A timely debate on the failures of Marxism as an ideology for social change. Albert clearly articulates the problems with Marxism, and by default the authoritarian ISO, by carefully pointing out that an ideology primarily based upon economics that ignores the "coordinator class" favored by Marxists, is a dangerous proposition that leads to authoritarian states where politicians are replaced by a new hieararchy of coordinators (i.e. new boss same as the old).

For those who don't know, the ISO (the International Socialist Organization) is a cult-like authoritarian organization run primarily by university professors who recruit naive students to sell the ISO paper at political events.

see the debate:

http://www.zmag.org/debateiso.htm

for some humor on the ISO and other Leninists who attach themselves like leaches to popular movements, see:

http://burn.ucsd.edu/~acf/desist.pdf

000

For those who don't know...

The comments by the above writer are as moronic as they are snide.

According to the writer, a class-analysis is not okay--but apparently, but class-baiting seems fine, in his/her limited world.

Your comments are ludicrous. Are college professors welcome to join the ISO? Yes. Becaues, if you didn't notice, college professors also can struggle against against capitalism.

Do they make up the bulk of our membership? No. Do they make up the bulk (or even a small fraction) of our democratically elected sterring committee? No.

And as for the often-repeated criticism that we are "authoritarian", funnilly enough we vote on our perspectives, our representatives, and our actions all the time. (Nearly everytime we have a meeting, in fact.)

Funny how it's always the internet-sectarians who seem to love to make that claim that we're undemocatic.

If you think something an ISO member is doing is undemocratic, I invite you to say so to that person's face.

Oh, but wait, I forgot, you're powerless without being able to hide behind the internet.

In the ISO we actually engage in debate...like the one we're having with Albert...we don't have to stoop to making up idiotic stories about people's politics.

What's next? Will you start posting stories about how we're satanists?


Fo those who would like to get an accurate reflection of the ISO's politics, you're free to check out the following links:

www.socialistworker.org
www.internationalsocialist.org
www.isreview.org

Your comments fail to address the fundamental point that Albert is making; namely, that the politics of the ISO/SWP etc is fundamentally flawed. Why? Because the history of marxist-leninist thought is based upon an authoritarian model, and of achieving state power.

People should read Albert's piece. It articulates very well the problems of this type of politics...that it leads inevitably to a state coordinated by the party where class is basically intact because of what he calls "coordinatorism."

Let's take your comments in turn:

The comments by the above writer are as moronic as they are snide.

-irrelevant

According to the writer, a class-analysis is not okay--but apparently, but class-baiting seems fine, in his/her limited world.

-i never said this. i am very much interested in class analysis. Albert's article is too. Indeed, we are probably more interested in class analysis because of the creation of the "coordinator" class that Albert refers to, one which has always developed by marxists.

Your comments are ludicrous. Are college professors welcome to join the ISO? Yes. Becaues, if you didn't notice, college professors also can struggle against against capitalism.

-why ludicrous? in britian, for example, an analysis was done of the central committee of the SWP who were predominantly college professors, hardly representative of the working class..but in fact, more representative of the coordinator class Albert refers to.

Do they make up the bulk of our membership? No. Do they make up the bulk (or even a small fraction) of our democratically elected sterring committee? No.

-Yes. the certainly did.

And as for the often-repeated criticism that we are "authoritarian", funnilly enough we vote on our perspectives, our representatives, and our actions all the time. (Nearly everytime we have a meeting, in fact.)

-I am referring to the politics of marxism and, in particular, the goals of marxist-lenninists to achieve state power. There is a BIG difference between democracy within the ISO and without, especially given the history when marxist-leninists get into power

Funny how it's always the internet-sectarians who seem to love to make that claim that we're undemocatic.

-Hmmm. internet sectarians. nice catch phrase. i am an anonymous writer on the IMC newswire expressing my opinion about the sham of the ISO

If you think something an ISO member is doing is undemocratic, I invite you to say so to that person's face.

-I have. Many times. i watched a friend turn into a cult like figure when he joined the ISO, only to wake up and quit when he realized he had little power in the organization.

Oh, but wait, I forgot, you're powerless without being able to hide behind the internet.

-now who is being moronic and snide?

In the ISO we actually engage in debate...like the one we're having with Albert...we don't have to stoop to making up idiotic stories about people's politics.

-"making up idiotic stories about people's politics?" what the hell does that mean? i am critiquing a vacuous and dangerous political model that the ISO/SWP support. And so is Albert. Quite well i might add.

What's next? Will you start posting stories about how we're satanists?

-no, just "moronic and snide."

000

These two essays are interesting, but there's a failure to communicate. Albert is interested in hierarchy and governance, while Maass is out to defend the contemporary relevance of Marxist analysis.

What I don't understand is why Maass is so adamant. Marx's analysis is popular and largely unrefuted. What is unpopular is the program of socialism being pushed by various socialist parties. At times, when I think about the popular "socialists" of the turn of the century who advocated eugenics and the like, I wonder if the word "socialism" still has a specific meaning.

As for Albert, I have some reservations about buying whole-hog into his idea of the "coordinator class". It sounds a lot like "technocracy" (rule by experts), and it would be valuable to work out what it means to define technocrats as a "class." (Are they a class in the Marxist sense?)

In any event, these guys could use a 1000 word limit. These essays are very long and sometimes painful to read.

Maybe if they'd focus strictly on the role of the expert or technocrat in society, we might get somewhere interesting. At the very least, you're going to get some sparks flying.

Also, a socialist (or other) critique of parecon would be more interesting, I think.

to the "iso member" you are the only one making snide remarks.. you are a blind and ignorant fool.. your group is NOT democratic.. your group i controling and like a cult... and for the thing that you said "if you think and ISO member is undemocratic, say it to their face"
i have said it to their face, actually whenever im anywhere w/ you all there are plenty of people that say it to your face.. nobody likes you, most people w/ half a brain group you the ISO, RCP, Sparts and SWP in the same cult group, you are laughed at, not taken seriously and a bunch of white spoiled "intellectules" who will sell out their activism in less than 5 years. You are brainwashed.. so walk towards the light and leave your sick preverted cult behind