Here is one analysis from my friend Chris

The ISO like other trot groups such as Socialist Worker's Party and

Worker's World are supported or funded by liberal capitalists. They may at

times sound revolutionary but in fact are not. The ISO openly supported

and endorsed Nader during the election 2000. The ISO is part of the

Canadian and European I.S. and British SWP which are electoral liberal

parties.

The US ruling class can not tolerate another mass anti-war movement that is

out of their control. They can not tolerate a mass anti-imperialist,

anti-racist, even anti-capitalist anti-war movement. Groups like the ISO

help the bosses build a liberal, anti-communist, pro-capitalist anti-war

movement (i.e., an anti-war movement which is under their control; by the

way, this kind of movement fits into the general liberal peace/pacifist

movement so forces like Quakers, etc. push). The ISO members know about US

imperialism and how this war is about controlling Mideast and Caspian Sea

oil (see the current issue of their magazine International Socialist

review). They are not interested in spreading marxist thinking to masses

of workers and students. They are liberal in practice. They oppose Bush

and the right vehemently but are much weaker on exposing the liberals and

the democrats. They do not discuss how capitalism breeds war and that

imperialism is the logical outcome of capitalism because of the need for

capitalists to maximize profits and expand or die.

What little they say about revolution is of course the trotskyite idea of

socialist revolution must happen in the whole world or at least in all the

major imperialist countries first (see Road to Revolution 4 for what PLP

says). They like all trot groups defend national liberation movements and

nationalism too. They basically push the idea that we can reform away

capitalism.

They are mainly focused on the campuses. They seem to focus on taking over

student coalitions whenever possible such as the current anti-war

coalitions. Again, this is so they can stifle political discussion about

the capitalist roots of this war or other problems. Their actions are

political because by focusing narrowly on just opposing the war, they

impede others from understanding how this war is an imperialist war for

oil.

Every member of the ISO particularly recent young members probably isn't

consciously trying to prevent anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist anti-war

movement from developing. These members are won to a liberal,

pseudo-revolutionary line which is based on the idea that most students and

workers can't understand how capitalism and imperialism works. Their

elitist, dominating approach actually alienates people as many have

discovered this past weekend in Boston and Berkeley. The effect is to

disrupt the anti-war movement. The leaders of the ISO know better and are

consciously trying to prevent an anti-imperialist anti-war movement from

developing.

We need to fight the ISO by fighting to put forth our anti-imperialist,

anti-racist, anti-capitalist, pro-communist views in our struggles against

the war. We should not be afraid to talk to other students about this war

and oil and imperialism and capitalism. The best way to deal with the ISO

is to be bold (but not mechanical) and build strong ties with other

students. We need to be leading the fight against military research and

ROTC on the campus and the role of universities in developing racist

ideology and imperialist policy. When we lead class struggle on the

campus, fake revolutionaries like the ISO will only be further exposed.

I hope this helps.

Who is funding you Amir? Who is funding your friend Chris?

Why are you so bent on slamming the ISO, an organisation few have even heard of, with misinformation (the ISO is not affiliated with the SWP). Why drag Nader into it?

Nobody is funding me, im an anarchist we don't believe in fuding arrrrr. Just kidding, I work as a teacher in a High School In the Thousand Oaks. and trust me plenty of people know about the ISO. Hey we critique all other forms of organzations have it be left or right. Why are you getting so scared? we can critique anarchist if you want, or the RCP or PLP. I bet you would just like to censor me, if you have good things to say about the ISO go for it. I don't try to limit people in what they can say, but obviously you do.

I personally don't like reform, in other words I don't like the ISO, and I don't like Ralph Nader. One oppressor taking the place of another is not my idea of democracy or freedom, might be yours but it's not mine. I used to live in Afghanistan and I have learned my lessons my well, one day you Americans will too.

Okay, I'll admit it. I'm funding myself. I work a job, and I get paid money, and all that. I guess I'm unqualified to be really down for the cause :-)

Here's my 2c, if anyone cares.

Of all the communist heros, Trotsky seems to be one that's more aligned with grassroots radicalism than anyone else. So, there's potential for a trot group to be pretty cool. But, there are simply some big differences between any Trotskyist party and an anarchistic collective that guarantees conflict.

You could kind of say the same thing about Mao, but he gets really dogmatic.

I'm going to start reading more about these guys, just to get some perspective. It's been a while, so, it'll be interesting to know how they read today.

First, hard core marxists are into vanguards. That's a leading edge of intellectuals that will lead the masses into revolution. Anarchists just hate that kind of thing. Anarchists usually have a grudge against leaders of all sorts. "Dictatorship of the proletariat" doesn't sound appealing at all if your motto is "down with bosses".

Second, there are parties, and there are projects. The parties have memberships and organizational goals, and as organizations, tend to preseve themselves. Even if it means duplicitous recruiting tactics, front groups, etc. Anarchists tend to have projects, like food not bombs, copwatch, etc. and believe that the project itself, by embodying their utopian ideals, is revolutionary. (And there are not really any anarchist "front groups". There's no secret group "behind" the project. It's analagous to the Catholic Worker - it's not a front for the Church, it *is* the Church.)

Third, both sects attract some very smart people who are *sure* that they're right. Each side is convinced that its philosophy, outlook, organizing plan, and even style is correct. So, fights will break out.

I just noticed that the primitivists and social ecologists are getting along a lot better since this ISO fiasco. Nothing like a common enemy to unite rivals.

That's just my 2c.