Chuck0 posted:
>These examples show clearly that the ISO is neither dismissive of
>nor sectarian toward other forces fighting for change. We never have
>been. Years of effort and of building as broadly as possible locally
>have enabled ISO comrades to have a much larger impact on a variety
>of fronts, particularly within the last year."
-Is there anyone other than Chuck0 and Joe (and maybe DP, KW, & MPu) -who see a problem in the above?
I had a lot of dealings with the ISO over the years, including participating with them in a number of coalitions. They exist on the borderline between democratic left groups with relatively open internal and external processes (DSA, COC, Socialist Party USA, FreedomRoad, Solidarity) and the closed sectarian groups (WWP, RCP, Sparts et al). The problem with their process is the minds of other activists is that they are not always completely honest about what their goals are in pushing various positions at a meeting-- they make a decision internally to push something for organizational goals, then claim they are pushing it for some other reason.
The most dramatic example I remember was a coalition effort around welfare and immigrants in the Bay Area. There was a lot of typical divisions, with the Workers World Party of course having their own front-group controlled group and the rest of left groups trying to create an actually diverse coalition with a pretty substantial number of independent progressives involved. The ISO showed up and began advocating that the group be merged into the Workers World Party coalition. I found this bizarre, since the ISO traditionally does not work with the WWP, and didn't understand it.
Afterwards, I found out that the ISO had made an internal decision to "expose" the Workers World Party and wanted to use this coalition effort to push a bunch of progressives into the WWP group, expecting a blowup that would disillusion them against the WWP, thereby "exposing" the latter. Now, I obviously dislike the WWP and say so publicly, but this kind of covert attempts to sacrifice a coalition effort for a purely partisan game is exactly what pisses people off about the ISO.
The ISO has hidden motives and often cynical tactics that makes others distrust them. A lot of them are good activists and are working for good social change, but the overall organization is incredibly cynical in these ways and leaves lot of disillusioned ex-members in its wake. When I was active in the CoC, we used to joke that the best recruitment position is the back door of the ISO to receive all the rapid turnover of ex-members.
-- Nathan Newman