Do former members really leave without ‘discussing their differences?’

A standard claim made by IMT cultists is that those of us who leave failed to ‘discuss their differences’ in the ‘correct manner’ and use the ‘democratic channels’ of the organisation to persuade the rest of the membership before leaving. This is invariably a lie – usually we made an attempt to make our voices heard within the organisation and left when we realised the ‘democratic channels’ were a sham. It is only true in the limited sense that we chose to quit before seeing through the rigged game to its conclusion.

I will repeat, ad nauseam, my own experience with the organisation, if nothing else to counter the lies of this crooked cult about the circumstances of my departure. I confessed openly my differences of opinion to my branch secretary, Thomas. I was totally upfront about my doubts and did not sneakily attempt to form a faction or undermine the organisation in any way, an organisation I had sacrificed a lot to and which I still felt loyal to. (This is a slander commonly made against those who raise differences or leave the sect – that they tried to ‘liquidate’ the organisation or maneuvered cynically to sabotage its internal workings and only left after their attempt failed.) I realised that my differences posed a problem for my role as a prominent spokesman of the organisation within my branch and more generally. (I was de facto second-in-command in the branch at this point.) He then forwarded this to Ben Curry. I had no problem with him doing so – it made sense for the regional full-timer to be aware that a significant member of an important branch had developed political differences.

An internal discussion of a few trusted comrades, myself included, was arranged on the matter. Ben Curry to insisted on a private, one-on-one conversation with me the day before the discussion. Again, I had no problem with this. What I was not prepared for was to be told that as a member of the organisation I was under party discipline to lie about my doubts and defend the line whether I agreed with it or not. (Thomas had been tactful enough not to insist on this. Curry had no such sensitivity.) I refused point-blank. I had no intention of intriguing against the organisation, but I was not going to lie. Curry stood firm. The conversation left a sour taste in my mouth. I had no intention of lying about my real thoughts if prompted to discuss the matter of Trotsky’s conduct in the Russian Civil War, and prepared myself for the prospect of leaving the organisation I had dedicated so much to over two and a half years of membership. This idiotic loyalty test was insulting to me and my integrity and simply out of the question. If this was the organisation I had joined I wanted no part of it. If they weren’t satisfied with all I had done for them during my membership, and they were going to demand from me yet more acts of self-abasement, I was through with them.

The internal discussion went ahead as scheduled and no one was convinced. Ben Curry reprimanded me for my conduct during said discussion. I rejected his moronic criticisms and became even more determined to stand firm and even to leave the organisation if necessary rather than be bullied in this disgusting manner. I was not going to be scolded like a naughty child for the crime of having different views. I had tolerated so much from this organisation. No more. I would not be talked down to or undermined. I was readying myself to quit.

The story that went out after my departure, of course, is that I had left after being offered a full internal discussion as part of the ‘democratic process’ of the organisation. But as I have explained elsewhere, the IMT’s system of ‘internal discussion’ is a complete sham. First you have to write a lengthy document filled with quotes from Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky outlining your position and send it to the Centre, and hope they will bother to read it. The big shots will try to discourage you from going forward, telling you that you are undermining the work of the organisation and egotistically forcing your views on the membership in defiance of the party line and comradely discipline. They will make you feel like a drag on the organisation, and that putting forward your opinion is inconveniencing them from the important business of world revolution, yet simultaneously they will pay lip service to your having democratic rights. This double-speak is a deliberate effort to gaslight you – even when you know you are being bureaucratically undermined, the fact that they have begrudgingly agreed, on paper, to a formal process of discussion is supposed to assure you that you are in fact being heard. Given the way dissidents are treated, is it any wonder they choose to leave rather than go through with the process?

As I have explained many times, when you send in your document it will be read by the leadership (assuming they bother to do so, instead of locking it somewhere and hoping you forget about the criticisms you raised), they will discuss the document, in secret from the rest of the membership, and unanimously agree that it is reactionary garbage and that the organisation should be insulated from this heretical poison. First the EC votes, then the CC, and then, if you’re lucky, the leadership may begrudgingly agree to a full debate of all the branches. During this secret process, when the leadership are discussing your criticisms in private, the dissidents are banned from horizontally communicating these differences with anyone in the organisation, for fear of corrupting the others with their doubts. Let us ignore the fact that this is perfectly reasonable in any normal political organisation. In the event that the debate is opened to the rank-and-file, it usually comes as a surprise to the conformist majority. Remember, all this time the dissidents have been under ‘party discipline’ to keep their differences to themselves. The well has been poisoned right from the start, because the dissidents now seem like hypocrites who have been pretending to be loyalists all this time. The leadership rubs its hands with glee, using this mercilessly in its propaganda campaign against the petty-bourgeois opposition. Invariably there are always cases of certain dissidents violating the rules against horizontal communication, which of course gives even more fuel to the allegation that those who dissent are petty-bourgeois intriguers violating party discipline and who have been secretly organising a faction against the majority. What a great start to the internal debate!

The internal debate is further rigged by the fact that the leadership allots a strict limit to the amount of time that can be given to the discussion, and will arbitrarily shut down any further discussion when it feels that the debate is ‘over’. There is a pre-arranged conclusion to the process – the leadership must appear victorious and in possession of the ‘correct ideas’ against the petty-bourgeois opposition. The branches are placed under bureaucratic pressure to show loyalty and vote in favour of the organisation’s leadership. The most disgusting slanders and lies are spread internally about the opposition. If they acted in turn, this would be grounds for their instant expulsion. Bureaucratic expulsions of dissidents on the flimsiest pretexts have in fact taken place within the organisation many times over the years. One source tells me that a prominent full-timer in the US section, who was very close friends with John Peterson, was expelled for the crime of talking to the dissidents during the rape scandal in the Canadian section merely to find out what happened.

When I left the IMT, I did so to avoid being subjected to this disgusting behaviour. The early stages of the ‘internal debate’ had not been promising. It was clear I would simply be used as controlled opposition to legitimise a corrupt system, and then bureaucratically expelled or silenced once the discussion had run its course. The point is not to get at the truth, but to shore up the loyalty of the rank-and-file members who are whipped into closing ranks in defence of the organisation from the ‘wreckers’ who are challenging the leadership. Even if I had conceded and returned to the ‘correct’ position, the leadership would never have trusted me again as I had marked myself out as politically unreliable and whimsical. Slowly but surely I would have been pushed out. I do not regret deciding to leave before I gave the IMT their ‘internal debate’. You are damned if you do and you are damned if you don’t. Since whatever you do you will be criticised, you may as well do what is least damaging to yourself, and desert cultism once and for all.