis". Nor did I ever say or imply that white is bad and non-white good.

Just as it is simplistic to focus exclusively on race, it is simplistic to have a purely class-based analysis and talk about the problems of capitalism without ever discussing race and gender. Especially given some of the really good analysis that discusses the intertwined history of racism and capitalism in this country.

It is not racism to consider the question of race. If I look around and say, "you know, predominantly the people in group X, especially 'leading' this group are white males" that's not racist or sexist. Nor is it racist or sexist to examine the group dynamics to try to understand why that occurs.

Well, if you agree that racism and sexism are forms of oppression and hierarchy, then perhaps you agree that our own personal and institutional racism and sexism needs to be challenged in order to truly create "a free association of equals"?

> >If I look around and say, "you know, predominantly the people in group X, especially 'leading' this group are white males" that's not racist or sexist. [anon]

> If by ?group x? you mean the ruling class, then it?s pure racism. White males are not the ruling class. Some of the ruling class are white males and some are not. [nessie]

Don't keep mis-stating what I say. To say "the ruling class is predominantly white and male" is not the same as saying "white males are the ruling class".

No, it isn't racist to say "predominantly the people in the ruling class are white males". It's true. CEO's, the wealthy, and the political elite are far, far more likely to be white and male than the general population. This is a striking fact.

This doesn't make all white males part of the ruling class, but it is important to recognize that whites and men have, other things being equal, privilege compared to people of color and women.

You seem to systematically misinterpret what I say. Perhaps I'm not being clear enough. And by "twisting my words" I didn't mean your misinterpretation of "group X" as "the ruling class". I was referring to how you somehow moved from "predominantly the people in the ruling class are white males" to "white males are the ruling class" and therefore implied that I thought that all white males made up the ruling class.

> You said "group X". If you didn't mean the ruling class, then what did you mean? [nessie]

I meant "group X" as a placeholder for any kind of group, thinking to myself *generally* the membership of an ongoing institution. You could replace X by "the ruling class". Or "Copwatch". Or even "protestors in Seattle, Nov. 1999".

> >Well, if you agree that racism and sexism are forms of oppression and hierarchy, then perhaps you agree that our own personal and institutional racism and sexism needs to be challenged in order to truly create "a free association of equals"? [anon]

> Of course. But this can only be done by taking a class analysis. If you take a race analysis, you're a racist. We can?t get beyond racism by using race to blame our oppressors. Not only does it perpetuate the problem, it's factually incorrect. [nessie]

You argue below that there is no such thing as personal racism. So if I, an individual, take a race analysis perhaps you think I'm "bigoted" or "prejudiced", but not, by *your* definition, racist.

Well, you've stretched "class" to cover all forms of oppression, but I use class to denote economic class (the conventional meaning). I'm saying is that race- and gender-based forms of oppression need to be considered along with economic oppression. And why is one a racist if one takes a race analysis? A race-conscious analysis is simply that; it isn't "using race to blame our oppressors", it's simply pointing out that there is this thing called racism, and there is this thing called race (not as an objective human quality but as a social construct), and they matter.

I don't suggest ONLY taking a race analysis. I suggest taking it in addition to simply an economic one.

> First of all, there is no such thing as 'personal racism.' Racism is institutional by definition. Our personal opinions are prejudice or bigotry. They are quite different things. It doesn't really matter what our personal opinions are as long as we keep them to ourselves. But institutional racism permeates everything, even us, even anti-racists. Institutional racism is not about your or my personal tastes. It is about how the power structure treats all of us. [nessie]

Okay, I'll accept your distinction between racism and prejudice, but in that case I believe that personal opinions do matter, or at least our personal interactions that follow from them do. Institutional racism perpetuates prejudice and vice versa.

In situations where we are the power structure (anarchist organizations, for example), then we need to examine our organization and our personal interactions within that organization to make sure that racist and sexist oppression does not exist there. We as individuals can act out institutional racism by, for example, having a pattern of unconsciously failing to notice and recognize the contributions of people of color as much as those who are white.

> But to end racism, we have to end the system which makes it happen. This does not mean everyone has to like each other, which is good, because it's not going to happen. It does mean we have to create a society in which personal tastes do not determine how we treat each other in public. [nessie]

So, classical anarchist argument: we need to build alternative institutions, because if we don't, when we overthrow the current rulers, people will be so used to authoritarian relationships that they will fall back on them and just end up with a different set of rulers. We need to have new institutions and get people used to anti-authoritarian relations.

Similarly, if we end capitalism, but don't address institutional racism and sexism in these new institutions, then racism and sexism will exist in the non-capitalistic society, and these forms of oppression will continue.

> >No, it isn't racist to say "predominantly the people in the ruling class are white males". It's true. CEO's, the wealthy, and the political elite are far, far more likely to be white and male than the general population. This is a striking fact. [anon]

> The general population of what, America? Yeah, they are. But America is not the world. Nor is the American ruling class the ruling class of the world. It is part of the ruling class of the world. If you you mean to say 'America's ruling class,' say 'America?s ruling class.' But if you say 'the' ruling class, by definition, you mean all of them, Indonesians, Indians, Chinese, Japanese, all of them. What makes them who they are is not their skin color, but their power. [nessie]

Yes, there is a distinction between the US ruling class and the global ruling class, I would say that most of the global power is vested in US and European elites, who are mostly white. And the global ruling class, whatever color, is predominantly male.

> Perhaps you should examine why you neglected to include the rest of the world when you calculated the race ratios of the ruling class. Could it be that you have so internalized nationalism that your judgment has become clouded? We live in a global conomy. The globe's ruling class is a cohesive unit and must be dealt with as such. While they do occasionally act out their internal contradictions, against us they always present a common front.

Point taken. However, I was mostly focusing here on the US.

> >This doesn't make all white males part of the ruling class, but it is important to recognize that whites and men have, other things being equal, privilege compared to people of color and women. [anon]

> Other things are most decidedly not equal. That's why it is spurious to say that Michael Jordan is more oppressed than I am or that just because I'm a guy that a female cop can't murder me with impunity should she wish to do so. 'other things' are part of the equation. Ignoring them leads to faulty analysis. [nessie]

By "other things being equal" I mean that we should be comparing a male cop and a female cop, or you and a black anarchist without steady income.

Just as ignoring race and gender and only considering economic class leads to, perhaps faulty isn't the word, an *incomplete* analysis. That female cop still faces sexism, in or out of her uniform. (Talking about Michael Jordan is difficult, because not only is he rich, he's famous.)

Perhaps we're saying the same thing when you say we need a class analysis and I say we need economic class, race, and gender analysis, because you consider class to be this all-embracing concept. Where we differ I think is that I believe we should distinguish between those different types of oppression. Otherwise it seems that race and gender issues are being brushed aside.

How to tell the race and gender of an anonymous person? Easy.

Nessie is a white man. There is no doubt. Have I met Nessie? No. Why do I know? Because he thinks the funtamental issues are the ones which affect him.

Race is not fundamental to America? Check prison stats, class backgrounds, life expectancy, infant mortality, home ownership, rate of advanced degrees, school funding, political representatives, or any other single measure of social health. Blacks, Puerto Ricans, Chicanos and native people are at the bottom of any list. Whites at the top. America's whole history is intimately tied to the idea of "white democracy."

Nessie also supports Zionism. Hardly shocking. Anarchists need to really deal with their white chauvinism. Your problems aren't the only problems.