ISOnuts: One Stop Activism and the Gentrification of the Left

Isn't Todd Chretien running at the green candidate for senate? yeah - couldn't the greens find anyone else? One thing I've noticed is that ISO members can monologue forever. I know many knowledgeable people who could not talk for 45 minutes straight.

I don't support the ISO because they are petit-bourgeois anti-communist idealists.

But this infantile screed demonstrates that for the majority of "anti-authoritarians" all their vacuous buzzwords ("Horizontal", "decentralized", "non-hierarchical", etc.) really mean "Everyone should do what I want even though I have no idea what I'm doing. The movement exists to make me happy.". Talk about authoritarian! Look in the mirror!

Well Mr Trotsky at Red Army,
Your opinion on authoritarians is obviously objective. And thanks for avoiding "vacuous buzzwords" when considering my "infantile" writing. Ha ha. Your a bloody self parody!

NOT ANSWER, NOT ISO, AUTONOMOUS IS WHAT WE WANT TO BE!

Some years ago in London i was talking to a group of stewards (security monitors ) who were enraged that a group of British and Irish leftists of the Revolutionary Communist Party (No relation to U.S. Group of same name ) had more and far more photogenic signs at a (British ) Troops out of Northern Ireland rally than the sponsoring group . They were frustrated that the presence of the press and a large delegation of relatives of Belfast Irish victims of the military prevented them from ripping down the R.C.P. ers signs and ''putting the boot in '' as one thuggish self identified ''anti-authoritarian Socialist '' put it . I didn't bother to raise the (to me anyways ) moral objection to such a action . I did point out the question wasn't that the RCP organized so effectively, the question was why didn't they ? I suggest the same here . If you find the I.S.O., the R.C.P., A.N.S.W.E.R.-P.L.S., etc. so objectionable , then out organize them! Don't try to exclude them from coalitions . Just organize so effectively that neither them or any one to their right ( Moveon, Progressive Democrats , Code Pink etcd. ) can dominate the alliance . Don't engage either in attacks that sound only a bit to the left of old fashioned all-american redbaiting . To paraphase the old slogan , Don't Mourn (Out ) Organize !

Brendan,
I agree that it is a mistake to focus on the ISO over one's own organizing, but to simply focus on organizing without having any regard for the content of that work is one of the main problems with the whole ISO phenomenon (not that this is what _you_ are calling for, but believe me I see it all the time!). Also, given their ubiquity, it seems to me important to challenge their hegemony right now.
You say my article sounds "only a bit to the left of old fashioned all-american redbaiting," which reminds me of the response of the ISO whenever people attempted in good faith to criticize their positions and their controlling maneuvering in SAW. You're essentially calling me a moderate red baiter, and I think it's a term that sometimes comes out too easily, especially given the lengths I went to in the article to clarify what a red herring that was in our case, and how the ISO uses that term to avoid real debate. I can have a criticism of the Bolsheviks, Trotsky, Lenin, etc. and not be a red baiter. I have not seen anyone call the ISO red baiters when they rightly criticize Mao, or write their confused and intentionally distorted articles about anarchism and Left Communism (and of course none of these tendencies are beyond criticism either). Leninists and Trotskyists don't have a monopoly on communism, which is why I don't equate a criticism of them as red baiting. The term red baiter is (usually) used in almost the same way FOX News uses "Terrorist", and by cheapening the term, we run the risk of rendering it meaningless.
For me, this criticism is part of "organizing". You say "Don't mourn, organize". But is criticism the same thing as mourning? Is there no place for criticism in our attempt to understand? For me, given my direct experience in SAW, I think I have an obligation to warn others, especially given SAW's strong presence on Bay Area campuses. How can we organize alternatives to capitalism or the ISO if we don't include some criticism?
But let me also say that I appreciate what you say about focusing on our own projects. You read the pamphlet, so you may have noticed some of the other projects I'm involved with. Also, thanks for reading the thing in the first place. I mainly want it to stand as a warning for other activists, as I've said.

I share the sentiment, but that doesn't rhyme. This, however, does & places the blame squarely where it belongs:

NO A.N.S.W.E.R.
NO I.S.O.
THEIR CONTROL OVER ACTIVISM
HAS TO GO!

And Comrade Motopu--whereever you are, nice work on the pamphlet! I'm so glad someone had the courage to expose [in print] what kind of an activist organisation I.S.O. really is & how it squelches freedom of expression within its own ranks. I've been an activist for only 3 years, but in that short time, I do know--without joining this mainstream, sectarian-behaving, middle-class White suburbanite-dominated [reform] Socialist group or its fronts--what kind of activists they really are.

I forgot another adjective to describe the I.S.O. in my last post:

CONTROLLING.

Anyone out there who thinks that what the essay "ISONuts" says is bullshit, go to 1 of their meetings--or a Campus Anti-war Network/Stop The War Coalition/College Not Combat meeting, for that matter--and you'll see the truth.

And any I.S.O. member reading this wants to respond to my comments, go ahead & do so. Unlike you or your group, I won't shut down your freedom of expression, no matter how much I disagree with it.

Dave , you made some good points . But i really was aiming not so much at your article but at themany leftists who try to badmouth, slander, at times, yes, engage in a form of red baiting , and , if possible , exclude their political opponents (Especially the more successful ones ! ) No i don't think criticism of a Marxist group is ipso facto red baiting . But it does occur and even more often what happens is a capitulation to redbaiting , even from other ''reds '' ! For example i once was working in a Central American Anti-intervention coalition in the 80's . I was asked to produce the leaflet for a upcoming demo . No one had any problems with the rough draft i produced , people especially liked the photo graphic i chose etc. But when the leaflets came back from the printers i noticed the endorsements list seemed a bit small . It was . The coalition chair had deleted EVERY OPENLY RADICAL GROUP , whether they be Socialist , Communist, or Anarcho-Syndicalist who had all endorsed and all had been doing the grunt work to build the coalition , from the endorsements . ( The sole exception was the Democractic Socialists of America ) When i confronted her about it she didn't deny it '' I santized the list '' she said . '' We don't want to make liberals with money uncomfortable ! "' What made this even more outrageous is that she personally considered herself to be a revolutionary , a close supporter of a group within El Salvador's FMLN that called itself Revolutionary Communist ! That's a classic example of what i mean about capitulation to redbaiting . More later.

I used to see the ISO on campus all the time and can imagine that they dominated some of the antiwar groups and meetings but now that they are doing less no group has stepped forward to take their place. The main group with signs on campus against Bush is now the La Rouchites and they are completely crazy and drive peopel away unlike the ISO that at worst were just hard to work with. Ocassionally you see RCP front groups but thats about it.

The whole idea that some group or another can coopt a struggle and that any energy spent attacking alllies on a certain issue is worthwhile to clean up a movements message or open a movement seems a bit... well authoritian. Attacking people for views you see to be authoritarian can quickly turn into its own form of authoritarianism and Ive seen more sectarian energy comming from many Anarchists in recent years than from the hardline Trot groups (exluding people with supposed "communist" sympathies from groups, tearing down flyers, working to make other peoples demos smaller.... in an authoritarian fashion one doesnt see with the actual dogmatic Communist frontgroups).

Considering the problems we are facing today and the ability the government has to infilitrate and undermine movements, fear of the ISO, ANSWER or the stray crazy person who may show up at a meeting and be disruptive seems a bit absurd. The ISO doesnt have the power to coopt a real movement so if you think they are getting in your way thats probably saying more about you then them.

Dave , one more thought . You write that the I.S.O. unfairly labeled objections to the ''Socialist Worker''being sold at Students Against War events as ''redbaiting ''. I'm no lawyer for the I.S.O. I have, for example, some real questions about their work with in the Greens . But if the above wasn't ''redbaiting '' per se it certainly sounds like capitulation to redbaiting . (and , as i noted earlier , ''Reds '' certainly can and do make concessions to redbaiters . ) If not did any of you'll object to literature by antiwar liberals , , idelogically vague '' progressive '' s , or Anarchists being sold ? All of the above certainly have ''political agendas ''. Was ''Socialist Worker '' singled out ?
Moving on . you and all activists should come to the first Open meeting of this New Antiwar coalition . TO BE HELD AT I.L.W.U.#34 (SHIPS CLERKS ) 4 BERRY (DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM ''SBC ' STADIUM , S.F. SATURDAY 2-25 10-30 A.M. I do have some questions about this new alliance but it's worth checking out . They do claim they will be open and democractic and i know that no one group dominates the core organizing commitee . Maybe i will see you there .

afsdf:
"The whole idea that some group or another can coopt a struggle and that any energy spent attacking alllies on a certain issue is worthwhile to clean up a movements message or open a movement seems a bit... well authoritian."

Dave: The ISO has a proven track record on infiltrating and taking over groups, if you don't know about it, I think you should do some more research. But you're right that they are not omnipotent, and sometimes they just leave a group if they are not having as much control as they like. The point is not "attacking allies". How can I consider someone who smeared my name, censored me, intimidated me, and then ignored any issues I bring up, as an ally? At what point does such behavior merit a response? No one is SAW that was under attack by the ISO wanted to control them or "clean up" any message. That was the whole point. It was the ISO that was cleaning up the message of the group, by stifling any real thinking or self control. They actually believe that they are a vanguard, and as such need to limit and control the actions of the members of their groups. The example of making the listserv off limit to debate and then posting articles smearing groups and telling us "what kind of a movement" we need should give you a sense of what was going on. Also, can you show me where I said we need to clean up the message? What we were pushing for was more open and real debate and more self control over the planning of the groups projects. What we got was the ISO agenda.

afsdf:
Attacking people for views you see to be authoritarian can quickly turn into its own form of authoritarianism and Ive seen more sectarian energy comming from many Anarchists in recent years than from the hardline Trot groups

Dave: Sure, and you should call them on it when you see it don't you think? I have also seen some pretty authoritarian attitudes among certain anarchists. You keep saying I'm "attacking" the ISO, so I guess you can't empathize with the fact that the ISO was the one doing the attacking/controlling/manipulating/condescending/outside organizing of SAW behind non-ISO members backs in SAW. We're not just talking about "people" here (although they are people). We're talking about a group that has a set of ideological stances that they demand their members adhere to, and pretty much try to trick members of any coalition they are in, into carrying out. I think plenty of people in the ISO are fine, nice, concerned activists. The problem arises in their opportunism as a group. They will act as a group to stifle any debate, and throw the term "red baiter" quite liberally when they could be listening and learning. I'm not saying I'm here to teach them, but they don't seem to think they are working with other "people" who might be able to teach them through their first hand experiences as activists. Just look at how they cut and paste canned responses instead of actually addressing people's issues. This has nothing to do with democratic organizing. The behavior coming out of their membership is just sad. And the first hand stories I have heard from members of the humiliation handed out by their leaders is just unacceptable. I swear it seems worse than having a boss at a shitty retail job! Can you see my objection to the kind of organization they have set up, and why I think it reflects some of the worst of capitalist society?
You may choose to work with them, and I won't tell you not to if you think it is important on certain issues. But at some point people need to question whether bolstering such bullies is doing _anyone_ any good? Working for a socialist, or anarchist, or communist or egalitarian (however you put it) future means working _toward_ some type of society. What I experienced from the ISO qualifies as the exact opposite of what I want for the future. History is full of lessons on State Socialism/Bolshevism/authoritarianism etc., and for people who continue to ignore these lessons because it is "mean" to criticize or "absurd" to "fear" the ISO or ANSWER I would say they want "peace" more than they want to break down illigitimate power. History has a lot to teach us about the failings of various Left tendencies (yes including anarchists). As I see the ISO as stuck in a failed model, in which ideology renders them stagnant and blind to real people's issues right in front of them, I believe they are worth challenging. Their behavior, and I've seen it for years now, is sectarian and controlling and it is nothing I'm interested in. If you think their centralized power model, party line adherence, and covert manipulations of groups are what the future of "socialism" should be, then by all means refrain from criticism and in fact support their groups.

afsdf"The ISO doesnt have the power to coopt a real movement so if you think they are getting in your way thats probably saying more about you then them.

Dave: Maybe so. But I think it is a mistake to assume that because I criticized them, that I am not involved in other organizing that has been successful, or at least pushing toward better possibilities, and shown more of the class consciousness, spontaneity, and anti-athoritarianism I like. In fact I have been doing other organizing and hooking up with other activists/thinkers/ who are doing much in the Bay Area. I just worry that for many students it is easier to "plug in" to the ISO or one of their front groups, because they are successful at being high profile, and they do enjoy the support (and harrassment) of a central group that is established.
Anyway, I think your criticism of my views was well said. I also think it shows a willingness to question my "authority" on this issue, and even defend what you may see as a Left group under attack. This is all great in my view. I would just caution you about the ISO. They really are authoritarians! I now know from first hand experience after years of supporting their various efforts and trying to work with them.
Dave



afsdf:
(exluding people with supposed "communist" sympathies from groups, tearing down flyers, working to make other peoples demos smaller.... in an authoritarian fashion one doesnt see with the actual dogmatic Communist frontgroups).

Dave: Actually, when I was at a CAN conference I did witness the ISO undermine another group's demo! It is in my pamphlet. They deny it, but "Roberts Rules" were manipulated to block a motion to endorse a Spartacist anti-ROTC demo. The vote was going one way, and all of a sudden, it was taken out of the hands of those present, and went to delegates only with no input from their school constituencies. Well the delegates were stacked satisfactorily to assure the ISO could block anything. I called them on it afterward and found myself surrounded by 8 ISO activists insisting I imagined the whole thing. The reason for opposing the endorsement was that the ISO/SAW was having another Berkeley demo two days later. Given that SF State SAW had just challenged military recruiters, it seemed like the Berkeley group wanted theirs to be as succesful. So they couldn't even endorse an anti-ROTC rally! Talk about lame.

Brendan:
You write that the I.S.O. unfairly labeled objections to the ''Socialist Worker''being sold at Students Against War events as ''redbaiting ''.

Dave: There was never a motion to ban Socialist Worker being sold or shared at SAW events or meetings. What was happening was that the constant recruting pitches to members combined with the paper coming out at every point in SAW meetings, combined with the Fraction group and steering committee manipulation was adding up to virtual total control of SAW. _One_ thing that was requested was that maybe they could scale back use of the paper to _certain times_, like the news sharing portion, in the SAW meetings. But it is worth noting that the atmosphere had gotten so hostile by this point, that the non-ISO members had to counter the ISO fraction group by forming our own affinity group. We couldn't any longer just make suggestions to ISO members without either being labelled red baiters, or having them make it into a confrontation about how we were trying to control them. The best thing really was just to leave the group and acknowledge it was run by the ISO, which it is. There is plenty of other organizing and theorizing going on in the Bay Area!
Here, I found on the SAW listserv an email that one non-ISO SAW member accidentally posted. It outlines frustrations with ISO in SAW, and whether the suggestion goes too far is definitely up for debate, but it is clear that the intention was not to ban SW sales. This was from meeting notes from the non-ISO affinity group, and was a suggested motion we wanted to open up for discussion with the ISO members and then vote on it:
3) No soliciting for anything besides SAW _except during announcements_. This includes selling anything outside of the SAW meeting both before and after the meeting, for example by the entryway to the hall that leads to the meeting or at the door of the meeting, as well as inside the room where we meet. As mentioned, _people are welcome to sell anything they want, including
newspapers_, during the announcement section of the meeting, but are not allowed to solicit individuals at any other time. This proposal is aimed at preventing outside group agendas from being confused with SAW's own agenda...
--we also want to bring up our concerns that the ISO's recruiting within
SAW is hurting SAW's membership, though no formal restriction or ban on
ISO recruitment will be proposed. our hope is that by changing the meeting structure we won't have to take more direct actions to curb the ISO's influence in SAW--

To reiterate-no ban on SW papers, or on ISO recruiting, just an attempt to open a discussion on whether they would reign these activities in, and then asking the group to vote on it. I would also ask that people take the language in the last sentance in the context of the fact that the ISO was controlling our group. It was also after people had been censored by the ISO on the listserv and all the rest that you see in the pamphlet. We were trying to start a discussion with them and letting them know that our meetings seemed like ISO meetings. This led to Todd's smearing us as McCarthyites. McCarthyism is attacking and excluding someone for being a communist. What we were trying to do was break an outside group's stifling and control of our anti-War group. But as I said, we all came to accept that ISO wanted SAW for their agenda, and we left to do other things. There is of course a case to be made that our proposal was too severe. If there had been an atmosphere of open debate and discussion, I'm sure it could have been worked out, but after being backed into the position of having to start our affinity group out of concern over more harassment by ISO members, we came up with this potential solution outside of the SAW meeting. It may not have been the best idea, but at that last meeting where it was introduced, we saw that the ISO was still not hearing our issues, and all of us except one person quit. We had the majority by the way, and could have voted to simply kick the ISO out! No one wanted to do that. We were not interested in minimizing communism or socialism in the group's focus because most of the non-ISO members were radicals also. Please remember this context.
I'm open to any criticism of the non-ISO group's actions, but ask that you take into account the context of ISO behavior as outlined in the pamphlet. If I don't convince some people of my case, I'm sure that exposure to the ISO will lead more people to avoid them too. I can't tell anyone who to organize with, so my pamphlet serves mainly as a warning. The lesson I've learned is that it is really important to do your political action and research with people you share opinions on how a future society should look. This sounds abstract but it affects practice on a daily level.
Dave

Dave , you do make a strong case for your version of what happened within your chapter , branch , (whatever ) of S.A.W. I especially tend to find credable what you said about the successful attempt to kill a endorsement of a Spart initiated picket . So often many groups , whether Socialist, Unions, liberals etc., will let their differences with this or that organization prevent them from collaborating no matter what the issue or situation . Often when they refuse to cooperate they shoot themselves in the foot . The Sparts , for example , were one of the first groups in the country to take up the case of Mumia Abu Jamal via their Partisan Defence Commitee . So a lot of people, in a knee jerk sectarian reflex , wouldn't endorse or even attend a Partisan Defence comm. rally .in defence of Mumia . But when hundreds turned out , not knowing or caring who called the event, some of those who had abstained were a bit embarassed and got involved the next time .Since then the Free Mumia campaign became a International movement and the Sparts, true to form , ended up excluding themselves from any broad coalitions . Anyway , time to go . I wish some I.S.O. member would give their account of the events you write about and turn this into a real debate . But, alas, real debates are rare in the left .

they are so EASY to out-debate. why worry about them at all?

if anything, you should infiltrate them so that when their recruits burn out, they have somewhere to go besides the "adventure" club, or the republicans or whatever. (now, you wanna talk about a rebel group at sfsu...)

on the iso:
if anything, you should infiltrate them

Dave: I like it I like it! We can be our very own cointelpro.

on the iso:
so that when their recruits burn out, they have somewhere to go besides the "adventure" club, or the republicans or whatever.

Dave:
How bout your mama's house?

Dave thought I said something like: I like it I like it! We can be our very own cointelpro.

So what is it, Dave, when the ISO take over someone else's group (like, say, Students Against War) and turn it into a front group?

Why is turnabout not fair play?

To equate it with COINTELPRO shows your appaling lack of analytic skills...


Dave concluded his "contribution" to the discussion with: How bout your mama's house?


Oooooh, my mother. Some people got no mercy. The feds certainly better not fuck with you.

Dave is my real name so drop the quotes! (Or did you think motopu was my real name?)
Anyway, I don't want to continue flaming. I just found it rude when you sort of dissed the Adventure Club in your first post there (you see where I'm talking about?) Who knows, you might like us! (We're not on a recruitment campaing by the way.)
I can see what your saying about turn about is fair play, but I wouldn't want to engage in those kinds of tactics, as I tend to think the means are the ends (maybe this is a whole other subject though, and worth discussing). But I think organizing outside the ISO is the answer.
So, I was trying to give you a lighthearted dis back for yours (turnabout...).
Thanks for looking at ISOnuts in the first place.
Dave

I am a member of the ISO and I have to say Dave C.'s whole line of 'argument' is Redbaiting 101. Look again at the language he uses to refer to socialists who belong to an organization whose politics he disagrees with-- "outside group," "infilitrating", etc. This is the language of McCarthyism, whether Dave (aka Motupu, or whatever) acknowledge it or choose to take the 'my best friend is a socialist' line. The point is that Dave has serious POLITICAL differences with the ISO (which is obviously fine) but since he hasn't been able to win arguments on political grounds he has resorted to a campaign on the internet to accuse the ISO of "infilitrating" the antiwar movement.

Dave is lying about not singling out Socialist Worker to attack and try to prevent being sold at SAW events/meetings. He did single out Socialist Worker to be excluded from meetings, which is a totally undemocratic maneuver. This is an effort to police the antiwar movement at a time when the NSA and Bush administration are doing their best to do that.

The antiwar movement is in bad shape. Why? People feel powerless. But that's not all: the campaign to get Kerry elected pulled most of the Left into passivity and when Kerry lost people got demoralized. The ISO was one of the few forces that argued against the pro-Democrat strategy. Since then the movement has been silent on racism against Arabs and Muslims and continues to think that electing Democrats will end the war. That's not the whole story, but it's part of it.

But instead of trying to rebuild the movement, Dave is actually keeping people from doing so by blaming socialists (a very small minority of most antiwar coalitions) for the movement's weakness. He is one-man campaign to stop "socialist infilitration". Redbaiting always comes out during times when the movement is weak and disoriented. This is one of those moments and Dave is pursuing an old and destructive strategy.

Andrew:
I am a member of the ISO and I have to say Dave C.'s whole line of 'argument' is Redbaiting 101. Look again at the language he uses to refer to socialists who belong to an organization whose politics he disagrees with-- "outside group,"

Dave:
But in my critique I am not criticizing anyone because he or she is a self proclaimed socialist. My problem is with the ISO is its authoritarian Leninist Vanguard party tactics, not socialism as a theory or practice.
You need to let go of this idea that attacking the ISO equals attacking socialism. The ISO is not socialism, they are one subgroup that claims to be socialist.
Your engaging in logical fallacy:

1. Red Baiting involves attacking socialists
2. The ISO is made up of self proclaimed socialists
3. Attacking the ISO = Red Baiting

Compare it to this fallacy

1. Republican attacks on union leadership are anti-worker in nature
2. The ISO criticizes union leadership
3. The ISO is anti-worker

Or this one:
1. Black Socialist C.L.R James proclaimed Leninist Vanguardism dead.
2. The ISO opposes those who make this proclamation.
3. The ISO opposes Blacks.

I hope you can see why opposing the ISO is not the same as opposing socialism.
As for the use of the term "outside group", the ISO has fraction group meetings outside of SAW. These meetings are indeed "outside" of SAW, and only ISO members are allowed. These fraction group meetings are in relation to SAW. If you don't call this an outside group then what is it? Andrew you can't have it both ways. You are probably aware that when the non-ISO students began an affinity group to meet about SAW away from ISO members we were accused of "going behind their backs". We only did this because non-ISO SAW members were so frustrated by ISO SAW members being bullies and name callers, as well as exerting control over our group at every turn.


Andrew:
"infilitrating", etc. This is the language of McCarthyism, whether Dave (aka Motupu, or whatever) acknowledge it or choose to take the 'my best friend is a socialist' line.

Dave: Go back to the logical fallacy chart again.
As for my "best friends", I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I have friends who are socialists, anarchists, situationists, democrats, republicans, Korean, and none of the above. Since you make an accusation that I am engaging in tokenism, I think you owe it to me to show me where in my writing you are referring to. I'm more than happy to respond.



Andrew:
The point is that Dave has serious POLITICAL differences with the ISO (which is obviously fine)

Dave: Wow, I wish that was true. But when we brought up political differences over the organizing within what we thought was our group, we became the targets of a smear campaign (quotes are available in the ISOnuts pamphlet and online at infoshop's posting of the SAW listserv debate), in which we were labeled "red-baiting McCarthyites," as you continue to label me. I believe I have more than adequately explained the circumstances that lead to the attempt to make SAW a place for ideas that stemmed from members, not just the ISO. This was our experience, and judging by the virtual tsunami of negative ink on the internet about the ISO, it is a very common experience. So it is possible that all those posts, likely representing far more people with bad experiences with the ISO, are all red baiters. It seems more likely to me that there is something that the ISO does that people see as anti-democratic and objectionable.


Andrew:
but since he hasn't been able to win arguments on political grounds he has resorted to a campaign on the internet to accuse the ISO of "infilitrating" the antiwar movement.

Dave: I'm curious as to which arguments you believe I've lost with the ISO. Maybe that is for people looking at the debate to decide for themselves. For people who would like to access the original SAW listserv debate please go to:
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20050529001500670
and part 2 at:
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20050531124816353&query=ISO+alienates+
For a small sampling of other complaints check out:
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2001/11/109100.php
and
http://www.indybay.org/news/2001/11/109269.php
There are many many more writings and discussions that an interested reader can research with a search engine on line.


Andrew:
Dave is lying about not singling out Socialist Worker to attack and try to prevent being sold at SAW events/meetings. He did single out Socialist Worker to be excluded from meetings, which is a totally undemocratic maneuver.

Dave: This is false. The only proposal that was discussed was limiting SW sales to the announcements section. I've already outlined this with the primary source document in this thread. So when you say I lied, you need to make your case, with something I said somewhere, as opposed to what I actually did, or some similar use of evidence. The problem with both ISO recruiting and paper sales was that they dominated our SAW meetings. I'm not sure if they have scaled it back since then, but everyone in our group agreed it was obnoxious, and that they gave the impression of being at an ISO, not SAW meeting. I think your case ignores the very real use of front groups by Trot an Leninist groups. Anyone with a knowledge of Left organizing acknowledges this reality. And yet it is supposed to be unimaginable that the ISO, mountains of first hand accounts to the contrary, would ever dream of such behavior. Again, I'm confident a critical reader will see the basis of the non-ISO members problems with the ISO's behavior in SAW.


Andrew:
This is an effort to police the antiwar movement at a time when the NSA and Bush administration are doing their best to do that.

Dave: This is called "guilt by association" and is another logical fallacy:
1. The NSA and Bush are critical of groups like the ISO.
2. The NSA and Bush police the movement.
3. Anyone critical of groups like the ISO is policing the movement

There is no evidence that the non-ISO members ever told the ISO it could not sell papers at SAW meetings, because this never happened.
Real examples of policing the movement include ISO organizer David Russitano censoring my and others' posts from the SAW listserv. Other ISO cop like behavior includes telling people not to debate on the SAW listserv, or harassing ISO members who chose to talk to me in public (Ask ISO member Lee about this as I witnessed her actually tell her supervisor to lay off and that she could talk to whoever she wished.) These are only small local examples of policing. In the broader question of policing the movement, you only need look again to this very thread, with the Campus Anti-War Network meeting where the use of Robert's Rules took the decision out of the hands of the group and put it into the hands of the delegates (with no input from their constituencies). Based on the complaints, and on the history of the Left, I believe again that most readers (provided they care about history) will see legitimacy to the various complaints against the ISO. The CAN conference, and the SAW meeting structure, jumped out at me last night when I was reading C.L.R. James' _Facing Reality_ which is a socialist critique of the old Left, specifically Leninist vanguard organizing, among other things:

"Like so many other tens upon tens of millions of workers, they have repeatedly been cheated and had their wishes thwarted by bureaucrats, Chairman, Secretary, and Committee members sitting at tables, on platforms, with speakers to motion, seconders according to regulations, or according to May's or Robert's Rules Rules of Order, the whole apparatus of tried and tested routine by which the will of the rank and file is thwarted. The result is that they act in conscious opposition to these procedures. It is often in this way, by conscious rejection of the old, that the new develops and is cherished and spread because of the enormous new power it generates."

He was talking about Dockers, but this general disgust with ISO type control tricks are ubiquitous. The sad thing is that often times activists just burn out instead of realizing it doesn't have to be that way. James himself makes clear his high esteem for Lenin (with which I disagree), but he is in no way red baiting when he makes his case on the corruption seen with Leninist vanguard party behavior (he, like myself, speaks from first hand experience,---an no, I'm no where near as a good a writer, obviously). He wrote this book in 1958, so we can see this is not a new phenomenon, and that it is likely linked to the ideological underpinnings of the ISO's methods of organizing. i encourage people to research on their own, as I think there is a strong convergence of evidence indicating problematic behaviors with vanguard parties, and specifically with the ISO.

Andrew:
The antiwar movement is in bad shape. Why? People feel powerless. But that's not all: the campaign to get Kerry elected pulled most of the Left into passivity and when Kerry lost people got demoralized. The ISO was one of the few forces that argued against the pro-Democrat strategy.

Dave: Again this has nothing to do with me or my views. But I suggest you read the C.L.R. James book _Facing Reality_, (he is even quoted in ISO articles I've seen) because he also has an interesting discussion of what the Marxist (not sure this is the best term for ISO, which is more solidly Trotskyist if one term is to be used), organizations should say about the electoral realm. Personally I see a big discrepancy between your group's rhetoric and their backing of George Galloway, or Todd's baffling run for Senator on the Green ticket.

Andrew:
Since then the movement has been silent on racism against Arabs and Muslims and continues to think that electing Democrats will end the war. That's not the whole story, but it's part of it.

Dave: I think your assertion that the movement has been silent on these issues is misleading, and self serving. For example, both Znet and the Electronic Intifada are more useful sources on these issues in my estimation, than the ISO is. But even Stalinist groups like ANSWER have been vocal on these issues. It doesn't take much really as the offenses are so blatant. Interestingly, some of the groups and individuals who have in my view done more to bring such issues to light than the ISO are among those who have come under the most severe criticism by the ISO. See the SAW listserv debate for more on this.

Andrew:
But instead of trying to rebuild the movement, Dave is actually keeping people from doing so by blaming socialists (a very small minority of most antiwar coalitions) for the movement's weakness.

Dave: Again, refer to the logical fallacies above. You can't show me anywhere that I blamed socialists for the movement's weakness, because i have neither said it, nor believed it. The real question is: What is more important, "building the movement", or struggling with the type of future society we want to build in mind as we shape our own political/social/organizing/ efforts. For me, and I believe a growing number of others, working along the lines the ISO outlines will bring more of the same. This has to do with the fact that the ISO acts as if it needs to mediate between people and their desires. This is the vanguard party approach. Rosa Luxemburg, Chomsky, C.L.R. James. Bakunin, Emma Goldman, Immanuel Wallerstein, Ida Mett, Maurice Brinton, Socialism or Barbarism, the Situationists, Left Communists, and countless others have all layed out valid critiques of this approach alongside their critiques of capitalism.


Andrew:
He is one-man campaign to stop "socialist infilitration".

Dave: Another fallacious statement on your part for two reasons. I don't say anything about "socialist infiltration". Secondly if your idea of a "one man campaign" includes thousands of complaints from all over the country, you're sillier than I gave you credit for. A simple web search with good key words will prove I'm right on this.

Andrew:
Redbaiting always comes out during times when the movement is weak and disoriented. This is one of those moments and Dave is pursuing an old and destructive strategy.

Dave: My suggestion to you is to move beyond the readings of the ISO/Socialist Worker/International Socialist Review/Haymarket Books list that you parrot here, and start including some Left Communist critiques, and some anarchist and situationist theory too. But for Pete's sake stop with the ridiculous charges of McCarthyism as they are just embarrassing after the first couple of times, let alone after elevendy jillionth. The ISO is rendering the terms "red baiting" and "McCarthyism" meaningless by throwing them whenever someone criticizes them, when what is called for is serious discussion.
Sincerely,
Dave Carr

Dave,

You clearly have plenty of spare time to spend writing long-winded essays describing-- to use your phrase-- "ISO infiltration" of the antiwar movement. But I'm afraid none of your pedantic and absurd 'logical fallacy" accusations can conceal the fact that your are not engaging in political criticism, but McCarthyite slander.

There is a clear, sharp difference between political criticism and red-baiting. If you were not engaged in the latter, I would happy to debate Lenin, CLR James, the purpose of fraction meetings, democratic centralism, Kronstadt, anarchism, Pannekok, Toni Negri, and whatever else with you. But that's not what your interested in.

You interest is convincing other activists that the ISO are "outsiders" (your word) "infiltrating" (your word) the antiwar movement in order to gain "total control" (your phrase.) Your interest is to convice people that ISO members find "conformity appealing" (your psycological bulls*&t), "operate on faith"(more absurd bs),have "restricted reading lists"(a lie), report to "supervisors"(another lie), etc. etc. etc.

There is a difference between political criticism and redbaiting.

The latter has been a strategy used by our rulers-- and adopted by sections of the left-- to single out, attack, and attempt to exclude socialists-- organized socialists-- from movements. Redbaiting relies on the same argument that is always used by the state and the ruling class to clamp down on dissent, which is that social movements are "infiltrated" by "outsiders" with a "separate agenda". Those are your words again, Dave.

Which is why I am arguing that, whether you acknowledge it or not, you're redbaiting. You should stop redbaiting-- it divides and destroys movements.

Andrew

How often do you red bait?

Andrew:
Dave,
You clearly have plenty of spare time to spend writing long-winded essays describing-- to use your phrase-- "ISO infiltration" of the antiwar movement.

Dave: This is ad hominem. You state I have a lot of time, implying I don't work and then you say my essay is long winded. Actually it is about 22 pages printed, and that is with the comics. This is the length of an average college essay for a seminar.



Andrew:
But I'm afraid none of your pedantic and absurd 'logical fallacy" accusations can conceal the fact that your are not engaging in political criticism, but McCarthyite slander.

Dave: You keep throwing the term, but as I've shown, the defense of non-ISO members was not against communists or socialists, but against censorship, intimidation, and slander against non-ISO members, It is all there in the pamphlet and the links provided. Your insistence on labeling me a McCarthyite again shows your not capable of hearing the complaints, which are everywhere, about the ISO. Until you are, your just sticking to party line in my opinion.

Andrew:
There is a clear, sharp difference between political criticism and red-baiting.

Dave: Here you need to lay out this distinction so we have something to work with. I laid out my position, and indicated clearly the difference between red baiting (attacking communists and socialists) and criticizing the ISO. I am criticizing Leninist Vanguard organizing tactics specifically, with clear examples and quotes from ISO members as well as proving an abundance of the actual debates as a primary source so people can decide for themselves.



Andrew:
If you were not engaged in the latter, I would happy to debate Lenin, CLR James, the purpose of fraction meetings, democratic centralism, Kronstadt, anarchism, Pannekok, Toni Negri, and whatever else with you. But that's not what your interested in.

Dave: Again, you just say I'm red baiting, but no definition, no reference, no proof. This is all we ever got from the ISO members in SAW too.

Andrew:
You interest is convincing other activists that the ISO are "outsiders" (your word) "infiltrating" (your word) the antiwar movement in order to gain "total control" (your phrase.)

Dave: Wow, your clever at distorting what I say by taking it out of context. When I said "total control" I was referring to our chapter of SAW, not the anti-war movement. The proof is in the pudding. There were no activities or projects that we worked on the whole semester that were not ISO projects. It really is that simple. I explained how the ISO really was operating outside of SAW, but you choose to ignore that too. The ISO does have a record of infiltrating groups. Ask participants of SAW, CAN, or the defunct SF State group Students For Peace, and that is a small sampling. I havee recieved emails from other SAW chapters that had the same experience we did at SF State. Your denial, in defense of your group, does not amount to an argument.


Andrew:
Your interest is to convice people that ISO members find "conformity appealing" (your psycological bulls*&t),

Dave: I admit this is an opinion, and I generally don't subscribe to psychohistorical explanations as an entire explanation of something, but you may have noticed that I included this in the section called "What do you really think?" which included song lyrics, and riffs on Marx, and as a supplement to the other evidence I provide, I think my opinions were pretty well founded. It also included the very conformist quote from Arturo, which really had nothing to do with SAW issues, and instead echoed the ISO line about Kerryite right wingers attacking socialists and radicals. This to me seems extremely conformist. But I'll trust readers to make up their own minds, and if they do deal with the ISO, I'm confident that most will come up against the same problems we did. This is why turn over in the ISO is so high, and why complaints against them are so common. Is it red baiting to point out these facts? Of course not.



Andrew:
"operate on faith"(more absurd bs),have "restricted reading lists"(a lie), report to "supervisors"(another lie), etc. etc. etc.

Dave: The "faith" part was also in the opinions I think, and the restricted reading lists /supervisor claim is backed up by the quote from the ISO member whose advisor told him he wasn't ready to read Maurice Brinton's _Bolsheviks and Workers Control_. Nothing you say can make his first hand account go away. And I believe it gives a valuable glimpse into the similar behavior I see from all ISO members who are committed to the group, including you.

Andrew:
There is a difference between political criticism and redbaiting.

The latter has been a strategy used by our rulers-- and adopted by sections of the left-- to single out, attack, and attempt to exclude socialists-- organized socialists-- from movements.

Dave: I agree with this definition as far as it goes.

Andrew:
Redbaiting relies on the same argument that is always used by the state and the ruling class to clamp down on dissent, which is that social movements are "infiltrated" by "outsiders" with a "separate agenda". Those are your words again, Dave.

Dave: But if the ISO does _infiltrate_ groups with the intent of controlling them, and if they do bring in a separate _outside_agenda from what could arise in a more democratic setting, how is a group of people, socialists among them, supposed to raise a complaint without getting labeled red baiters? Every one of our complaints fell on deaf ears, and none of our real issues was ever addressed by the ISO.

Andrew:
Which is why I am arguing that, whether you acknowledge it or not, you're redbaiting. You should stop redbaiting-- it divides and destroys movements.

Dave: Certainly it can do that, but you need to stop and think a bit. Let's just talk about my role for a second. I was helping with the defense campaign of the two ISO students, Mike and Katrina, against the attacks from the administration over the anti-recruitment action. I penned a substantial portion of the ad that went into the SF State Xpress paper defending SAW's freedom of speech. I also petitioned professors to sign on to the statement to defend SAW. I participated in this anti-recruitment action action, and helped plan it. I was pretty active the whole semester, and had previously helped out with Union organizing at SF State, with Mike, and had also attended and supported monetarily, projects the ISO had done. I had constantly defended the ISO against people on the basis that they "do good things". I would bring up Chomsky articles in the ISR, and them bringing in David Barsamian, etc. But after I actually tried to participate, and I have participated in many political groups and coalitions (I'm older than most of you, I'm 40), I couldn't believe the level of censorship, manipulation of meetings, and subtle intimidation by ISO members, as well as the sheer domination of the group by ISO activities such as recruitment, paper sales in every single section of the meeting and so on. So I really think just saying my criticisms amount to red baiting is a colossal cop out on your part. That's why I'm waiting for a bit more self reflection and thought on your part. You ignore almost the entire context of who the non-ISO students were, what we stand for, and why we had complaints. There was not a single one of us who opposed socialism. There was one person in our group who did think capitalism was salvageable but he was the one with the ISO advisor riding him to the point that he thought she was an unelected member of the steering committee. But even he was open to the criticisms of capitalism that the rest of us non_ISO students laid out. I oppose red baiting. I am a historian and I have studied it a bit, although my focus was Europe so I never wrote papers on McCarthyism. But I have studied socialism and the Left fairly extensively. What I found in both the academic setting, and the sectarian socialist setting, was an unwillingness to look beyond an accepted cannon of "legitimate" texts. I think this results in really limited views, and the need to call people idiots, red baiters, vulgar Marxists, amateurs, etc. This is a way to avoid actually engaging with arguments and criticisms.
You think I should stop what you call "red baiting." I think you should think more critically and allow more nuance in your arguments. I think similarly of the ISO in general. And yes, the ISO is authoritarian in their theory and practice. Please read the C.L.R. James book _Facing Reality_ and take an honest look at Brinton's _Bolsheviks and Workers' Control_ as well as looking at some of the other critical sites I included in ISOnuts. It is glaringly obvious to me that you have not yet applied critical thought to the problems we discuss, but insist on defending "your side" right or wrong. You've got tunnel vision mate. I think there will come a day when you will change your mind. My guess is that it will come either when you yourself are labeled a red baiter, or you'll just think hard about democratic direct action, and what "organizing" means if it has to follow such half baked and rigid guidelines as the ISO insists on. One thing I've found interesting is that you can become more radical with age. I used to settle for liberal and authoritarian politics. Now I try to engage in more liberating politics, which take people's real experience into account, and give them credit for being able to see the problems they face in their everyday existence in the capitalist system. Of course sharing critical texts and ideas helps all of us. But considering yourself part of a Vanguard that is here to tell us what to do and how to do it, while assuming we're a bunch of chimps is really insulting, and that's why you have to take so much guff as an ISO member.
The last section may be a bit condescending and perhaps ageist on my part. I apologize, but it is what I really think.
Sincerely,
Dave
P.S. If you want to keep calling me a red baiter and a McCarthyite, that's to be expected but unless new evidence is presented I'll just file it under the "party line" explanation since it doesn't seem to involve much empathy or consideration on your part.

I have seen the ISO on my campus in fact take over many groups. They have a pattern of coming to meetings, then vote to overthrow the powers and set up the ISO structure. Andrew, you say that "redbaiting" is what divides us, when in fact what divides progressives is the Communists themselves, making everybody seem out of touch as well as draining power from the true progressive movement (such as how Peace and Freedom keeps on draining power from the Greens). Why can't you guys just mind your own business-- please, do come to meetings, but don't change the power structure to be modeled after your own. Let us have our autonomy.

- How does ''Peace and Freedom Party drain '' from The Greens? Just curious . Especially since PFP has had ballot status since 1968 except for being kicked off the ballot from 1998 until getting back on in 2002 . )I believe the Greens didn't get on the ballot until , maybe 1988 ? So how and what does PFP ''drain ' ?

The New ''Broad, democractic, antiwar coalition '' is having a open meeting for any one interested in working on a founding conference-teach in in April . The Meeting will be held at 10:30 A.M.Saturday March 4 at the West Bay Hall of the International Longhore and Warehouse Union #6 255 9th st. (near Mission ) .S.F. Any and all activists that are commited to a genuine , democratic antiwar Movement should attend .

Dave, you're 40 years old and you're writing 22-page essays on the internet naming the names of 18-22 year old students at SFSU who are also members of a socialist organization and accusing them of being "infiltrators" and "outsiders." I think you are the one that needs to 'reflect'!

And you continue to lie over and over about "supervisors", "restricted reading lists", "overseers" in the ISO. All of this is make-believe redbaiting garbage.
Anyone who's been in the ISO for one week or 7 years (like me) can tell you these are lies. If you had an ounce of integrity you would apologize for spreading this made-up, McCarthyite poison.

Typical pseudo-anti-authoriarianism quoted from above:

"don't change the power structure to be modeled after your own. Let us have OUR autonomy." (my bold)

"Our"...ie. by being members of a socialist organization one is ipso facto an "outsider" in a coalition "taking over" the pure realm of autonomous democracy policed by the "insiders". More anti-democratic, pseudo-antiauthoritarian crap.

Good night and good luck, redbaiters.

Andew

I've seen "SAW" on Malcom X Plaza-- comprised of 100% ISoers (how do I know? seen em selling papers!)-- saying "We're not the ISO, we're SAW!" They were handing out flyers for an event, to feature their take on someone else's issue-- hmm, much in the style of other ISO political events, a style for which the ISO is well known.

What is that, if not front-grouping?

And what's this "you're old" shit?

More evidence to the front-group allegation, from this very day:

in here.

nothing like a little evidence...

Andrew:
Dave, you're 40 years old and you're writing 22-page essays on the internet naming the names of 18-22 year old students at SFSU who are also members of a socialist organization and accusing them of being "infiltrators" and "outsiders." I think you are the one that needs to 'reflect'!


Dave: What are 40 year olds supposed to do? Buy red sports cars? What's wrong with writing 22 page essays, or using the internet? And yes, peoples' names come up, most of which were already on the net in the SAW listserv debate. I think people should be held accountable for what they do. I'm pretty sure everyone named stands by what they said or did. Not everyone will agree with my view of what they did obviously.
But you're probably right. I shouldn't focus so much on the ISO. The impetus for me was the frustration of seeing so many people get hurt by the group, and just keep going back for more. Why? Because the ISO is seen by many younger activists as the only game in town. The other thing that happened is they would drop out of activism thinking the ISO is what the Left is all about. I want to open up a forum in which people consider other models of organizing and theorizing. I hope my pamphlet can help show others that there are many different kinds of Left theory and practice (not just the Leninist Vanguard model of the ISO), and that Left communism, Situationism, and Anarchism, among others, have a rich history worth considering and reading about, despite the ISO knee jerk dismissal of such groups as "infantile". I think I'm succeeding in at least calling some attention to the issue, so I feel pretty good about it. I was lucky to meet others who introduced me to other Left theory.
I know it's not fun for you to see criticisms of the ISO, but I'm hoping that this will translate into you adding some sources that are critical of Leninism (and Trotsky) to your list, that C.L.R. James "Facing Reality" book for example. He was dealing with similar issues fifty years ago, and if you write me off as a McCarthyite, I think you could still get a lot out of this book by James.


Andrew:
And you continue to lie over and over about "supervisors", "restricted reading lists", "overseers" in the ISO. All of this is make-believe redbaiting garbage.

Dave: The following quote is not make believe :
"At this point in time i dont feel comfortable enough to read the brinton article. My ISO advisor and I both feel that i need more education before taking on such critiques."
That was posted by an ISO member to a chat site I'm on, explaining why he would not read Maurice Brinton's _The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control_. The book is a thought provoking outline of the Bolshevik party's undermining the workers' councils during the Russian Revolution:
http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group
Anyway, Andrew, you can't just call primary sources "lies". If an ISO member wrote it, and I paste it here, it can't be a "lie" just because I'm presenting it.

Andrew:
Anyone who's been in the ISO for one week or 7 years (like me) can tell you these are lies.

Dave:
Again, this is not true. There are many people I have talked to who have left the group because they felt stifled and harrassed. Simply telling people these things are "lies" does not make it so. There are ISO advisors. (Note: You're right though about the term "overseer" which is not used by the ISO. It is in the peanuts strips because it was a term an ISO person used when describing Todd, who is a regional organizer, and it struck me as odd. But I am going back to take it out of the text in the one place it appears to replace with "regional organizer" as soon as I finish reinstalling my software from a system crash. Thanks for reminding me.)
You mention "restricted reading lists". The term I used in ISOnuts was "restricted and guided readings" that the members engage in. I didn't use the term "restricted reading lists" until you first put it in quotes and I was paraphrasing your false quote of me. Why do you put things in quotes if I never said them? I think that is misleading. Of course no one can follow every member and make sure they don't read certain things. But the quote about the Brinton book above shows that this member was dissuaded from reading a book critical of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Also, the censored messages from the SAW listserv, censored by an ISO member, certainly qualify as restricting what ISO and SAW members were allowed to read. Also, when we see postings, or hear ISO members speak, the very narrow view they present is usually quite apparent, especially to those not in the group who read ISR and SW articles, and then hear them parroted by members, even when they don't apply to the issue at hand. We see this again and again with this issue of "supporting Kerry". This Kerry thing was thrown in our faces repeatedly, but none of the non-ISO members of SAW had ever brought him up, nor was his campaign relevant to our concerns about SAW. You yourself brought it up. Also the McCarthyite charges against us appeared at the same time that articles on the New McCarthyism were appearing in the SW and ISR. You see the sort of unified presentation that goes on in the group, that tends to lose site of local issues, nuance, and the truth. It isn't that New McCarthyism shouldn't be challenged, but that the term not be thrown recklessly against anyone who disagrees with your party line.

Andrew:
If you had an ounce of integrity you would apologize for spreading this made-up, McCarthyite poison.

Dave: Was the above quote about not reading Brinton "made up"? Is the uniformity of the response from ISO members as shown from Arturo's quote in ISOnuts, and from your constant use of the term red baiter, made up? No. These things are real.
I won't apologize for challenging you all to think more critically. I know it must not feel good when someone calls you on demonstrably fallacious statements and charges you have thrown. And it must suck to have to defend an organization I suspect you may have had doubts about yourself. I'm guessing you've even seen some friends labeled red baiters, and maybe you weren't sure that was the most accurate description of them, but you went along anyway. Seven years is a big emotional and intellectual investment.
Not one single ISO member ever apologized to me labelling me a McCarthyite. It's just that kind of 100% unanimity that reinforces my view of the lack of autonomous thought from ISO members. It would be great some day to hear back from an ex-ISO member wanting to apologize to me and the others, but we're not holding our breath.

Andrew:
Typical pseudo-anti-authoriarianism quoted from above:
"don't change the power structure to be modeled after your own. Let us have OUR autonomy." (my bold)

Dave: When the poster wrote the words above, to me it means don't rearange a sharing of power into one that gives power to the ISO to _represent_ the rest of us, and hand _the plan_ down to us in easy to understand predigested servings. It is apparent that you have not considered these issues very deeply. You might want to check out Daniel Cohn Bendit's _Obsolete Communism_ and also anything by Freddy Perlman. You could also read a bit about the Oakland General strike of 1946, or wild cat strikes in general, in which the rank and file goes on strike without leadership or approval from the Union. Anti-authoritarianism and autonomy go hand in hand last time I checked. Can't you see the difference between asking for a group (SAW) to give equal access to ALL of it's members in REAL decision making processes, and one group (ISO) guiding, steering, and manipulating an entire group (SAW) to meet their own needs? I think you have a lot to learn about working in coalitions, and judging by the reams of ink on the ISO's duplicity in coalitions on the internet, I'm not the only one. Your quote in no way shows that I'm psuedo-anything. It only indicates that you refuse to consider (or admit) that front grouping is real.

Andrew:
"Our"...ie. by being members of a socialist organization one is ipso facto an "outsider" in a coalition "taking over" the pure realm of autonomous democracy policed by the "insiders". More anti-democratic, pseudo-antiauthoritarian crap.

Dave: You continue to ignore the entire context, and you have yet to take responsibility for any of the ISO's manipulative behavior. I never said that anyone in a socialist organization is ipso facto an outsider. What I clearly said was that a group that meets outside of SAW to ensure that SAW's agenda meets it's own agenda is by definition attempting to control the group from the "outside". You can't logically argue against such a simple definition. There are several supporting pieces of evidence that the ISO did just this:
1. SAW's agenda is a mere sub-agenda of the ISO's. [They may have changed this recently, but judging by the group's track record and ideology of leading the masses, it would be largely for appearances.]
2. The following quote from an ISO member:
"We have a large `ISO lobby' in SAW that essentially ensures that our agenda is put through. There is nothing wrong with this, after all, the ISO puts forth a lot of time and effort into SAW.” (Many ISO members know who wrote this, and this member had his ISO listserv privileges temporarily revoked for posting Todd Chretien's quotes to an outside listserv and for speaking so openly about what he had heard at ISO meetings.)
3. The censorship of non-ISO members on the listserv was carried out by an ISO member.
4. The mountain of complaints about ISO manipulation at indybay, indymedia, infoshop, and elsewhere. These are supporting statements that show a pattern.
There are others but I can't keep writing these lists, especially since you just ignore them.

Andrew:
Good night and good luck, redbaiters.

Dave: That is one of my favorite movies of the year. The part where the corporate media teams up on the one news guy (from Twin Peaks, I forget the actor's name) who was defending Ed Morrow reminded me a lot of the 100% united front in the ISO members' campaign to label the non-ISO members of SAW as McCarthyites. In the film, the corporate media hacks never address the issue of the evils of McCarthy's campaign, just as in SAW, the ISO never addressed our complaints that they were using censorship and intimidation to stifle our taking any portion of actual control of our own group (and I think this is the difference between "workers' management": workers' voting or signing off on issues decided outside of their hands, and "workers' control": workers' guiding their own factory or organization based on their own knowledge of local needs and seeing how they fit into the broader picture---see Brinton on this). The parallels between MCcarthyism and ISO bullying of the rank and file and smearing them as red baiters are so blatantly obvious that one has to marvel at the ISO's power to indoctrinate their own membership with the "correct" line. It seems to me that you have still not addressed my request of you to give examples with evidence of red baiting on my part. You said we attacked socialists because they were socialists, we did not. You said we banned the sale of SW, we did not. Etc. etc. Your argument continues to amount to name calling.