International Socialist Alternative in “serious crisis” – the political roots of an impending split
CWI International Secretariat
The International Socialist Alternative (ISA) is in a major crisis and on the brink of yet another split and further divisions. The immediate cause of the current crisis appears to have been the methods used in the handling of a particular “case”. Yet behind this are deeper political questions related to the ideas, programme, methods, tactics, and perspectives for a revolutionary Marxist international in this period.
The minority faction alleges that the ISA’s ‘Code of Conduct’ was not followed in the ‘case’ and asserts “the vital necessity to remove from the leadership all those directly responsible for the mishandling and the cover up.”
In reply, the majority issued a public statement that accepted “serious mistakes were made in the handling of this case” but “completely reject the characterizations in this [minority faction] statement of the process in our international for reviewing this case and its lessons”.
We cannot comment on the “case” in the ISA, and without any knowledge of it or how it was handled we would not wish to do so. Yet the current crisis in the ISA goes beyond the handling or mishandling of one case and has far deeper political roots.
The ISA emerged from the formation of an unprincipled bloc in the CWI in 2018, which resulted in a split, as they searched, in vain, for shortcuts, and turned away from the organised working class. The CWI, at the time, predicted that such an unprincipled political block would inevitably break up and fragment. Our warnings have been fully vindicated.
The ISA membership is increasingly politically divided from top to bottom, starting from its ‘International Executive’ and ‘International Committee’ bodies. Most ISA sections have minority factions. A contentious International Committee meeting in April put off a showdown until a World Congress in December, if the ISA can hold together that long, that is. It appears likely that at least two rump groupings will emerge from the fierce factional struggle.
No doubt, many ISA members will be dismayed or demoralised by the latest irreconcilable divisions within the leadership bodies of the ISA and the seeming inevitability of it suffering a second, even more profound, major split, and numerous other fragmentations, after just five years’ existence. We urge those ISA members who are striving for a genuinely Marxist approach, based on the centrality of the working class in the struggle for socialism, to read the documents of the Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI) issued during the faction fight (2018-2019) with the opposition group that later became the ISA (In Defence of Trotskyism – IS majority documents – Marxist.net and the CWI book, ‘In Defence of Trotskyism’). We believe our analysis and criticisms are confirmed by the subsequent political trajectory of the ISA.
The root cause of the deep divisions inside the ISA lies in its leadership’s fundamentally mistaken political approach and methods, which are a consequence of turning away from a principled Marxist programme based on the working class.
In 2018-19, a dispute broke out within the CWI primarily over the questions of socialism and identity politics, the role of the trade unions and the working-class movement, and under what programme and how should Marxists organise internationally and domestically. The opposition inside the CWI that became the ISA looked for shortcuts in a complicated objective situation. The CWI comrades defended a working-class, Trotskyist approach, which culminated in the CWI’s re-foundation and a restatement of Marxist principles and their application in today’s world (Rebuilding the CWI, Lessons and tasks | (socialistworld.net)).
It was predictable at the time of the split in 2019 that the ISA would inevitably face crises and splits given that its platform was based primarily on an unprincipled bloc against the CWI leadership. This is now admitted by the majority faction in the ISA in a telling document: “the CWI majority [ISA] was organised hastily and as a group united more by its opposition to the former leadership than by a clear positive political project”. … (‘Politically addressing the crisis in ISA’, ISA international members’ bulletin, March 15, 2024).
At the time of the 2019 split, having “unleashed” itself from a principled Trotskyist programme, methods and traditions of the CWI, the ISA boasted about its alleged numerical advantage and ultra internal democracy. The ISA sought to quickly grow based on its “distinct socialist feminist work” that was a “universal feature” of the ISA sections.
Yet within months, the ISA was thrown into a major internal crisis. A rift took place in the first half of 2021 when ISA sections from Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, Australia, Taiwan, and individuals from Belgium, Britain, and Spain, left to form Internationalist Standpoint. They cited differences on world perspectives and described an intolerant internal regime in the ISA, in which “a toxic atmosphere was created, and all those who had differences with the leading bodies were essentially pushed out”.
The Greek-led split also objected to the ISA’s ‘Code of Conduct’, which was a “very controversial document” produced by the “majority around the issues of sexual harassment”. The Greek-led split complained about the Code’s “moralistic tone” and undemocratic character. In turn, the Greek section was criticised by the ISA leadership for “pessimism”, “federalism”, “revisionism” and of “not understanding women’s oppression”.
Prior to the split in the CWI, the leadership of the Greek section had a marked trend in a federalist direction.
In the years since the Greek-led split, the crisis inside the ISA has only deepened both politically and organisationally. As the majority faction put it, “The reality is that the ISA is in a serious crisis…almost five years after having to reestablish ourselves following the departure of our ex-minority, it cannot be said that our attempts to build a new international leadership in ISA are successful… (‘Politically addressing the crisis in ISA’, ISA international members’ bulletin, March 15 2024).
As well as the Greek-led split, the ISA has suffered “small splits in the US, Brazil and elsewhere” which has all had a “demoralizing impact.”
The ISA leadership made overblown and grandiose claims when they left the CWI but now authors of the ISA majority faction admit “we are a very small international with many party building weaknesses across our sections…”
Indeed, they say that the ISA barely functions as an ‘international’: “This crisis is expressed at all levels of the leadership, but in particular, at the most executive levels. For a significant period, the ‘team’ of comrades at the core of the international’s day to day work has not been engaged in a meaningful collaboration”.
The majority ISA grouping details the ISA’s internal disagreements on a series of key questions: “Sharp debates dominate the international’s internal life, including on the New Cold War, the Ukraine War, socialist feminism, the transitional programme, the dual task, party building and the role of the leadership. A clear polarisation – with two emerging trends – has developed over time and has become further entrenched.” (‘Politically addressing the crisis in ISA’, ISA international members’ bulletin, March 15, 2024).
The ISA has no less than “three positions” regarding the characterisation of the world economy and inter-imperialist relations, and the war in Ukraine. The political confusion and incoherence reached its nadir with the ISA’s Russia group’s “demand of ‘Victory to Ukraine’ and support for Western imperialism delivering arms to Ukraine”.
The Russian group’s position is shielded by large parts of the ISA leadership: “In truth we still have a totally federalist approach on this question as an international, with echoes of the USFI, tolerating our section on the ground having a completely scandalous public position…defended by a large section of the leadership [which] has meant tolerating inverted chauvinist pro-imperialist positions being put forward publicly in our collective name.”
Leading ISA members continue to display a woeful lack of understanding of the role of mass workers’ organisations, like trade unions, and perspectives for workers’ struggles. Regarding the highly significant waves of industrial struggles over the last couple of years, “a lengthy document on the Dual Task submitted in 2021 by IE member KMcL [ISA Ireland] emphasised that the labour movement would play a less central role in the struggles of the coming period, a perspective which has been clearly proved wrong by events”.
Concerning the ISA’s ‘socialist feminist’ campaigns, the ISA’s majority faction states: “There has been a tendency to deny complications in the feminist movement, to ignore shifts in consciousness around feminist issues, to adapt to non-Marxist ideas as a means of ‘linking up with consciousness’ and to impose a one size fits all tactic of socialist feminist banner work…”
The socialist feminist “theorisation” inside the ISA has led to the term being used as “shorthand for the struggle against all forms of oppression…comrades have suggested that all recent movements which have erupted on different questions – from Black Lives Matter even to the movement against war in Gaza – should be understood as part of a singular phenomenon: the feminist wave”.
The adaption by the ISA to gender-based politics has gone so far, the majority faction bemoans, that it has been “suggested” by leading minority faction members that “for us to challenge identity politics within the movement would mean putting ourselves in the same camp as reactionaries and the right wing”. (‘Politically addressing the crisis in ISA’, ISA international members’ bulletin, March 15, 2024).
CWI’s clear warnings
Yet clear warnings by the CWI leadership on this matter were made half a decade ago: “The growth of the pernicious ideas of identity politics has been a test for revolutionary socialists. The question is not if it is necessary to intervene in the women’s, LGBTQ+, environmental or other movements. We fully support and must energetically intervene in these movements. The question is how? As Marxists we must realistically appraise the positive feature of these movements and also recognize the limitations of them, including their multi-class character. It is necessary to intervene in them on a class basis with the socialist programme which we defend. It is not the duty of revolutionary Trotskyists to buckle to the petty bourgeois and bourgeois pressures of identity politics and separatism as the NFF faction [forerunner of the ISA] and its leadership has done.” (‘Rebuilding the CWI, Lessons and tasks’, 1 September 2019)
And yet during the 2019-2020 faction fight, all the leadership of what became the ISA dismissed or downplayed our criticisms of the Irish section or defended its erroneous adaption to ID politics.
While the ISA majority appear to partially recognise the degree to which the ‘minority platform’ has surrendered to petit-bourgeois identity politics, they obviously believe that this problem only emerged after the split with the CWI. There is no acknowledgement whatsoever that it was the CWI leadership’s criticism of this trend, particularly in the Irish section, which was the central starting point for the 2018/19 debate. Nor is there any balance sheet of the other issues in the debate, including on the need to orientate to the trade unions and how to formulate a transitional programme and method in this period.
The breakthrough in the US of Kshama Sawant’s election to the Seattle council in 2013 is mentioned, but there is no assessment of the serious mistake made by ISA in 2022 of abandoning that position without a fight or running any candidate (a decision which reportedly was taken by only the US ISA leadership) despite this following successfully resisting, in 2021, a recall ballot initiated by right wing Democrats. In fact, the ISA majority do not appear to have any clear balance sheet of the past, or perspectives for the class struggle and, flowing from that, the tasks needed to build a revolutionary international, other than a plea for “an extended period of debates and clarifications” being “required to resolve this crisis”.
It is clear the political and organisational degeneration of the ISA will continue, with further divisions and splits, as they become increasingly removed from the working class.
In contrast, the CWI has achieved clarity and agreement, through discussion and debate, regarding the main global processes and trends (Capitalism in global crisis and conflict, and the struggle for socialism | (socialistworld.net)), and successfully intervened in the major struggles of the oppressed and working class, such as the Black Lives Matter movement, the mass protests over the Gaza slaughter, and the wave of strikes in different countries.
As well as this, the CWI has produced material on the major questions of the day facing the workers’ movement, such as regarding the covid pandemic and lockdowns, that have stood the test of time. We also discuss, and where necessary debate, strategic questions, such as how to build revolutionary socialist forces in this period (The Struggle for a Revolutionary Party Today | (socialistworld.net)) and the relationship of that historic task for Marxists with the emergence of new mass parties of the working class.
We appeal to members and former members of the ISA who are looking for a way forward to build a revolutionary socialist international rooted amongst the working to learn the lessons of the train crash unfolding in the ISA.
We would urge them to read and re-read our material afresh in the light of this experience. If they are willing to draw lessons from this experience and agree with the task of building the forces of Marxism, based on the central role of the working class, then discuss and have a dialogue with the CWI.
