Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

SWP expulsions and squabbles

Absolutely on working in broader campaigns. CWI has initiated "15Now.Org" with backing from many unions. It is because we have a perspective of big fights for wage increases this year. ISO are mainly commentators on this movement. Their coalitions, the eco-socialist one being most prominent, are often gatherings that have little strategy or connection to perspectives. Just the ISO showing, "We're not sectarian anymore" with little foresight involved. This is what the opposition is complaining about in relation to the "March on Washington" and a the covering for a section of the labor bureaucracy. The ISO has over 800 members. I think the CWI has excellent strategy for the US (15Now), but to be honest we wouldn't need one to grow because of huge profile of our public figure and general openness to socialist ideas in society.
 
Absolutely on working in broader campaigns. CWI has initiated "15Now.Org" with backing from many unions. It is because we have a perspective of big fights for wage increases this year . . . The ISO has over 800 members. I think the CWI has excellent strategy for the US (15Now)
Thanx. Does SocAlt have a perspectives article we can all read?

If 15Now.Org was a SocAlt initiative, as you say, is it a front org'n? Were other groups in on this initiative at the beginning, having discussions with SocAlt?

Naming the org'n as its web address is pretty neat, an excellent way to make it easier to be contacted.

I said 300 for ISO coz their Feb 2013 Convention only disclosed the voting nos. for one motion, & that was 83 (the Post-convention 2013 IB @ thecharnelhouse.org).

What are the numbers for SocAlt membership & periphery?
 
ISO allows one delegate for every 8 members or greater portion thereof to conference. So, that would amount to about 600 going strictly by the numbers from the voting you saw. Members have to be fully caught up on dues to count and maybe some delegates missed the voting. I think 7-800 is about right, but some people say much more than that. As you probably know, CWI folks rarely give exact membership figures publicly. We're about half the size of the ISO but growing very rapidly, having doubled in membership since Occupy and aiming to more-than-double this year with many new branches having already been set up. Every time Kshama speaks, we get a new wave of people applying to join.

15Now flows from the battle in Seattle to lift thousands out of extreme poverty. We had to launch the campaign quickly as the establishment was setting up an "inequality committee" that we were invited to. The Mayor said it would look into 15. We launched 15Now in the following days to show that we focused on mobilizing from below while still being willing to sit on the Mayor's committee to use it as an opportunity. So, really only sections of labor leaders were consulted at the beginning.

We set up 15Now for a few reasons. One because it is a key issue and gives our organization nationally good positioning in the class struggle. Two because the Seattle fight for 15 needed organization beyond the small action that had already taken place. Three because most of the other "fight for 15" campaigns don't allow for actual meaningful participation. Just one-off rallies. As 15Now fills out, it will develop its own structures including neighborhood, campus and workplace committees not led by SA. These are starting to take place (mostly in Seattle). We're taking responsibility for getting it off the ground and contacting others (mostly in the labor and immigrants' rights movement) as we do so. The ISO is the only left group we've talked to about it, mainly because they're the only other one that represents much of anything. THey weren't very interested.

Thread derail ended?
 
Interesting talk by Dave Renton on the tradition of IS going back to its roots with break away from CP & New Left and where, in his opinion they went wrong!

 
yes, but they dont publish anything, so why have an editorial group? they cant have been suggesting for The Exchange, that would be bloody stupid.

Either way, we can be fairly sure the WW's 'too sensitive' bit is a lie

They do publish stuff at http://anticapitalists.org/ but it's been a bit quiet for a couple of weeks. Anyway the article contains some pretty glaring inaccuracies and is not a very good analysis of not a very good situation.
 
the only inaccuracy is the number of SC members who resigned in the official statement - 2 not 7.
not really.

1) Most of the 7 resignations were not on the Steering Committee.
2) Most people involved in the online discussions were not IS Network members. The vast majority of the Network did not follow the discussion either.
3) The IS Network is not "intersectionalist", though some of its members may be.
4) The split wasn't about BDSM or intersectionality.
 
only the first of those is an inaccuracy from the point of view of the article, which doesn't make claims on 2 or 3. and 4 is arguable (as is put forward in the same fb thread those points are quoted from)
 
only the first of those is an inaccuracy from the point of view of the article, which doesn't make claims on 2 or 3. and 4 is arguable (as is put forward in the same fb thread those points are quoted from)
The article certainly implies 2, even if it doesnt spell it out. If you had no idea about the background, you would assume it was solely/mainly ISN. 3, again, is implied, altho less strongly. 4 is certainly true, the splitters didnt say it was about those things, nor has anyone else, they are the background.
 
Back
Top Bottom