Views in brief

The ISO's role on the left

IN RESPONSE to "Setting our record straight": As a longtime leftist who has worked with International Socialist Organization (ISO) members individually and as a group (along with a multitude of other groups) over the years, I find this conversation to be useful and conducted in a fairly honest and reasonable manner.

I, too, have wondered on occasion why the ISO does take up seemingly liberal causes that seem to go nowhere. Foremost among these are some of the campaigns around identity issues. However, I have never seen their support of these causes to be indicative of support for the Democratic Party in any way. At the same time, discussing the ISO's analysis of certain identity issues has helped my understanding of how to approach said issues in a more revolutionary manner.

When it comes to anti-imperialism, I have always considered the ISO as a group one can count on to insist on maintaining such an approach in antiwar coalitions, no matter what liberal claptrap is put forth. This consistent anti-imperialism has been a breath of fresh air. It has also led me to occasionally reconsider my kneejerk reaction to certain international events in light of the ISO analysis.

This doesn't mean I agree with all of its positions (if I did I would be a member). It does mean that I consider the ISO an important revolutionary organization and its members as comrades.

Like Todd writes, discussing issues in a comradely manner is important to building a revolutionary movement. Discussing them in a manner designed to tear down fellow revolutionaries is something we cannot afford. Onward!
Ron Jacobs, Burlington, Vt.

Divisions among capitalists

IN RESPONSE to "Does GOP spell 'bad for business'?": While I agree with many of the points of this analysis, I think the article tends to analyze the capitalist class as monolithic in its recognition of its class interests.

The basis of the argument presented here--that the left ought not to support the Democratic Party--seems to hinge on the notion that, in some calculating way, the capitalists are against anything that opposes capital and at the same time supportive of most of what the Tea Party advocates. It seems to imply that all capitalists are engaged in covert shifts between supporting the Democratic Party on the one hand, and turning around and supporting the Tea Party when they see opportunities to go after government.

This fails to grasp that there are ideological divisions within the capitalist class and that these divisions are manifest within the two capitalist political parties. There are those so-called "enlightened" capitalists who most frequently give their financial and political support to Democrat Party views. They believe that economic stimulus of the economy by the government, social programs that minimize working-class injury, and minimum wage laws, etc., are in the interest of the capitalist because such policies insulates them from social unrest and thus, helps perpetuate the capitalist system.

By stark contrast are those far-right extremist capitalists who believe that it is in their interest to dismantle all government, remove all social programs, strip the working class of all labor protections, etc., because they have no recognition of the impending social unrest that can easily be predicted. These political forces within the capitalist class either do not care about the potential unrest or they don't see it.

We on left should never make the false assumption that the capitalist class acts in its own interest monolithically. The division that exists within the capitalist class is indicative of the failure of capitalist-class consciousness, just as divisions within the working class are indicative of the failure of working-class consciousness.
Thomas Wells, San Jose, Calif.

A principled response to racism

IN RESPONSE to "Holding the cyber-racists accountable": Great piece. Deepa Kumar, you certainly have every right to stay.

Of course, the problem with cyber-racists and other trolls is that they can hide behind their anonymity and their own right to free speech, and I don't honestly see any way around it. You can choose to ignore them or attempt to engage them with calm logic and some effort to understand them, although when it comes to trying to understand them, this may be more pain than it's worth.

As you pointed out, there may be some people who may come with a prejudicial outlook to one of your lectures or who read one of your posts, but then change their minds (and hearts) once they see you as a regular living and breathing human being and not as confirmation of their own fearful stereotypes, but I'm sure that this is a rare occurrence.

All I can suggest is that you keep on keeping on. Most people will be receptive to your message, once they understand that an imperialist outlook is a recipe for permanent war, a type of permanent war that could easily boomerang back to them. Truth to tell, I am NOT holding my breath on that score, but things do change.
James Kenny, Brooklyn, N.Y.

How the left should debate

IN RESPONSE to "Setting our record straight": I am not a member of the ISO, and in fact, I have some rather sharp criticisms of the group, but I want to publicly commend the author of this article for his intellectual honesty and consistent, methodical attitude toward political debate.

If a mass revolutionary party that can lead our class to power is to be born at all, the left will need to adopt much more of this healthy, clarity-driven attitude toward political differences.
Marlon Pierre-Antoine, Cedar Rapids, Iowa