IMT member baffled that people do research on the organisation before joining

by

This morning, I saw this hilarious tweet from an IMT member who is irritated that people interested in joining want a detailed account and defence of all of the organisation’s positions on various topics.

This guy is mad because people want to do their research and know what they’re getting into before they join the organisation. That, like every critical-thinking human being, they want to pick and choose what they agree with and what they don’t based on whether it makes sense. How dare they take such an un-Marxist, philistine, undialectical, eclectic approach to such an important question as whether to join what claims to be the only hope for the human race. Clearly, they should stop with their endless, independent investigation into the organisation’s ‘line’ on these contentious topics, and just get involved and uncritically accept whatever the organisation hands down to them to defend publicly.

I am not particularly surprised that this guy is annoyed with such an approach. When I was in the organisation, the last thing we wanted was people who were too independent-minded or would take too long to be indoctrinated. If we came across a promising individual who had some reservations about getting involved, citing lack of sufficient knowledge as to what we were about, we would tell them that ‘The best way to educate yourself is to join a revolutionary organisation!’ The idea was that once we had persuaded them to join, we would educate them ‘internally’. Surrounded by fellow ‘comrades’, a mixture of peer pressure, keeping them busy with endless reading and re-reading exclusively of material approved of by the organisation, and bureaucratic maneuvering, would be used to browbeat them out of their own ideas and doubts and squeeze out any deviation from the ‘correct position’. At the very least, we would pressure them to take part in a ‘reading group’ in which we could discuss their differences further, and we would use this as a lever to bring them closer to us and ultimately to make a ‘comrade’ out of them. Needless to say, time was precious and could not be wasted on someone who seemed unlikely to make the cut. The kind of person who wants an encyclopedic account of the IMT’s positions on topics as varied as Venezuela or the Chinese Revolution, and wants to look at and consider all these issues thoroughly, on their own merits, before joining, is the sort of person who will never make up their mind any time soon, and may well decide that the organisation falls short in this or that respect, and refuse to join. IMTers are hardly in a position to complain that this attitude is ‘purist’ or sectarian, given their own stifling sense of orthodoxy and purity compared to their rivals, whom they consider traitors to Marxism. It shows an utter lack of self-awareness to complain that prospective members are being petty or picky when weighing up whether to join or not, whilst the organisation is every bit as picky and petty when it comes to even minor deviations within its ranks, and happily discards comrades and contacts that don’t measure up to its standards. They just don’t like being judged by other people’s own, independent standards, or being upfront about what contacts and prospective members are getting involved in if they agree to join.

What the organisation wants is to initiate these people into its own way of thinking as soon as possible, not give them the time and space to consider these issues for themselves. When I was in the organisation, I was so busy reading about Ted Grant’s or Alan Woods’ perspective on events that I hardly got to form my own. It was much easier to just assume that they had the ‘correct position,’ as always. Life in the organisation is so busy and stressful that you hardly get the chance to think critically about any of the material you are reading or the activism that you are doing. You become a conformist drone, operating on autopilot, in a world of what cult expert Janja Lalich has called ‘bounded choice’.

Here is an equally hilarious tweet in response to the tweet above by another IMT member:

Ah, the sheer hypocrisy and projection is incredible. The IMT literally uses the very same framework of purism that this guy criticises to build its organisation! The IMT literally expects prospective members to sign up to a whole host of positions on various topics – many of largely historical interest and without any immediate political importance – without giving them the chance to think about them thoroughly and over an extended period of time and come to their own conclusions. In all Trotskyist sects, one’s position on whether the USSR is a workers’ state or not has become a litmus test. You cannot adhere to Ted Grant’s theory about the USSR and be a member of the Cliffite SWP, for example. It is impossible to be an IMT member and openly disagree with, say, their position on Venezuela (unless your criticisms are acceptably mild, sporadic and you can be easily talked out of them). They may not say this publicly, and they will of course lie and insist that there is scope for democratic discussion, but once you are in, you are expected to defend every single position the organisation adheres to in public, whether you agree with it or not. Is it then unreasonable for prospective members to do their research on all of these positions before joining and then finding that they are under ‘party discipline’ to defend barmy takes like the IMT’s moronic position on the Russia-Ukraine war? Clearly these people are just mad that people doing their research makes them harder to indoctrinate. If only they would just sign up, start paying subs and attending the conferences and reading groups, and accept all these positions without question. If I had done my research before joining, I would have saved myself a lot of trouble. I might not have joined at all.

Yes, people should absolutely do their research before getting involved in any such organisation, political or otherwise. Cult experts use the analogy of buying a car or purchasing a new home. Of course you want to do in-depth research to make sure that what you’re buying is legitimate and is something you are happy to give away a significant amount of your money for. How much more an organisation which claims that it is the solution to all the ills of the human race, and demands not just all your money, but all your time, energy, and your critical faculties.

1 thought on “IMT member baffled that people do research on the organisation before joining”

  1. Enjoyed reading many of your articles. I grew up in a left of the Democrat Party home so I had plenty of time before the age of 11 to read essays by Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao while being influenced by the ‘Catholic Left’ (‘Catholic Worker’). Grew up playing “Class Struggle” the board game and reading about Latin American revolutions. Eventually got an undergrad in history, focusing on modern Maoist China. Over last 20 years as an outsider sometimes reading Trotskyite materials (mostly the ultra left WSWS) and other Communist sects. Learning about the Cultural Revolution in China from an excellent Chinese professor and reading the book “Radical Son” by David Horowitz (I don’t endorse him or anything he has written) helped me to see how anti-human Marxism is. Besides Goldman, Trotsky, Cambodia and the Soviet history. I think my Chinese professor was one of the very few history professors I had that were not left liberals or Marxists.
    May I urge you to question your beliefs even more then you have? Dawkins and Hitchens. If you read through History for Atheists, and Bart Ehrman’s work on the Historical Jesus, you will see they incompetent and wrong in historical matters. Read the book the Last Superstition (I am not a Roman Catholic) and you will realize they don’t know what they are talking about when it comes to philosophy.
    I would encourage you to study the history of the abolition of slavery. What was the philosophical basis for such a mighty change in the lives of millions of people? How did those beliefs lead to the campaign against modern slavery?
    I would encourage you to study the origins of republicanism and parliamentary democracy. What beliefs motivated this development?
    My current reading is “Early American Abolitionists A collection of Anti Slavery Writings 1760 -1820″. I am also reading ‘Picture of Slavery in the United States of America” by George Bourne, the immediate abolitionist that founded the anti slavery society with William Lloyd Garrison. Both collections of primary sources combine philosophical and Biblical arguments against slavery. On what basis was slavery abolished, and civil and religious liberty constructed? I didn’t see a contact email so that is why I used the comments. Marrying a wife and having a family certainly have strengthened my belief that as Dickens might say, mankind is my. business. Or as George Bourne develops the implications of do unto others as you would have them do to you in cataloguing and refuting all the evils and excuses for slavery. Can we look at the oppression in Xinjiang, Tibet, the Mongolians and not know they have the same human nature as we do?

Comments are closed.