converting trotskyists
Nov 27 2009 10:43
I just want everyone's opinion on this.
I am an anarchist-communist and a Wobblie living in Seattle, and have acquaintances in the ISO. Some of these guys (and girls) I like a lot... and respect. yet, they have quite a many misconception about Leninism and Trotskism. So here is my question:
Is it possible to convert a trot into an anarchist and ultimately destroy this horrible organization called the ISO?
Nov 27 2009 12:07
#2
yeah of course it's possible, there are quite a few ex-trots on this board alone. But "seeing the light" is something one has to do for oneself in most cases; if you don't come to understand on your own why Trotism is politically and morally bankrupt and a sham, or at least have doubts about it, you won't be suddenly "converted" through mere discussion with an anarchist. But making your case in an honest and rational manner s definitely useful.
Nov 27 2009 12:16
#3
I wouldn't worry about converting people or "brutally destroying" a trot organisation.
Instead concentrate on being a good activist, putting forward sensible consistent ideas for winning battles, and conduct yourself in a friendly, constructive manner. If they're as you describe them, be prepared to be there for them when they become disillusioned and see if you can stop them from dropping out of politics because of the ISO.
Nov 27 2009 14:03
#4
"Conversion" implies something religious - exchanging one ideology/theology for another. Having said that I knew someone who, in the 70s, had influenced a member of the National Front, a fellow student, by giving him a copy of the Situationist's "The Poverty Of Student Life". I think he was an unusual fascist insofar as he was more motivated by anti-leftism than racism. The guy then went on to sabotage his local NF branch , secretly wrecking all its bureaucracy, so that it couldn't function for almost a year. However, he became a little demoralised as, shortly after this exemplary act, he got set on during or after a piano concert he was giving - beaten up by Trots who thought he was still an NFer, and he was hospitalised, despite having done more against his local NF than any of the Trots had ever done against them. So - influence, rather than conversion, can happen to even the most unlikely people.
Nov 27 2009 14:49
#5
kingzog wrote:
Is it possible to convert a trot into an anarchist and ultimately destroy this horrible organization called the ISO?
I hope so! I would suggest two things.
Firstly, articles and books by anarchists which refute the ISO sterotypes about anarchism. I would suggest these as a start (but I would, I wrote them):
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/red-emma-and-the-reds
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/will-the-real-bakunin-please-stand-up
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/on-the-bolshevik-myth
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append31.html
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append34.html
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/marxism-or-anarchism
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/the-revolutionary-ideas-of-bakunin
The above are mostly replies to ISO/SWP accounts of anarchists and anarchism. I guess, being ISO, they will have lots of wrong preconceptions of our ideas. And it is useful to show how much the party hierarchy lies about anarchism.
Second, I would point them to libertarian critiques of the Bolsheviks. After all, much of the appeal of ISO is based on the notion that Leninism "worked". So may I suggest:
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/how-the-revolution-was-lost
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/review-the-bolsheviks-in-power
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/anti-capitalism-or-state-capitalism
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH6.html
Not to mention Brinton's "The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control" and such like.
And, of course, creating an alternative organisation which can do more and better than the Trots...
Nov 27 2009 19:06
#6
Anarcho wrote:
And, of course, creating an alternative organisation which can do more and better than the Trots...
Show me one anarchist group that has? (Cue Caiman calling me a trot).
Nov 27 2009 15:28
#7
Leaving aside the semantics here, as an ex-SWPer of course I think it's possible. It's a lot harder to do so in the abstract, tho, and I don't really know enough about the ISO to say what issues would be particularly damaging to their credibility. Are you engaged in united work on any issues? If so, then the odds are the ISO will approach it with an attitude that prioritises building the party over winning victories for the cause itself (if they actually are prepared to put the interests of the class as a whole before the interests of their party, then maybe they don't need arguing with that much anyway.) Point out the contradictions in this, and show the ways that their behaviour ultimately goes against what they say they want. Obv, this is much easier with actual concrete issues than in the abstract, but all the ones I can think of are British.
Nov 27 2009 20:01
#8
Leninists and trots tend to have a very narrow cannon of literature, Marxism can be amazing dont get me wrong, but I personally found reading some decent libertarian marxist and anarchist texts quite easily made some of my assertations that had come about based on a diet of Trotsky and Lenin quite easily refutable. Having spent the best part of several years saying 'yeah, were not amazing but...', having knock after knock because of inept/opportunist/flawed practices and then having the ideas riddled with holes brought my party building days to a close.
Anarchism is a broad church, if your average Trot only ever encounters lifestylist muppets, then I think winning people away is nonsense. Anarchism is practice, or its nothing. Trying to work with isolated members, can easily expose there failures, but be warned about working with them while there in full swing.
Nov 27 2009 20:28
#9
It is my experience that most rank and file members of the ISO are decent militants who think they are doing "socialism from below" and have no idea that the central committee really runs the show. their literature tends to really go on about democracy so pointing out the internal contradictions can help.
I think offering up critiques from within what they see as their tradition will work best. Coming at it from an "anarchists are right; you're wrong." approach will rarely win. Try presenting critiques of Leninist thinking from the libertarian marxist perspective, so they know you're speaking the same language.
Maybe check out this thread for reading suggestions.
Nov 28 2009 02:43
#10
Yeah, the idea of 'converting' someone from Trotskyism/Leninism to libertarian communism is wrongheaded. But maybe kingzog didn't mean it literally. I can offer a little about my own experience that might help. I briefly flirted with (supported closely for about a year, then joined but only for one month) the IS in Canada, which was then (late '80s) the 'sister' org. of the ISO. Don't know too much about where the ISO is now. After doing presentations on May'68 in France and on the United Front for the local section I was in, I became aware of the Situationists, council communists, and the early German left communists (the latter of course opposed the United Front within the early Third International). I was intrigued, because these were all Marxist currents (Situationists debatably so, I know) , and of course, I considered myself to be a Marxist. Of course, I already had a number of doubts about the IS's version of Trotskyism, especially on the 'party' question. The texts that really won me over to council communism at the time were those in the book Pannekoek and Gorter's Marxism (Pluto Press) (ironic, since Pluto then, I believe, was controlled by the British SWP 
), edited by D.A. Smart. I also liked Smart's lengthy introduction, which gave a real historical perspective to left and council communism. The other book that really helped me was mentioned above by Anarcho, and that was Maurice Brinton's The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control.
So I would recommend this approach if you think that there is a real divide for such people between 'Marxism' and 'Anarchism'. They can still be Marxists, but reject Trotskyism/Leninism. You may not be as happy with this if you want to 'covert' them to anarchist-communism, but council communism is in my opinion a lot closer to anarchist-communism than it is to Trotskyism/Leninism. In fact, some people seem to think that the differences between council communism and anarchist-communism are negligible. And once they become 'converted' to council communism, it should be much easier for you to then 'convert' them to anarchist-communism. 
Nov 28 2009 00:51
#11
I would imagine that the point is highly academic. Imagine ALL the Trots in the world "convert" to an anarcho-syndicalist point of view...what's the significance? I'm far from an intellectual, but I thought that anarcho-syndicalism is about freeing our own hearts and minds and then helping others to do the same thing. Is the struggle about ideology? I have become a "talking head" more than once, caught in logic and solipsims and hope I can avoid it this time around.
And there are a lot more workers than there are Trots. Either the Trots come over or they don't. It's their choice, after all. We've got other fish to fry.
Nov 28 2009 10:09
#12
october_lost wrote:
Anarchism is a broad church, if your average Trot only ever encounters lifestylist muppets, then I think winning people away is nonsense. Anarchism is practice, or its nothing. Trying to work with isolated members, can easily expose there failures, but be warned about working with them while there in full swing.
I think it's worth bearing in mind that if they're in full swing, they probably won't be willing to work in campaigns that their organisation doesn't dominate. The only time I did joint work with anarchists in broad-based groups that weren't just SWP fronts was when I was definitely a dissident trot and clearly on my way out (and I'd sometimes get told off by my superiors for doing so).
As for reading suggestions, I found Beyond the Fragments by Sheila Rowbotham to be a good practical criticism of Leninism from a socialist feminst (and, crucially, ex-Leninist) background, and What's Going On? by Mark Steel is a good account of leaving the SWP by a guy who was an active member for decades.
Oh, and enough of the semantics pls - I think that after Entdinglichung pointed out that it was a poor word choice, it didn't need about 5 other people to say the same thing.
Nov 28 2009 14:01
#13
Anarcho wrote:
kingzog wrote:
Is it possible to convert a trot into an anarchist and ultimately destroy this horrible organization called the ISO?I hope so! I would suggest two things.
Firstly, articles and books by anarchists which refute the ISO sterotypes about anarchism. I would suggest these as a start (but I would, I wrote them):
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/red-emma-and-the-reds
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/will-the-real-bakunin-please-stand-up
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/on-the-bolshevik-myth
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append31.html
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append34.html
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/marxism-or-anarchism
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/the-revolutionary-ideas-of-bakunin
The above are mostly replies to ISO/SWP accounts of anarchists and anarchism. I guess, being ISO, they will have lots of wrong preconceptions of our ideas. And it is useful to show how much the party hierarchy lies about anarchism.
Second, I would point them to libertarian critiques of the Bolsheviks. After all, much of the appeal of ISO is based on the notion that Leninism "worked". So may I suggest:
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/how-the-revolution-was-lost
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/review-the-bolsheviks-in-power
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/anti-capitalism-or-state-capitalism
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH6.html
Not to mention Brinton's "The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control" and such like.
And, of course, creating an alternative organisation which can do more and better than the Trots...
wow great effort anarcho! Will definately read through them all - its a shame so much effort has to be spent just on clarifying distortions
Nov 29 2009 01:52
#14
Waslax I think makes a very good point, many Trotskyist militants have no real knowledge of the real nature of Left Communism/Council communism. It is not only the existence of the historical tradition but also the present Left Communist organisation, along with others who make a criticism of Trotskyism from a revolutionary perspective.
I remember what a revelation it was to discover that the Communist Left even existed, all I know about when I was young was the SWP, Militant and WRP and then only vaguely.
It is ironic that the SWP published Pannekoek and Gorter's Marxism, but it was no accident, they know there was a growing interest in Left Communism. A personal example, I first meet the ICC when a militant intervened at a SWP meeting I was attending (I was on the edges of the SWP at the time). I was outraged by the hostility the comrade met (incidentally at about the same time I had begun to read a copy of International Review, could not really get my head around its denunciation of the unions, democracy etc etc). I made this clear in the meeting, i.e., the terrible way they treated the comrade. As soon as the meeting finished, the speaker (some hack from London) came over to me like a shot, offered to buy me a pint and commenced to tell me how the SWP had members who were Left Communists.
Kingzog you could also refer him to the following two articles written in 1947 by the group the Left Communist of France, which gives a very clear Left Communist critique of Trotskyism
What distinguishes revolutionaries from Trotskyism?
Above all discuss with your friend.
Dec 1 2009 22:12
#15
Hey thanks for the great responses everyone. I'll have to go through and read all the links ya'll posted.
Dec 4 2009 16:53
#16
It's probably not so much a matter of converting anyone - that's way trotskyist.
It's more about just having some decent politics around, so that when trots get sick of their groups shit(bankrupt ideas etc.) they'll start coming to your meetings, instead of just disappearing.
Dec 16 2009 03:29
#17
Fascinating thread, this. Here's a bit of my experience, as an ex-member of the Internationale Socialisten, sister organisation in the Netherlands of the SWP. I was already more or less Leninist before I joined, after being somewhat of a sympathiser with anarchism. I remained in the IS from1988 into 2008, rather active most of those years, almost twenty years, none of which I regret too much. But the stress of being pushed got too much, lack of results etc., led to questions and criticism; the heavy handed way that criticism was treated (distorting my positions, etc), hurt too much. I needed a break, I left.
That was not yet a break with the core of IS politics. I considered IS attitudes towards anarchists unnecessarily dismissive, but I considered anarchist hostility towards the IS (and I saw a lot of that too) not very fruitful either. Sometimes it sounded as if anarchists considered Trotskyists as the main enemy. That attitude strengthened my Leninist conciction, it did not do anarchist credibility any good. That is why I do not like phrases like "destroy this horrible organisation". IS groups are problematic, but not "horrible". They are a combination of a sincere wish to change the world through revolution from below AND a method of organising that partially contradicts the road towards such a revolution, and the kind of society to follow from that. They are contradictory organisations. Libertatian critics should identify with one side of that contradiction, the 'from below' thing, and criticize the other, top-down side.
How did my break with Leninism finally occur? A few moths ago, someone sent me an video of Chomsky, on Lenin and 1917, with the usual criticisms. I jumped to the defence of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, reacted to the comrade by explaining what I considered the facts. I suggested he read John Rees "In Defense of October", standard SWP text. I tried to find it online. I did not. Instead, I found a very well argued anarchist critique of that article (yes, by Anarcho In Defence of the Truth. That set me thinking, reading and re-reading stuff. Within ten days I shifted on Kronstadt. Within a month I shifted on Machno. And so it went. It was both painful and liberating. Where I stand exactly, I'm not yet sure, serious bits of anarchism, a serious amount of Marx, and still a lot of reading and thinking and discussing to do... but Leninist I am no longer. Libertarian communist, something like that, sums it up, more or less.
The thing I want to stress is this. I had to find out for myself. Discussion helped, but forcefully pushing another line against my old Leninist line, in the form of IS bashing, did not. And I would treat Leninists not as The Enemy whose organisations should be destroyed (that attitude is counterproductive and tends to be answered in kind). I treat them as comrades with ideas and forms of organisation with which I disagree, while agreeing on the need to fight and the kind of society to fight for. Obsessive anti-Leninism is not a fruitful rejection of Leninism, but in a certain sense its mirror image. Libertarian communists can do better than that.
Dec 16 2009 05:32
#18
Good post, rooieravotr.
(Doesn't add anything to the conversation, sorry.)
Dec 16 2009 07:24
#19
Amazing story rooieravotr thanks for sharing
I agree, like Chomsky says, that it's wrong to devote so much time to slandering leninists and clarifying distortions; at the same time it's good to have something handy for when they do their monthly "whats wrong with anarchism" talks.
Dec 16 2009 11:34
#20
rooieravotr wrote:
That set me thinking, reading and re-reading stuff. Within ten days I shifted on Kronstadt. Within a month I shifted on Machno. And so it went. ...
I think that there is more to it than that though. Surely the difference is not just about the historical view of the Russian revolution. My criticism of the SWP would start with their support for imperialist wars, nationalist movements, and trade unionism today.
Devrim
Dec 16 2009 13:35
#21
What imperialist wars do the SWP support? Which have they ever supported?
Dec 16 2009 13:46
#22
Boring trolling is boring.
Dec 16 2009 13:48
#23
vanilla.ice.baby wrote:
What imperialist wars do the SWP support? Which have they ever supported?
Do you want an exhaustive list? Start with Iran in the Gulf War.
Devrim
Dec 16 2009 14:31
#24
Devrim wrote:
vanilla.ice.baby wrote:
What imperialist wars do the SWP support? Which have they ever supported?Do you want an exhaustive list? Start with Iran in the Gulf War.
Devrim
I'd expect you to refer to its stance on the Falklands War, it being a coup for your organization's keen detective skills. 
To quote:
Militant International Review No22, June 1982 wrote:
The labour movement should be mobilised to force a general election to open the way for the return of a Labour government to implement socialist policies at home and abroad. Victory of a socialist government in Britain would immediately transform the situation in relation to the Falklands. The junta would no longer be able to claim to be fighting British imperialism ... A Labour government could not just abandon the Falklanders and let Galtieri get on with it. But it would continue the war on socialist lines.
Dec 16 2009 14:35
#25
Militant = SP, not SWP
Dec 16 2009 14:59
#26
Joseph Kay wrote:
Militant = SP, not SWP
Oh. Score one for my ignorance of UK politics, then. 
Jan 10 2010 17:20
#27
I wouldn't expect to 'convert' any hardened trots or similar in the SWP myself but does anyone consider it would be worth attending, or at least leafleting, the SWP organised (without acknowledgement on the ads) national 'Right to Work' conference in Manchester, England on the 30th of January?
The main themes are around recent disputes in both the public and private sector in the UK with various official and rank and file trade unionist speakers and a variety of workshops.
I have no experience of this kind of recent leftist rank and file activity and the extent of it's influence (outside my own place of work) since decades back when I was in 'NALGO Action'.
There are local SolFed and AF groups in Manchester who I suppose might be interested?
Now I am on a voluntary 3 day week I have a bit more time on my hands otherwise I probably wouldn't bother but I just wondered.......?
Jan 12 2010 02:15
#28
drop the local groups a line if you think a joint initiative/'intervention' may be worthwhile. on solfed's part it's
Manchester SolFed
PO Box 29, SW PDO, Manchester M15 5HW
Tel; 07984675281
E-mail; manchestersf(at)solfed(dot)org(dot)uk
Internet; www.manchestersf.org.uk
although you may actually know some of them personally. i think you know some of the local AF too, so give them as shout as they seem minded to co-operation on such things. Brighton SF's 'for workers control' (itself adapted from other sources) may provide a point of departure for any leaflet you'd want to distro. it goes without saying you're free to adapt it further to the context in question.
Jan 12 2010 08:33
#29
Spikymike;
I think SWP's claim to defend the state capitalism thesis (however distorted it is) is something that pulls really sincere people towards them. Although there are people who are totally party liners or people who join swp just to enjoy its hippi "anti-globalization" scene I believe that there are real working class elements in SWP or sister parties of it.
So I think it is worth to discuss with cliffites.
Jan 12 2010 12:19
#30
There's also the Manchester AF "Why we hate lefties" text, although that might be a bit more abstract than the Brighton SF one.
we should leave the concept of "converting" to evangelicals & co.