IMT shifts to Die Linke?

[Q-collective]

I recently gathered info from a comrade in Aachen (which is quite near for me) that Der Funke, the IMT section in Germany, has recently shifted towards Die Linke, a new left party in Germany with mass support. The comrade told me that there were now IMT members both active inside the SPD (traditional social-democracy) and Die Linke. Now I of course don't mind being active in Die Linke, we are aswell. As are we in other (new) left formations and parties in the Netherlands (SP), Italy (PRC), Greece (SYRIZA) to name a few.

What I do find confusing though is the theory behind such a move. As far as my knowledge of the split in the early 1990's goes, the split was over the very question to remain active in the old workers parties. The Grants-Woods tendency (subsequently forming the IMT after they left) hold the position that we "shouldn't destroy 40 years of entryistic work" and "the working class will always return to their traditional parties". The very fact however that Die Linke (and SP, PRC, SYRIZA and now the NPA in France aswell) are very popular while the old Labour parties continue their free fall is a direct refutation of that position. It seems that Der Funke has readopted a dialectical position and is moving towards Die Linke, which I do applaud. But with this, isn't one of the major differences between the CWI and IMT become deprecated due to new events (assuming that the IMT internationally is moving towards new left formations)?

Discuss.

[jornalero]

The main difference with the Taffist was that they thought they would grow leaps and bounce if they create  a new party, and the result you can see, we don't idealize the traditional organization , but we think that the new working class party will arise from inside the traditonal working class parties and in Germany the pds and now  the der linke are mass organizations, so it's nothing new , in Spaiin we work mainly in the pce , but also in the psoe, and even in the left  basque movement, and in the union CCOO, UGT and the semianaquist CGT, and soc which is  a landless peasnt organization

[Faceless]

The Grants-Woods tendency (subsequently forming the IMT after they left) hold the position that ... "the working class will always return to their traditional parties".

This isn't the position of the IMT. The position of the IMT is that the working class tends to turn FIRST to their traditional organisations. We do not hold either that the traditional organisations are immutable and unchanging. And neither did the CWI in the past. Of course, if you look at all these "new left parties" they ALL have roots in the old traditional organisations. The class did indeed move first through its traditional organisations. Die Linke has traditions in the SPD and the old east German communist party, the PRC has traditions in the old Italian CP, and synaspismos has traditions in the Greek communist parties. These parties did not magic out of nothing - they were not formed by tiny groups launching petition campaigns which suddenly ballooned into "mass workers' parties". Furthermore the working class has not disposed of its old organisations - the SPD is still a workers' organisation, the KKE and PASOK still exist. And inspite of the fact that the CWI have presented the old workers parties with their death certificate, they don't seem to be listening. PASOK it seems are doing tremendously well out of the events in Greece. It is to the credit of our German comrades that they maintain flexible tactics to reach out to militants in Die Linke and in the SPD. No doubt similar processes will take place in Britain (and no doubt at things will take a different pace and different forms than in Europe).

[CyM]

Faceless is right, we were never flat out opposed to working in other parties. The IMT's position does not stem from formalistic and abstract categories. The truth is always concrete, and the truth is, we work where the workers are. The bolsheviks even worked in the zubatov unions, unions set up by the police, and actually won some workers over. Historically speaking, we are at a point where the forces of Marxism are incredibly weak. We have to find a road to the masses. Our weakness (and the CWI isn't immune to this reality) means that we are not an independent factor in the historical tide of events.

The task is to change that: to build a revolutionary organization that can play a decisive role.

That cannot be done by a simple declaration forming the revolutionary party, the "new workers' party". In places where the working class has traditional mass organizations we have to keep a voice there to win over the layers disgusted by the leaders who have been bought off - especially when the leaders have lost all of their political capital with the disgusted rank and file.

In some places, there are several organizations, two, sometimes three. We have to maintain an open and flexible attitude and work everywhere that the workers are, limiting ourselves only when a lack of resources necessitates concentrating our forces.

When the working masses, through their own initiative, throw up new organizations, new forms, we have to be open to those as well. We oppose splitting up the mass organizations, but we work everywhere to win workers over to the ideas of Marxism. Working within mass parties that have already split is not the same as us attempting to split the only mass organization.

If there's already two or three mass parties, the situation is different. Ultimately, what we call for is a united front of workers' parties, a coalition government excluding the bourgeois parties, to embark on a programme of nationalization of the main industries and banking under workers' control, and implement a rational, democratic, socialist plan of production.

This puts unity of the working class first and foremost, while exposing the labour bureaucrats who oppose it, but support coalitions with the capitalist parties. Before worrying about forming a new party, try forming a decisive mass tendency of the labour movement.

[OUTOFTHENIGHT]

When the working masses, through their own initiative, throw up new organizations, new forms, we have to be open to those as well. We oppose splitting up the mass organizations, but we work everywhere to win workers over to the ideas of Marxism. Working within mass parties that have already split is not the same as us attempting to split the only mass organization.

If there's already two or three mass parties, the situation is different. Ultimately, what we call for is a united front of workers' parties, a coalition government excluding the bourgeois parties, to embark on a programme of nationalization of the main industries and banking under workers' control, and implement a rational, democratic, socialist plan of production.

This puts unity of the working class first and foremost, while exposing the labour bureaucrats who oppose it, but support coalitions with the capitalist parties. Before worrying about forming a new party, try forming a decisive mass tendency of the labour movement.

Too true.

This is a world of difference to a group such as the SP (cwi,uk) wanting to create a working class party as they did in the 1990s. At least they are now only 'campaigning' for a new workers party and not trying to be one.

The position of the IMT in Germany does not in any way deviate from the historical conclusion that the working class moves THROUGH its traditional organisationms, firstly the Trade unions and then their traditional parties.

[Dimitri]

I doubted working in big workers parties once even after reading up the theory behind it, which CyM explained very well.
Through practice though I understood that entrism and working in mass workers parties is highly important in order to have an impact on the working class with our ideas. If there are more than one workers parties then we work in as many as we can. It's not a principle that we work in parties like the SP instead of newly formed parties(formed through the mass organizations and not by a sect saying , we are the new workers party!).
For example in Greece we work closely with the KKE. That doesn't mean that if we had the resources and people we couldn't work in SYRIZA or PASOK as well, while advocating of course a united front. We don't work in a party because we like it and we support it we do it in order to win over activists and generate influence.
What I found disturbing in the Xekinima (CWI in Greece) analysis is that they rarely(if ever) criticize the reformists of SYRIZA, its erroneous tactics and programme which is social-democratic in the most part(SYRIZAs program). They support SYRIZA from attacks from the KKE(where some are legitimate) and they refuse to do any criticism on the bureaucracy etc, while they attack KKE mercilesly. They work in SYRIZA in an opportunist manner.
The IMT in Greece on its part criticizes SYRIZA and KKE,while advocating for a united front.
I just laid down this example in order to show you how wrong is the CWI where it performs entryism and work within mass organizations ( whenever it doesn't advocate for a new workers party ,which is pretty ridiculus when it has 300 or 1000 people in countries of millions and millions).

This is probably irrelevant and off-topic but I just wanted to say that to Q-Collective since I know him from revleft.

[Realzowi]

Yes. The marxists are too small indeed. For Q-collective, I have some word about the Netherlands, because I am from there too.
Offensief (Dutch CWI) had entryism in the PvdA (Dutch Labour) until they declared it was a bourgeois party and suddenly went out. Then they were partyless for some years, and a couple of years ago went into the Socialist Party.
As a member of IMT I can say the turn to SP was right, because it was the only consistent leftwing opposition to the rightwing Balkenende government. But one mistake is that Offensief portrays the PvdA as a bourgeois party, while there are still ties with the unions. The SP has no strong ties with the unions and is not so popular anymore as two years ago. In the immediate period there probably will be no shift to the left in the PvdA, but never rule it out. Instead of portraying it as a bourgeois party, Offensief where it has council members for the SP should advocate a united front with the PvdA on a leftwing programme, and if they refuse, expose the leadership to their voters.
Also a strange episode was the stance of Offensief to Solidara. Solidara was nothing more than a petit-bourgeois split from the SP on an even more opportunist-reformist programme and no mass base.
Some days ago the leadership of the Socialist Party tried to expel the members of Offensief.
Probably the leadership has had talks with other parties for a future government, so they want to spell out all the leftists.
Although I do not support your tactics totally, I am against the bureaucratic moves of the leadership that wants to expel you!