Re: [Marxism] So it won't be a Leninist party-right?Toes spread part 2

["acpollack2@xxxxxxxx" <acpollack2@xxxxxxxx>]

What Adam says is reasonable, and an accurate take on the ISO. But it's an 
example of the difficulties I mentioned yesterday. On the face of it, it is not 
sufficient reason to rule out regroupment with the ISO on the basis of the 
broad criteria drawn by Cochranite/Solidarity principles of regroupment. 
(Again, in the interests of fairness, nor have the issues over which Trotskyist 
groups split or refused regroupment been consistent with our own definitions of 
what is and is not beyond the pale.)

-- Adam <cleon42@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

--- Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> One such
> indication would have been a fusion with the ISO. For the life of me,
> I
> can't see why it didn't happen.

Many people in Soli, myself included, don't want to move too quickly on
this.

The ISO and Soli's leadership have agreed that, since our perspectives
are similar in a lot of areas, we should work together as much as
possible. That's a Good Thing. However, the ISO has not miraculously
become non-sectarian; they still believe in the "One Program to Rule
Them All" approach. A lot of people in Soli--again, myself
included--would *love* to see a fusion between the two groups, but
honestly, it's just not in the cards for the immediate future. We
should keep working together where possible and trying to dialogue
more, but until the shift in the ISO's organizational perspective
becomes more pronounced, it's just not going to happen.

Adam


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism