There is a post in this thread on marxmail by Dan Russell
http://www.marxmail.org/msg68867.html
which says ion part

[BEGIN QUOTE]
" What appealed to me most about the ISO at the
time and what is still its strength were all well outlined by Paul. It is an
organization that is very dynamic both in the makeup of its membership, the
activity and leadership at the local level, and the discussion of local,
national, and international issues. As Mark notes, the political level of
members isn't as uniform/advanced as other groups for a number of reasons, but I
think this is a challenge we are ready and working to meet. Having more
long-time, dedicated Marxists like Paul will only help accelerate and deepen
that process and I hope that others come to the same conclusion he has.

"I radicalized mainly around Che, Cuba, and the Bolivarian Revolution over the
past few years and have never taken a stand on the 'state capitalist' question.
I mean to do more reading on it as it is an official ISO position, but as Paul
pointed out, it is not rigidly enforced and is discussed openly.While I still
have an affinity for Che and Cuba (as do many ISO comrades) I think the our
critical stance is important both on principle and to differentiate ourselves
from more Stalinist groups....
"Around the time I joined the ISO I was also very drawn to the Green Party
(having not been political during the 2000-2004 elections where the ISO was
involved in both of Nader's campaigns) and interested in the possibility of new
formations such as the NPA, SA, RESPECT, and Die Linke.... I am interested in
discussing the
possibility of new formations and I think comrades in the ISO are as
well.Comrade Budgen from the NPA was at our summer conference and there was a
fantastic and mostly supportive discussion, though at times heated, around the
dissolutionist route the LCR took. The ISO has supported that decision and
remains close to all of these groups; comrade Shawki went as far as to say, if I
remember correctly, that were we in France we would have made the same decision.

"That said, I don't think the ISO is looking to become a multi-tendency or
broader-left organization. I think we want to model ourselves after the
Bolsheviks and stay true to a set of revolutionary principles while allowing for
democratic debate and differences on certain issues but ultimately being united
in action. The ISO has always said that it wants to play a part in
forming an explicitly revolutionary vanguard party, but I think that as struggle
and resistance in this country heats up there will be a need to think about the
possibility of broad-left alliances or parties or whatever formation makes sense
given the developments in the working class and the rest of the left. For me,
that is the essence of Bolshevism; democratically and dynamically adapting your
organizational methods to the situations at hand so as best to advance existing
struggles without allowing revolutionary
principles to fall by the wayside."

[QUOTE ENDS]

While all this may indeed be true -- for a section of left exers to merge with
the ISO would carry the US left into a different alignment of forces such that
the tactical options available would shift and multiply. I think this is
important consideration as regroupment doesn't have to proceed by any one
specific route. Motion occurs only where it can.

The problem with the Marxmailer attitude -- inasmuch as it may be general among
such a layer -- is its dedicated shibboleth over organisational questions which
in effect amounts to a dogmatic sectarianism which works aggressively AGAINST
unity rather than for it.

IF such a coming together -- under the banner of the ISO -- were to occur in the
United States the spectrum on the left internationally would shift at this time
as the example would challenge all the other groupings who are so dedicated to
their narrow mindsets. In Britain this impasse is extremely destructive (eg: in
Scotland three socialist orgs are going to run neck to neck in a Glasgow by
election) but can only be resolved by one party element having the political
guts to break the logjam, and by consciously blinking move the far left
forward, rather than back to the bunker.

I think the ongoing discussion about left regroupment has moved on under the
influence of the LCR/NPA decision this year and a very concrete proposition has
been pitched before us by the French.

Of course the DSP's response to this challenge has been clear....

This new axis is driving some interesting debates. Even Socialist Unity's Andy
Newman has waded in AGAINST the NPA example and has pitched instead for a broad,
programatically loose (& tactically very pragmatic) electoralist party
formation in the mode of Die Linke that will readily enter coalition governments
== as de Linke has done in some German states and the PCF (French Communist
Party) has always been willing to do.

I think at its core here are competing perspectives: on the one hand is a desire
to fill the political space that seems to exist with a quick-set new party
formation so that it can harness the electoral credits that may seem to be
begging.(And you fill it by being as politically loosey goosey as you dare.)

On the other hand is a desire to advance the socialist left into this new
context without giving up on its core revolutionary perspectives -- in effect
generating new alliances and partnerships without falling under the reformist
chariot wheel.

Obviously there is going to be a wax and wane about all this. My view is that
the first options is,on its own, in terms of core principles, simply
unsustainable primarily because it accepts the capitalist state as a potentially
benign force...just as the Green parties do

Of course the question of coalition is not on the cards just yet in the UK* but
the debate masks a programatic and tactical preference that suggests that a sort
of left social democracy can be rejigged if we only relaxed our principles. I
think that sort of confusion obscures what Respect could achieve if it moved
more aggressivley in an activist extra parliamentary direction rather than
remain so much an electoral coalition.

The key point , however, is that the regroupment challenge -- the political
"phase" the left may be going through -- is not finished with yet. To some on
the left it may appear to hang around like a bad smell, but ultimately it has to
come down to facing up to what may indeed be possible NOW not at some
hypothetical later on.

Because as soon as you concede and say "Yes later on we no doubt will come
together." you leave yourself open to the rebuttal, "if then why not now?"

dave riley


* The question of coaltion is tactical question in specific circumstances that
may present themselves.Deciding to be "for" coalition or "against" coalition is
an abstraction without the details of the actual 'opportunity' (and opportunity
is the correct word perhaps) being clear. Eg: would the SA enter a coalition at
the council/local govt level with the Greens? Possibly. Would the SA enter a
coalition at the state or federal level with the Greens (as the Greens did in
Tassie)? Probably not.