[Marxism] Re The CWI may go where none have gone before--overcoming sectarianism

[robert montgomery <ilyenkova@xxxxxxxxx>]

Joaquin:
>Otherwise, it is very difficult to understand
why this group exists as a separate group.<

Having watched Socialist Alternative function in a grassroots antiwar group
in Boston (the October 29th Coalition) I'll hazard an answer to a good
question. SA members functioned as a disciplined group within the coalition.
They didn't try, like the ISO, to push their own agenda on this united
front, mass action, single issue ("Out Now") coalition. So, if all they did
was a lot of organizing work-- and they did the bulk of mass work,
leafletting in working class cities like Quincy where the left never dares
go-- why should they exist as a separate group? Seems like begging the
question here, Joaquin. I'm finding in antiwar work that it's really tough
to get any group to present a solid united front, non-exclusionary, yet
militant organizing orientation. The SA was the one organized grouping,
functioning in a disciplined way, which provided that. I wouldn't comment on
the CWIs work elsewhere because I've only got second hand knowledge. But the
SA seems to me a more "grounded" group than the hot-button chasing ISO with
its perfervidly impassioned youth looking so reminiscent of the British SWP,
 who I have seen in practice. I'm not ready to sign on to the group. But I
consider them more seriously at present than I do the ISO.
RM
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism