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

[Adam <cleon42@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Javier A <javierunderground@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >From the little I know, the ISO and Solidarity come out of the
> International Socialist which was some type of current in SDS with
> Hal Draper playing a role in defining IS's political character.
> Can anyone elaberate on the history of these two groups? Usually im
> not intrested in this stuff but it would shed light on the dynamics
> and problems of a fusion between the two groups.

Kinda-sorta, but there's more to it than that.

The ISO and the IS split in, IIRC, 1979 over stuff that quite frankly I
don't understand. (My understanding, though, is that this split was
engineered by the SWP/UK for their own purposes.)

Solidarity was formed in 1986 via a regroupment forged by the IS with a
couple of IS splits (I think one was called Workers Power) and a lot of
the folks who'd left or been expelled from the SWP in the 80s. Another
group of ex-SWPers, the Fourth Internationalist Tendency, joined in
1992.

If it were *just* the IS and the ISO, fusion would be much less
problematic, because the politics are so similar (virtually identical,
to my non-Schactmanite eyes). However, Solidarity has encompassed
people who also come from the Cannon tradition, people who don't share
the IS perspectives on state capitalism, Cuba, the Sandinistas, and a
whole mess o' other things. We even have a few anarchists in the mix.

So even though Soli comes from the IS, in a sense, it has become much
more broad politically, encompassing different political outlooks and
viewpoints. The ISO, on the other hand, still retains a singe program
more or less the same as it was in 1979.

Hope that helps,

Adam


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