Thoughts?

Is this legit?

To Leftist Trainspotters!

The IMT already lost a rather large chunk of its alleged Pakistani section, which left with Manzoor Ahmed, their former MP, who overnight turned from the Pakistani Lenin to a traitor. It also lost its Israeli members (hey there), who, though very few, received a first hand experience of the IMT's bureaucratic conduct when it comes to dissent. Now the Spanish section fails to pay subs so that Alan Woods can fly all over the world to share his boring lectures with people who have nothing to do with the IMT, and they must go too.

Frankly, the stupidity is astounding. The Spanish IMT section is the only significant section of the IMT in Europe*; IMTers in France and Italy have also managed to make some advances in their local reformist parties by raising popular reformist slogans, but in Spain, if one believes the IMT - and it's debatable whether or not one should - they actually control, at least partially, the student union. I also know they are quite a large section - even judging by the numbers I've seen with my eyes alone.

But what does it matter to Alan Woods and to the other IMT leaders playing with revolution? A couple of hundred supporters here, a couple more there. The only thing that really matters is discipline and that they pay subs.

And these people claim they're building a revolutionary international!

EDIT: *originally said "only significant section of the IMT." I don't know if it's really true that the Mexican or Pakistani sections are significant, but I'd rather not guess. Certainly, in Europe, the IMT has no other section with any remotely close level of significance.

Is the IMT actually anything other than a vehicle for Alan Woods own ego?
I mean seriously we bash Avakian for having a cult but Alan hardly goes about his business in the correct manner.

(Disclaimer: as a former CWI member I am well versed in better IMT criticisms, but as weak as these criticisms are I think they are valid)

This may sound dumb, but I fail to understand what the "subs" thing means. Does it mean that all the national sections have to pay tribute to the "international" for the favour of being included in it?

No. National sections pay subs towards the costs involved in running the International Secretariat but more importantly, in subsidising sections in other countries who need financial assistance.

The first thing we should say is that it will be a shame if the IMT splits, but it is far too early to say. We shouldn't be listening to rumours. Such splits damage us all, and the workers' movement in general -- so does any sectarian gloating.

I have tried to explain why this sort of thing (and the kind of things Yehuda accuses the IMT leadership of) is endemic among Trotskyist parties and tendencies --, indeed, on the far left in general --, why this has been so for at least 150 years, and why it will continue indefinitely, unless we address its fundamental causes, here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_02.htm

Could you post more info on that? I remember a thread on it about a year or so back. But then there wasn't any conclusive information either on the scale of the split (simply just Manzoor or an actual group?).

Wasn't that Pakistan (~3000 members out of ~4500 internationally)? Or was the Pakistani split that severe?

The split in Pakistan involved a substantial chunk of the membership. At one stage it looked as if Mazoor would take more than half, in the end it seems to have been circa one third.

I would guess at the moment that the Pakistan section accounts for perhaps 1,500 members of 3,000 internationally. This is using rather generous criteria for membership. The Pakistan group in particular brings a high percentage of non-members to its conferences and rallies, which reflects a certain wider influence but can be misleading when it comes to estimating membership. They also lie shamelessly about overall attendances.

Spain is the only other substantial group in the IMT. If the IS are trying to get rid of them they must fear the possibility of the contagion spreading, particularly to the Latin American sections (which are small, with the partial exception of the Brazilians but which are also the "success story" of the international, particularly since the shine came off the Pakistan group.

Woyzeck, where did this document come from?

No, it's not. The IMT is a centrist group, and therefore it exists only to disorient advanced workers and prevent them from reaching a revolutionary level of consciousness. But we all know already that the SWP is attempting to establish a modus vivendi with other groups: "don't criticize us and we won't criticize you." Too bad that the IMT is too sectarian for even that, and will undoubtedly gloat when the SWP's inevitable demise comes.

And yeah, yeah, anti-dialectics. To be honest, claiming that a philosophy is the explanation for the failures of revolutionaries all throughout history leaves the realms of anti-dialectics and enters those of anti-materialism. But that's the logical conclusion of anti-dialectics; non-dialectic, consistent materialism has been a fairy tale creature for some time now.

Made a bit of a mistake in that post, fixed it now.

Pics or it didnt happen.

sks

After my post, cue the Uber-Sectarian Himself, puffed-up with Righteous Indignation:

YS:

Thanks for providing us with a textbook example of the language of sectarian in-fighting. Over the last 25 years I have seen this sort of thing said by practically every Trotskyist group about every other -- and you wonder why we are such a long-term failure.

But, never mind, you can rest content in your microscopic group, confident that you are as pure as the driven snow, and thus condemned to remain small and impotent forever.

I posted that to catch you out, for in the essay to which I linked, I do not blame this on dialectics.

So, thanks for making yet another fool of yourself.

Anyway, you still can't defend this 'theory' of yours, hence you chicken out of debate every time. If it were such a wonderful theory, you'd be able to defend it easily...

Cue excuse (1) "I haven't got time."

Or maybe, excuse (2) "I can't be bothered."

Or maybe even (3) "Your theory has already been refuted, but I refuse to say where."

It's a statement produced by the Swedish section of the IMT and presumably circulated within the organisation.

I'm not willing to say how I obtained it, sorry.

To my knowledge it is, yes.

It's fair enough that you aren't willing to name names, and I don't think anyone would want you to do that. But I think people are legitimately curious about how you know it's a real letter.

Without saying anything that could get anyone in trouble or that could identify anyone, did you get it directly from an IMT member?

Are there still IMT supporters on this forum? If so, it is interesting that the response has been silence rather than denial.

There aren't exactly a HUGE amount of former, or indeed current, supporters of the IMT in Ireland, so it wouldn't be difficult to identify me comrade. Yes I received this from an IMT member, although I have no idea why to be perfectly honest. And for the record -- I'm not trying to stir shit here. I posted this because I feel it is necessary to expose the disgraceful practices of Woods' and his supporters that have even got erstwhile loyalists questioning the motivations of the leadership.

That's fair enough, and interesting.

If you don't mind me asking, and assuming that it's already obvious to your former comrades who you are, what did you leave the IMT over yourself? I gather from the above that you weren't too fond of the approach of the international leadership.

I was never a member of the IMT, but I did support them in their efforts to establish a section here. Well it was actually more of an ideological difference than a question of organisation I certainly spotted major flaws with the set-up there and what can only be described as a cult surrounding Woods and the late Grant in particular.

Edit

It's actually secret option (4): "you're a crackpot and quasi-troll, and I have absolutely no need to grant your pseudo-philosophy any legitimacy or feed your overblown ego".

You can call me a sectarian all you want, I really don't care. See, the IMT and SWP have invented this method where they call every group that is to the left of them "sectarian" so that they don't have to answer its political criticisms. So to be called that by you is actually a good sign.