When I was in the IMT, we boasted endlessly of our democratic credentials. We compared ourselves favourably with Peter Taaffe’s organisation, which hounded out dissidents mercilessly. We replayed the trauma of the 1991-2 split over and over again. We convinced ourselves that we had much higher standards for our organisation. Little did I know that the IMT was no different from any other Trot sect, and that it was not democratic at all. Indeed, up until I was on the verge of leaving, I had read little or nothing about the IMT’s horrific split back in 2010, which involved entire sections splitting from the mothership and complaining that there was no democracy. We rarely spoke of it in the IMT. Why would the leadership want to shed light on such an ugly episode, especially when its disgusting behaviour was on such public display?
Since leaving, I have had the opportunity to read more about it. It turns out that Woods and his minions display all the same nasty, Stalinist behaviour that they accuse of Taaffe and his acolytes of when they dealt with dissidents in their sect.
The details are almost too boring to go into. There had been a series of disputes over different things, but across the organisation an opposition to the leadership coalesced from across different sections to protest the lack of democracy within this ‘democratic centralist’ sect. It is too boring to go into too much detail on these disputes. There were complaints by the Iranian comrades about various issues, including the IMT’s misguided position on the Green uprising in Iran (which they argued had been blown out of proportion by an overly optimistic leadership), its censoring of a letter by the Iranian section critical of Chavez’s support for the regime and a ham-fisted attempt to split the Iranian section using two Iranian expatriates living abroad who were members of their respective sections, which, upon backfiring, the IMT leaders tried to cover up by slandering the leader of the section, Razi, and calling him a police agent, a dispute in the British section over the class nature of China and the relationship between the rate of the profit to fall and the global recession. A crisis was caused within the leadership by the rebellion of the leaderships of some sections in Latin America against the overbearing behaviour of Woods and his minions. At the time there was also a split in the Pakistani section, with Manzoor Ahmed, a Pakistani Marxist MP and IMT member, spearheading the opposition. He was subjected to disgusting Stalinist slander by the Woods clique and expelled on the orders of Lal Khan, head of the Pakistani section and loyal minion of Woods. Ahmed was joined by a sizeable chunk of the Pakistani section. Lal Khan himself was expelled along with his supporters some years later over similar disputes about the relationship between the Pakistani section and the entrist work it has conducted in the Paksitan’s main left-wing party, the PPP. (Woods then wrote an utterly hypocritical, fawning obituary shedding crocodile tears for his old ‘comrade’ and ‘friend’ when he recently died of cancer. What a loathsome individual.) A campaign was launched by the IMT Opposition to fight for ‘real’ democratic centralism. The Iranian, Swedish and Polish ECs played the leading role in this opposition, and were joined by supporters within the British section such as Heiko Khoo and Mick Brooks.
The results were predictable – a campaign of fire and fury by Woods and his supporters to bully and browbeat the opposition and drive them out of the organisation. The opposition published a transcript online of the proceedings of the organisation’s International Executive Committee meeting in early 2010. It reads like a horror-show, a throwback to Mao’s China or Stalin’s Russia. The opposition was subjected to a veritable struggle session at which slanders and wild accusations were thrown at minority. This venomous, Stalinist abuse is part and parcel of what every Trotskyist cult subjects its dissidents to when they deviate even slightly from the party line. This is in the context of the IMT already having lost the sections in Spain and Latin America.
Here was the opposition’s sum-up of the leadership’s attitude:
The IS refuses to acknowledge that the main reason for the split is its own political weakness. After all, they are “standing on the shoulders of giants” and therefore possessing the magic wand, the method of Marxism”. They act as if Marxism is a number of set formulas, not a method that constantly has to be applied in new situations, a process that is both time-consuming and difficult, and something that Ted always did for them. So, the only conclusion they are able to draw is that the problem is that they did not have complete organisational control over the Spanish leadership.
This means that the IMT is in for a period in which the already ‘top-down’ method of leadership will be even more pronounced. They are going to reinforce the international centre at all cost. Because they have lost a large proportion of their income, they will have to sack one full-timer and cut back on a whole number of other things. But their aim is to employ a new full-timer by the end of the year and they will go all-out to achieve that. This will be at the expense of everything else. Already now they are raising the international subs by 10% and for the first time ever all sections in the Third World will have to pay subs too.
And that is just the beginning. The sections will be sealed off from one another, unless contact is made under the auspices of the IS or their local loyalist. Every decision about the work that affects anything at all international (and many national decisions) will have to pass through the international centre. The same type of regime will be instituted in the sections, with the branches not being allowed to have contact with each other without permission from the EC. This is the real meaning of having to go through “the correct democratic channels”. Some sections will deal with this more intelligently and flexible, but most won’t.
The opposition also complained that the lack of democracy within the organisation was utterly hypocritical in light of the IMT’s demands to campaign freely within left-wing reformist parties:
A major problem for the Tendency is the difference between what we argue for in the labour movement and what the rules are inside the IMT. Inside the labour movement we argue for our right to exist as a separate tendency with our own paper. We are not so concerned about the “correct democratic channels” there either. And we demand to know what the leadership is really deciding behind closed doors. Within the IMT it is almost impossible to form a faction, opposing views are given a hard time. And we have a very formal approach to raising differences. When the bureaucracy in the labour movement find out about this, which they always do at some stage, they get all the ammunition against us they need. They attack us for being hypocrites who complain about the rules inside the labour movement but have stricter rules within our own organisation. This contradiction also leads to a fear of internal information being revealed to our enemies. Since it is even less possible in this day and age to seal off the IMT from the rest of the world, an inordinate amount of time has to be spent searching for the “enemy within” who reveals our secrets.
…The banning of our faction (because our platform was not considered good enough…by those it criticised!), the suggestion that we might be allowed to form a faction only once we had been voted down all over the place (after “debates” in sections that we were not allowed to participate in), the expulsion of Heiko (without him being given a chance to defend himself) and the Iranian section (because they supposedly exposed two comrades to the Iranian state, who in actual fact are public political figures on for example facebook), the forbidding of factional material on facebook and “indiscriminate” emails, the behaviour during the IEC, the placing of us (Jonathan and Martin) “outside the organisation” because we left the IEC meeting, all show that the IMT is un-reformable. Events during and around the IEC finally proved this. The reply to our platform set the tone. The IS is incapable of leading by political authority. Up until the Spanish split there was a progressive decline in the political capacity of the IS. The split could have provided the opportunity for a regeneration that we were hoping for, but instead the IS used the opportunity to jump into the abyss.
…Furthermore, a long factional struggle risks demoralising comrades. The bureaucrats will use any methods available in this struggle – lying, blackmail, threats, bribery, whatever. Anything but a real discussion about the real issues. They would rather destroy the organisation than let us take over. We cannot win against such methods in a small organisation with no roots in the working class. They have all the advantages, because we refuse to use the same methods. The longer we stay, the more they will demoralise comrades. Not politically, but psychologically. Comrade will be turned against comrade. Friend against friend. For a period of time a factional struggle could act like a snort of cocaine, giving a high. But afterwards comes the depression, when faced with the task of having to construct a new organisation. That is how it was in 1992. What we need instead is positive creative energy that goes from strength to strength.
The members of the opposition paint an ominous picture of the IEC meeting, which only demonstrates precisely why this organisation can only be described as a cult:
From the IBF four comrades took part in the IEC. Jonathan, full member of the IEC (Sweden). Martin, alternate member (Sweden). Wojtek and Amin, guest (Poland and Iran). Amin only attended the session on Iran.
We went to the IEC with our platform Forward to democratic centralism! andthe hope that a proper debate would take place. In addition, the IBF had agreed on a “unity resolution” to present to the IEC during the discussion on democratic centralism. In the resolution we made a number of proposals to avoid a split in the IMT. Above all that we would be given factional rights on the condition that we would abide by democratic decisions and work loyally in the IMT up to the world congress. Our resolution was based on different resolutions that were the policy of the SWP in the famous factional struggle in the late thirties in the USA. The resolutions of SWP were written in close contact with Trotsky. Alan and Fred rejected this resolution as “blackmail”.
We expected that we would be in for a rough time at the IEC. So we were not surprised that, after a “gentle” sarcastic prodding start, the IEC moved from one hate session to another to push us towards making a self-criticism and removing some of our strongest criticism. These sessions were accompanied by a flood of resolutions and statements to tie us up and make it close to impossible to argue for our ideas. On Thursday evening we decided that it was pointless to stay in the meeting. On Friday morning we made a declaration and walked out of the meeting. We have written this report to show all members why we made this decision.
During the IEC a mood of hysteria and paranoia was built up. The main means of doing this was to whip up a feeling that the organisation was under attack. The “enemy within” was a threat to the organizations and that the only “responsible” thing to do is to remove the threat. Anything else was deemed “completely irresponsible”.
To create a paranoid mood, some chock effects were needed. Suddenly new information had to be brought up and circulated. Surprise sessions were held after long days of discussions. Nobody was warned beforehand about what the extra sessions were about. Everybody felt under pressure to get up and condemn “the enemy”. Neutrality was not allowed. The mood in the meeting went from bad to worse. A bidding began – who can damn the enemy the most, who can come up with the most restrictive resolution.
Some comrades got frightened and just wanted it to stop so that the meeting could ‘get back to normality’. But the only way out presented to them was to fall into line to get rid of the “enemy” as quickly as possible. Once this hysterical process began, it was not possible to go back to normality.
The constant stream of lies and threats, the closed-in atmosphere, the long sessions, the emphasis on the “attacks” against the organisation disorientated comrades who normally would not be carried along. The whole process was a carbon copy of the methods employed by the bureaucracy in the Labour Movement in extreme circumstances.
The cult expert Robert Jay Lifton put forward eight criteria for considering an organisation a cult. This meeting alone arguably fulfilled all eight of these criteria. The opposition were subjected to milieu control, in which they were physically isolated from the rest of the membership for a long period of time and banned from making their criticisms open to the membership, the ‘cult of confession’ in which they were psychologically disoriented with self-criticism sessions, the ‘demand for purity’ on the part of the corrupted and disloyal opposition, ‘mystical manipulation’ on the part of a leadership which arrogantly claimed to be all-knowing and invoked a ‘sacred science’ in support of this attitude, which used a ‘loaded language’ to slander its opponents and which dispensed existence, positing an us vs them struggle of righteous party loyalists versus petty-bourgeois wreckers who needed to either submit, or be driven out as heretics. The atmosphere at the IEC meeting can be described as a microcosm of what the organisation was like in general, only with a more intense atmosphere, a concentration of cultism. After all, at the highest levels, the stakes are so much higher.
On the first day of the meeting, Woods publicly admitted to the splits in Latin America and Spain and claimed that they were a good thing.
On the second day, we find this astonishing admission being made by the IMT leadership:
The IS covered up their own responsibility for supporting the Spanish EC for many years. They denied on several times promoting the Spanish section as a model. They said it was a lie that the IS tried to set up a secret faction in Spain with ex-comrades. It was claimed that the expulsion of the Municio group was accepted because “they did not appeal for re-admission”. Furthermore it was said that the question of the internal regime in Spain could not be raised earlier because “people do not understand that kind of thing” and the leadership has to “help members understand and take them with you gradually”. It was stated that the leadership must lead and therefore members should not receive all information because then the organisation would become a “discussion club”, that information was there to “help build and inspire the membership”. That the sending out of emails had created “panic and insecurity”.
So the IMT leadership is openly admitting that it chooses, in cult-like fashion, to control information and communication within the organisation so as to manipulate the membership. The ‘backward’ members cannot be given sensitive information, for fear that they will not assimilate it in the desired way. Instead, they must be spoon-fed information over time, so as to soften them up and make them more pliable. In similar fashion, L. Ron Hubbard said that sensitive information about Scientology should not be given to people before they were ready for it, or they would die! The IMT, like all Trot cults, manipulates information in such a fashion as to keep the members in the dark and only tell them good news so as to keep them optimistic and excited to build the organisation.
During the day alarmist reports were made that the intranet and the Facebook discussion group was sabotaging the work of the sections. The intranet “was the beginning of the end of the international” and that the CIA gained an enormous amount of information from Facebook.
The International Bolshevik faction was accused of being a ”self-appointed group”. (How can a faction be anything but self-appointed? Should the leadership decide who has a particular opinion?)
Manzoor was in the pay of the Pakistani state and secret service. We were helping him. In addition, we were “giving a present to the Polish secret police”. And we risked destroying the work in one country for “ten to twenty years”. At times it seemed the session was not about the split in the IMT but about the Swedish section. Jonathan was accused of manoeuvring for the last six months.
By a peculiar logic the blame for everything bad in the Tendency was put on us. Because we are guilty of pointing out the many contradictions in what the IS is saying and doing we are demoralising people left, right and centre.
Ted and Alan pointed out in 1992 in Against bureaucratic centralism in whose interest the argument about security is used.
“The fact is that the argument about “security” has been used to violate internal democracy and keep vital information from being distributed. It is not a weapon against the labour bureaucracy, but against the rank and file.”
In the end of the day it was reported that an evening session on internal security and democracy would be held after dinner. We received no information about what the content of this session was going to be.
I’ve got to love how they quote Woods and Grant’s criticisms of Taaffe from 1992 against them. A nice touch, I think.
Here is how the emergency session is described by the opposition:
The session was introduced by Greg. In his lead-off he managed to combine saying that he is known for being mild and at the same time he threatened us with expulsion. IEC members and visitors went up and said that our activity was sabotage of the international. Earlier Ubaldo from Mexico described how the old leadership in Mexico dealt with political opponents; they ridiculed them as a first step to expelling them. That was exactly how the meeting was. We were called babyish by Greg because we don’t understand the ABC’s of Marxism. We were given 24 hours to close down the intranet and the Facebook group. It was a difficult choice. In the end we decided to follow the resolution and we asked the members of the faction to follow the decision.
What was the Facebook group? It was an internal group on Facebook, where only those that where invited had access. As Jonathan pointed out, in the last faction meetings we asked comrades to wait with setting up the Facebook group so that we had some guide-lines for how this was supposed to work. The intranet had a no more than 50 people with access, and the Facebook group had 35 people.
Theoretically the bureaucracy in the labour movement and the state could get access to our internal documents from this. But that is a very paranoid description of the situation. The dumbest bureaucrat or police could easily go into our homepages and find out that we are doing entrist work in different organizations just by reading History of British Trotskyism and seeing who has links to www.marxist.com.
If they want to get our internal material they can easily send someone in as a member (there are no security checks on who becomes a member), as they have often done in the past. The real problem is that there is no forum where rank and file comrades in the IMT can discuss with each other in-between World Congresses, especially if one is forbidden to form a faction. Another big problem is that the “democratic structures” are in the hands of the IS. During the IEC there was plenty of talk that the amount of the oppositions material that should be sent to members should be limited. “I don’t have time to read 500 pages” and “ a worker who comes home from work tired doesn’t want to read such a lot”. In the past year most of the IEC discussion material about the Spanish conflict was not distributed further than the national leaderships, whose task was then to verbally interpret the material for ordinary members. On the other hand, the IS feels free to start a one-sided public campaign on Marxist.com against our position claiming that we are anarchists.
It is worth noting how the opposition, desperate to remain in the organisation despite everything they were being subjected to, reluctantly submitted to the demands of the leadership under immense pressure and shut down the intranet and Facebook group. But this of course was not good enough for Woods and co. Just as Stalin would go on to slaughter the members of the Left Opposition even after their capitulation, Woods and his supporters were determined to smash the opposition within the IMT, and utterly humiliate and destroy them. The hysteria continued into the next day:
Alan had written an insulting letter filled with distortions about the Iranian sections position to Razi. Razi had written a reply. There was some discussion about why Razi’s statement had not been sent to all IEC members. Alan exclaimed that it should not be sent out to all IEC members, because Razi had not come to the IEC. Nobody questioned Alan’s outburst. So, a full member of the IEC can’t send out letters to the IEC if Alan doesn’t like it.
A debate between Jordi and Amin took place. A lot of fuss was made about the fact that Razi had boycotted the IEC meeting and about his “tone”. There were accusations that the Iranian section was allied with the ex-comrades. At one stage Alan said that Razi was probably in Madrid, supposedly meeting Juan Ignacio. This was another example of the paranoia during the IEC meeting. The Iranian section and Amin were accused of being workerist, sectarian, rigid, mechanical, petit-chauvinist, un-dialectical, lecturing workers, not being able to build anything in 300 years, pretending to be what they are not, talking third worldist trash, and only having 2 members in Iran and 4 outside. This was the same section that had been highly praised when they were voted into the IMT at the world congress just a year and a half ago.
Razi published a letter where he criticized Chavez for supporting Ahmadinejad, Iran’s fundamentalist leader, and condemning the popular movement as “counter-revolutionary”. It was claimed by Jordi that Razi’s letter “could destroy all our careful work” in Venezuela. That “the bureaucracy could use it to attack us” and expel comrades from Venezuela. And despite Amin referring to films on youtube showing demonstrations in Iran chanting slogans against Chavez, the Iranian section was accused of a “cruel fabrication” when it said that there was an anti-Chavez mood in Iran after Chavez embraced Ahmadinejad.
Alan demanded that Amin would say how many comrades were working secretly in Iran.
After the session Amin was informed that he was not allowed to stay in the meeting. Other visitors had no restrictions on what sessions they could attend.
Such was Woods’ brown-nosing of the Chavez regime in Venezuela, that even the mildest criticism of Chavez’s fawning over the bloodthirsty Iranian regime was not possible. And Chavez was not even a Trotskyist!
Democratic centralism
If the session on Iran had some resemblance to a political discussion, that was not the case with the one on democratic centralism. The session was more like cross-examination by the police. All kinds of questions was asked: What kind of relationship did we have with Pat Byrne and the Democratic platform? Why did one faction member call another comrade fascist at the Winter School? Why had somebody said that Alan Woods was crazy? How many members are in the faction? How many members were the in the EC’s of the sections that supported the faction? At what level in the section were the supporters of the faction? We did our best to answer all the questions. Then we were accused of bringing down the level by just talking about who said what. On those questions where we couldn’t give a full answer (we were not given any chance to prepare our replies) we were told that we didn’t want to reply. In the middle of the debate we were told that we were dishonest for not wanting to debate. These were clear example of double-punishment – there are no right answers, whatever we said could be held against us – a classic method for people at the top of the hierarchy to control those below.
We were told that the platform of the opposition was “infused with the method of philosophical idealism” and that it referred to “universal abstract laws” because there were “no quotes”. Fred claimed that the political level of Jonathan’s lead-off was very low. He felt no need to explain why. It was said that we were trying to “inflict as much damage as possible” and that “expulsions are necessary as a means of self-defence against pollution”. It was “disgusting” that 5% were dominating 50% of “our time”. That “we were causing big problems” and that our “accusations of totalitarianism” had demoralised comrades and contacts.
A resolution was handed out from Alex from Canada where the Swedish EC was accused of lying when we said that he demanded access to Adam Fulsom’s private correspondence with Heiko (something Adam has confirmed in writing). Accusations were made that we were responsible for the fact that Adam Fulsom became demoralised and left with a group in Ottawa because he received emails from us. Similar claims was later made by Fred that the Berlin branch collapsed due to our demoralizing effect. In reality, these comrades left because they felt that the leadership is out of touch with reality.
Alan said we were “trying to foment a crisis (in the international) where none existed”. And that “we can’t just declare a faction, but if we persist there are limits to all things. Expulsions can be necessary.” After falsely claiming that Jonathan leaked everything to Heiko he said that “any comrade leaking information from the IEC, should be taken off the IEC mailing list”. He said there was an international campaign “of threats and blackmail”.
It was claimed that worker comrades “on the ground” had no interest in the discussion about democratic centralism and the split in Spain.
More accusations of “petty-bourgeois views” were made from Serge from the section in Brazil that has recently joined. He put forward two resolutions. One for postponing the congress of the Swedish section until a perspectives document had been written and another resolution that our platform was full of “insults and slanders of the international and was not a basis for a political discussion, but an attack on the whole international – its structures, methods and policies” and that it “questions the foundations” of the international. We should therefore retract our criticism. He said that Jonathan should come and work in a factory in Brazil.
There’s a lot to unpack here. The cross-examination of the opposition is a classic example of number four of Lifton’s cult criteria, the cult of confession. Note how the comrades complained that anything they said would be used against them. You are damned if you do and you are damned if you don’t. Try and raise your differences, and you are condemned for being ‘disruptive’ and ‘wasting the time of the organisation’. Decide you don’t want to go along with the farce, and you are attacked for being cowardly and running away from debate.
The platform of the opposition was dismissed for having ‘no quotes’. In other words, because it did not pay sufficient deference to the ‘great teachers’ by quoting them uncritically, it was to be ignored. Note also how the leadership refused point-blank to admit any responsibility for failures or setbacks. There was always somebody else to take the blame. The ego of Alan Woods is too big and too sensitive to endure any such self-awareness or self-criticism. It is a marked contrast to the attitude of Lenin, who was at least willing to occasionally confess to errors.
Here is how the opposition described day four:
They now tried to do everything to force us into submission and support the expulsions of Heiko. Once again psychological pressure was used to try and force us say things that we didn’t believe in. It was said that it was a matter of principle to vote in favour of Heikos expulsion. That this was necessary to protect the international. A paranoid resolution was presented. Alan said that Heiko is a “police provocateur”. When they had no more arguments they just used insults, Miguel from Spain called the faction “a whore house”. In vain we hoped that at least that remark would lead to some reactions from someone at the IEC, but he received loud applause. He also claimed that because of us 50 comrades from the majority had not joined the minority in Spain and said we were “mean and selfish and spiteful”. Tanvir said that Heiko had sent an email and then a comrade in Pakistan had died. The connection between the two events was never explained. It was proposed that the emails of the three oppositional EC’s not receive emails from the IS and IEC and that they should be asked to leave the IEC.
The level of hysteria and paranoia was so great that when Jonathan received a text message to his phone and wrote a reply, Alex from Canada reported this suspect activity to the whole meeting and demanded that he reveal whom he was texting and about what. Alan exclaimed to the IEC that Jonathan was taking detailed notes and asked what he was going to do with them.
We were tricked into believing that Heiko had published all the audio files from the winter school on the internet (including contributions of comrades working in secret). In reality he had only published his own speech, although by using some nerdish technology it was possible to access all files. They wanted us to either say that we supported everything Heiko had done or that we would distance ourselves completely from Heiko. We were not prepared to do either. We explained that we were clearly opposed to the expulsion of Heiko, but as we didn’t support all his actions we would abstain. In retrospect, this was a mistake. We should have voted against the resolution. Now the IS is claiming completely dishonestly that we did not oppose Heiko’s expulsion. In this loyalty test even the visitors voted. After that Rob Sewell explained that “the real IEC had voted” in favour of Heiko’s expulsion.
The atmosphere of hysteria, conformity and cultism had not abated by the last day:
On Friday morning we went to the meeting in time. The first thing that happened was that Ana [Alan Woods’ wife] tabled a resolution that Wojtek’s recordings of the meeting should be wiped out. Wojtek is almost blind. He uses a white stick and for years he has recorded meetings he attends. It is his way of taking notes. The real reason why they confiscated the audio files was that it gave us evidence of the behaviour of the IS and the majority of the IEC. Last summer the IS complained about the hacking of emails. Now they were prepared to use similar kind of police methods. Ana told Wojtek that he would receive “the recordings that they saw fit”.
In addition, a group of resolutions was presented. Among other things our faction should be banned. Factional activity on Facebook was forbidden. The Winter school was condemned. The Iranian section should be kicked out. The IS was given a mandate to expel anybody immediately. The only means of increasing the pressure on us at that point was through the use of physical violence.
There was no point in remaining at the IEC meeting. Jonathan went up and declared:
“Well, comrades, unfortunately this IEC has proceeded in a manner which is both expected and familiar. I recognize it both from the last period in CWI and the last period in the Swedish Young Socialists. And we will leave the IEC now, because there is no point in continuing to be here. We will go out into the sunshine. We’ll have dinner tonight, we’ll have a laugh tonight, tomorrow morning we’ll get up and have a shower. And then based upon our firm convictions we will recommence the building of a revolutionary organization. Other people will leave the IEC with different attitudes. Some comrades will be pleased about what has happened this week. They will feel a sense of belonging and a sense of power and they will build nothing. I think the majority of comrades will be a bit disquieted. Maybe in one year, maybe in two years, maybe in five years, they will understand what has happened and I hope, at that point, they don’t draw the conclusion to leave revolutionary politics. Because that is the most common conclusion to draw at that point, but we must continue the struggle, and we certainly will be.”
Despite Martin and Wojtek explaining that leaving the meeting did not mean that we had had left the IMT, the IS has chosen to disseminate the myth that we have left. They claim this is proven by Jonathan saying that we would “recommence the building of a revolutionary organization”. However, after reading this report it is not difficult to understand that after a four day witch hunt, we intended to do something better when we got home – build, which ought to be understood as something very different from leaving the IMT. Even after we sent an email explicitly stating that we remained members of the IMT, IS members have “informed” comrades that we have left.
The IS naturally denies what the real discussion at the IEC was like. They claim that it was a nice calm democratic discussion. However, we can prove that all the things mentioned above were said. Everyday Wojtek transferred his audio files to Martin’s laptop. Only the last hour of the IEC meeting was eradicated from his recorder. We have no intention of publicising these recordings. We have no intention of disrupting the work of comrades who mistakenly think they have to work in secret. Nor do we not want to let it be known to the labour movement that we have been members of an organisation where the meetings of the leadership are a madhouse. However, any comrade who does not believe what we have written can listen to the recordings.
This report tells the truth about what happened at the IEC, but the IEC has forbidden us to tell the truth. All discussions at the IEC are supposed to be “confidential” now. This is the method by which the IS hides its true face. We cannot accept that.
The leadership of the CWI behaved better during the factional dispute in 91-92 than the present leadership of the IMT today. There was the same dishonesty, the same hysteria and paranoia. However, when Ted and Alan stood up and said that they wanted to form a faction to fight a bureaucratic clique, there was no decision that they had to wait until all “democratic channels had been completely exhausted”. Faction rights were granted. And at the expense of the international debates were held in most sections, even down to branch level.
The manner in which this IEC meeting was conducted has injected a massive dose of poison into the IMT. Trust and honesty cannot be rebuilt, even if we leave. Most of the leadership will never be able to admit the shameful role they have played. Therefore they will continue down the chosen path against anybody and everyone. What is not already dead in the IMT will inevitably be killed off. We are more interested in building a living organisation than sitting around the death bed.
Reading this some weeks after my resignation, I was filled with shock, horror and disgust. These full-time leaders of the IMT, who I had respected so much when I was a member of the sect, revealed themselves for what they were – petty tyrants and cult leaders. The transcript reproduced in this post concerning the IMT split of 2010 is required reading for anyone who is considering joining this loathsome groupuscule. The dedication, enthusiasm and idealism of so many young men and women should not be abused by self-interested Stalinist cranks and loons like those who run this satanic entity that calls itself an international.
These disgusting people were looked up to with reverence and loyalty by myself and hundreds of others. I now see that this trust and loyalty was being shamelessly abused. I feel sorry for anyone trapped in such an organisation with such miserable, malevolent mediocrities and dictators. Imagine if these monsters had state power. Just think what they would do. I am sure that in very different circumstances, the members of the IMT opposition would have been sent to the gulag and given a bullet in the back of the head. Thankfully these degenerates will never have state power and will never be in a position to kill thousands, even millions, of people for disagreeing with them. I would take liberal democracy any day over being in such a disgusting, criminal entity, which, if it ever came to power, would be the greatest oppressor of the working-class. I am with E.P. Thompson when he said that it was a relief that the Communist Party would never enjoy power in Britain.
Let everyone know that it is the corrupt methods of Stalinism and Maoism that are practiced by the IMT and similar organisations, not those of genuine democracy. Adolf Woods and his minions now boast that their organisation is enjoying growth whilst their rivals are stagnating. Maybe. But this will be short-lived. There is nothing essential about their organisation that has changed since 2010. Indeed, I suspected as much when I first read about it days before my resignation. This greatly eased my way out. Sooner or later, another catastrophic dispute will occur that will tear the organisation apart, just like that which has befallen Peter Taaffe’s CWI. It is inevitable in these organisations, in which there must be complete, cultish homogeneity, or absolute separation. Sharp splits and sudden changes are on the horizon…