The International Socialist Organization and ‘Cycles of Splits’

Over a decade ago, Mike Macnair published an article1 in the Weekly Worker describing a “slow-motion ‘split’” in the Communist Party of Great Britain - Provisional Central Committee (CPGB-PCC). Three comrades (presumably on the younger side) had left the CPGB without voicing a united or coherent oppositional perspective. One particular comrade had spoken about the difficulty he had experienced forming a coherent oppositional perspective when faced with more experienced members of the majority. The rather confused statement that the comrades would continue to defend the CPGB’s draft program in their new political homes led Macnair to state that, on its face, the departure appeared non-political. The rest of Macnair’s article details the reasons why the split was eminently political. Though a small event, the split demonstrated “core” problems facing the British far left. Macnair’s article led to a reflection on my time in the International Socialist Organisation (ISO) in the United States. As I hope will become clear, the problems facing the British far left are also faced by the far left in the United States. Macnair’s article is not dated in that respect. In what follows, I briefly describe my time in the ISO and then use Macnair’s article as a tool for further reflection and critique. 

Down Memory Lane

I joined the ISO in Oakland, CA, in the summer of 2017. The year before, I’d stumbled across the Socialist Equality Party (SEP). I was quickly taken in by the SEP’s seriousness and, in hindsight, extremely sectarian nature. I was isolated enough in college before the SEP, but now I had a justification for my isolation. No one understood the correct political position as I did. I solicited online meetings in various classes (the SEP on art and socialism, on war and imperialism, on Bernie Sanders and the Democratic Party, etc.) and didn’t find anything amiss when I found myself alone in the reserved meeting room. Again, no one understood the correct political position as I did. The ‘revolution’ would surely take place within the year. In the meantime, I imagined myself as a character in a dated period piece: by day, I would work as a janitor; by night, I would sit in a dingy basement and type out articles for the party newspaper. At one point, I was told my desire to join the Party would put my family in danger. Supposedly, this was the real deal. But my application to join the SEP was denied because my socialism was too sentimental (I had quoted Che Guevara: “the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love”) and lacked a scientific foundation. A short time later I left college and realized the ‘real world’ is quite complex. At the same time, the responses to an article on the World Socialist Website about the trial of Brock Turner exposed me to more critical perspectives of the SEP, and I slowly drifted away and later joined the ISO in Oakland, CA. 

There are competing explanations for the ISO’s dissolution in 2019. On its face, the ending played out as a sexual assault coverup that led to a precipitous and ultimately fatal decline in membership. A competing perspective put forward by members of the disgraced leadership described a highly coordinated wrecking event designed to liquidate the organization into the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Given the number of former members who later joined the DSA, there may be a precedent for describing the event as a split. Members described a lack of internal democracy in the organization, and the fact that internal debate seemed to move from zero to one hundred in a matter of days would seem to indicate some kind of internal pressure cooker event: given enough steam and tight seal, eventually, the lid explodes. Positions were chosen by higher-ups and factions were discouraged (I do not know if factions were explicitly forbidden). Given the lack of internal democracy and the split-like nature of the dissolution, Macnair has something to offer the American left when he states that “the presence of open disagreement within a common organization is not a guarantee that splits will not occur. The problem is the inverse: the absence of open disagreement is a guarantee that splits will occur.”2

Three critiques

Macnair states that the British far left is caught in a “self-reinforcing ‘Groundhog Day’ paradigm”3 in which each new group ends up repeating the very problems they promise to address (a lack of democracy) and suffering the same fate (splits and/or ignominy). He then lays out three reasons why the left finds itself in this trap: first, party activity revolves around ‘activism’ to the detriment of discussion and debate; second, a critique of Second International Marxism that fundamentally misunderstands history and deals in ‘Leninst’ mythmaking; third, a crude shematicism that equates strikes and street demonstrations with ‘revolutionary politics’ and electoral activity with ‘reformism.’

Activism

Comrades were kept so busy engaging in activism that some observers describe the ISO as a group of ‘movement chasers.’ The organization had a presence at all large protests (infamously not at Occupy), primarily in order to sell the paper and attract people to future branch meetings. During my time in the organization, major demonstrations included Milo Yiannopoulos’presence on the UC Berkeley campus, several far-right rallies in downtown Berkeley, the Women’s March; the March for Science, and the wave of teacher’s strikes between 2018-2019. It would not be incorrect to describe this activism as, to use Macnair’s words, “running round from one agitational initiative to the next.”4 I do not know if this activism led to a devaluation of the “long-term base-level activity of building trade unions, cooperatives, workers’ education initiatives and so on.”5 I also do not know to what extent this agitational activity led to an internal culture in which “discussing internal disagreements appears as a waste of time, and as not doing ‘activism’, not ‘getting out there.’”6 I do think the emphasis on activism led to a lack of internal party education and may have contributed to a general disinterest in understanding the internal structure of the organization.

The Second International

Macnair continues: “The second element is an ideology of this [activism] practice, which consists of the concept of the ‘party of a new type’ or ‘revolutionary party’ and Lukácsian, and similar, critiques of ‘Second International Marxism’ (which is actually also a critique of pre-1918 Bolshevism, including the Bolsheviks’ intense electoral activity during 1917).”7 The ISO did not openly call itself a party. There were several statements to the effect that organizational work was aimed at bringing the socialist party into existence. (Toward the end I had a few conversations with comrades about why the ISO didn’t consider itself a party and why the party question was placed as a task for the future). Yet, the ISO continued to propagate the idea of a ‘party of a new type’ and a ‘Leninist party,’ or at least did nothing to openly counter this false history. Given the influence of Tony Cliff on the organization’s understanding of theory, it is no surprise that the ‘Lenin myth’ went unquestioned. 

The ISO also did nothing to educate its members about the history of the Second International. Karl Kautsky was dismissed as nothing more than damaged goods, while Rosa Luxemburg was discussed outside of her context as a leading member of the SPD. There was little to no understanding or discussion of Lenin as an orthodox practitioner of revolutionary social democracy in the extremely adverse conditions of tsarist Russia. The ISO was, of course, not unique in its disinterest in teaching the history of the Second International. On the left, a generalized lack of knowledge about our history continues to exist. One of the great merits of the CPGB and their paper, the Weekly Worker, is its dedication to understanding the entire history of the left and learning lessons from our numerous failures and few successes. Ben Lewis should also be commended for his work in uncovering (translating) the history of the Second International. 

Protest and Demonstration 

Macnair argues that the far left has a distorted “concept of revolution.”8 For many groups, protesting and demonstrating in the streets is considered ‘revolutionary politics’ while electoral work is considered ‘reformism.’ In the end, “as long as the way of ‘mass action’ is pursued, our side will come up against the state, and therefore be driven automatically to radicalize and pose a counter-power.”9 A semi-anarchists trust in the masses to learn from spontaneous action and forge ‘revolutionary leadership’ in the midst of chaos pervades many left spaces. Furthermore, bashing the DSA or condemning the Democratic Party without offering a viable alternative is considered ‘good practice.’ An ISO member would have needed to learn by accident that Lenin had an electoral strategy or that Engels commented excitedly on the SPD’s Reichstag success. (I remember my own shock upon learning that Engels had anything to say about elections!). There was little to no critical reflection in the ISO about where all of our agitational activity pointed. Perhaps we expect quantity to somehow transform into quality.

In Place of a Program

After reading Macnair’s article, I pulled up the 35-page ‘Where We Stand’ document of the ISO.10 All interested parties (‘contacts’) discussed this document with a member to determine their desire to join the organization. No other organization had shown me such a detailed document prior to admission; I was surprised this document wasn’t also for Party eyes only.

 ‘Where we Stand’ is divided into two sections. The first section - ‘Where We Stand’ - is a one-page statement first adopted at the founding convention of the ISO in March of 1977 and amended several times thereafter. It makes several bold claims not limited to: the “strike weapon”11 as the primary weapon of the working class; the dictatorship of the proletariat as a democratic workers’ state based on councils; the state capitalist nature of Cuba and China; and the ISO’s commitment to “playing a role in laying the foundations” for an “independent socialist organization.”12 The second section - ‘The Politics of the International Socialist Organisation’ - is divided into seven subsections that elaborate on different sections of the ‘Where We Stand’ statement. Topics include the crisis of overproduction; Lenin’s ‘party of a new type’; Trotsky as the founder of ‘revolution to the end’; the nature of trade unions; the class nature of the state; ‘socialism from above’ in state capitalism; and the revolutionary party.

Looking over the document with fresh eyes, I disagree with several of its premises. However, I am less interested in discussing why the ‘party of the new type’ is a myth,13 or how Trotsky didn’t invent ‘revolution to the end,’14 than I am in contemplating why the ISO based itself around this partocualr type of document instead of a party program. The first reason is obvious: the ISO did not consider itself a party. Instead, it was content with the rather ambiguous statement mentioned above: “To achieve socialism, the most militant workers must be organized into a revolutionary socialist party. The ISO is committed to playing a role in laying the foundations for such a party. We aim to build an independent socialist organization, rooted in workplaces, schools, and neighborhoods that, in fighting today’s struggles, also wins larger numbers to socialism.”15 But this statement raises more questions than answers. Why didn’t an organization with 1,500 members in 2013 and around 900 members in 2019 seek party status? Perhaps, it was the organization’s distrust of anything smelling of electoral politics. Or maybe, the belief that leadership would arise spontaneously from ‘mass movements.’ We all laughed at calls for the mass strike, but only because it seemed unrealistic; we didn’t consider the fact without political leadership to take the reins of society, a mass strike in and of itself is not an existential threat to the existing state. 

‘Where We Stand’ was more of an educational tool than anything else. Agreement with its statements of theory (the class character of the Soviet Union, for example) was not necessary for membership (I never knew anyone who was kicked out for supporting the Cuban Revolution). In this way, the ISO avoided a common sectarian trap described by Macnair in which party programs are based on “precise theory or tactics”16 and splits take place on the basis of disagreements on those points (the class nature of the Soviet Union, for example). ‘Where We Stand’ is loaded with theoretical statements, but since it never constituted a party program, these theoretical points did not lead to massive splits. (It did lead to a lot of confused politics and poorly educated members). 

Taxonomy

Outside of the Democratic Socialists of America, the ISO was the largest existing socialist organization in the United States on the day of its dissolution. Yet, it didn’t have a party program and didn’t consider itself a party. It sold a physical paper and published an online website, but didn’t run or publicly endorse candidates in elections. So, what was it? Some comrades, says Macnair, react to the many false conceptions of program and party by shunning theory in favor of “moral commitments and the commitment of ‘activism.’” In their haste, they end up constructing “yet another front based merely on the commitment to resist - even with ‘anti-capitalism’ added as a brand name.”17 This, I think, is an apt description of the ISO: a large group based on anti-capitalism, ‘resistance,’ and ‘socialism from below.’ Without a program to guide its work, the ISO was left rudderless. Members could express what they were against but had little understanding of what they were for. Politics was shunned in favor of mass action. 

Alternatives

The alternative to a group or ‘organization’ based on slogans of resistance and anti-capitalism is a socialist party based on a program divided into minimum and maximum sections. The minimum section provides the party with a framework within which to operate. These demands advance democracy, build the power of the class, and push the limits of achievability within the constitutional framework of bourgeois society. They are the policies the socialist party will immediately implement upon taking political power, and they present a picture of what the party stands for as opposed to what it is against. The maximum program - a concise statement about the necessity of communism - hedges against the subsumption of ends to means; that is, it keeps the activity of the party accountable to the final goal of communism. 

The far left in Britain and in the United States desperately needs unity based on programmatic acceptance (not necessarily agreement) and a democratic party structure. The ISO did not achieve its goal of preparing the ground for a mass socialist party in the United States. (The Socialist Equality Party is doing no favors either). It propagated the immensely harmful myth of Leninist vanguard parties and in so doing spread an obstacle to future left unity. It left a sour taste in the mouth of many comrades regarding the legitimacy of democratic centralism as a viable model for internal party organization. The task remains one of drawing the correct conclusions from past mistakes and moving forward. 

References

1. Mike Macnair. “End the Cycle of Splits.” https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/915/end-the-cycle-of-splits/

2. Ibid. p.3

3. Ibid. p.4

4. Ibid. p.5

5. Ibid. p.5

6. Ibid. p.5

7. Ibid. p.5

8. Ibid. p.6

9. Ibid. p.6

10. “Where We Stand: the Politics of the International Socialist Organization.” file:///media/archive/Where%20We%20Stand%202011-32p%20(1).zip/index.html

11. Ibid. p.1

12. Ibid. p.1

13. For more on the Leninist Party Myth, see Hal Draper’s “The Myth of Lenin’s ‘Concept of the Party.’” https://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm

14. For more on Trotsky and ‘Permanent Revolution,’ see Jack Conrad’s “Memory Wars.” https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1418/memory-wars-part-ii/

15. “Where We Stand: the Politics of the International Socialist Organization.” p.1

16. Mike Macnair. “End the Cycle of Splits.” p. 9

17. Ibid. p.10