We publish below a statement by five former members of ISA Austria, three of whom have recently joined the CWI and two of whom are discussing rejoining with the CWI. Anna Hiermann, Gerhard Ziegler and Sonja Grusch, who for many years was the spokesperson of the CWI in Austria and, after the 2019 split, of the ISA in Austria and also a member of the international leadership of the ISA, are the signatories who are now CWI members.
We welcome the fact that these comrades were able to take stock of the developments of ISA and CWI over the last five years and question their own decisions. This also includes the ability overcome any misgivings and put political questions at the centre and personal questions in the background. That deserves our respect.
In extensive discussions, we have found agreement on the key fundamental political issues. This does not mean agreement on every detailed question, which the CWI does not expect if activists from other organisations or traditions want to join us.
As the comrades’ text shows, there are still different perspectives on various aspects of the factional struggle in the CWI in 2018/19 and the split at that time. For example we do not agree that the ISA was an “experiment” and we are convinced that those involved did not see it like that at the time. But both sides respect different views regarding the past and this is no obstacle to working together to build a revolutionary Marxist organisation.
With this in mind, we invite members and former members of the ISA to follow the example of the Austrian comrades and enter into discussion with the CWI.
Key tasks for revolutionaries in this complicated period
by Anna Hiermann, Gerhard Ziegler, Margarita Wolf, Sonja Grusch and Thomas Hauer
In the following text we describe a few thoughts on central tasks for revolutionaries in this very complicated period. This text is neither complete nor detailed, but only describes a few key points that we consider important and which – among a number of other questions – led us to separate from the ISA and join the CWI.
An age of chaos and conflicts needs class position and political clarity
We live in an age of crisis, chaos and realignment. The USA, which is trying to defend its supremacy at world level, and China, which is now the second strongest power economically, are in a battle for supremacy. It is a race for influence and markets, partly fought out as a trade war (also at a technological level), which is becoming ever more intense and has reached all parts of the world.
The world is increasingly reorganizing itself into two blocs around the two main imperialist powers. However, a number of states (e.g. numerous states in Asia) are trying to gain special advantages by maneuvering between the two blocs. A direct military confrontation between the two main powers is currently not a likely prospect, even if there is clear sabre-rattling from time to time (e.g. over the issue of Taiwan). Nevertheless, the risk of military conflicts is increasing worldwide due to proxy wars in the context of the main conflict between the USA and China, but also as a result of increasing tensions within the blocs. The massive increase in arms spending is a clear sign, but it is at the expense of the working class and the poor.
Although increasing bipolarity is the dominant component in current world politics with regional proxy wars around the globe, we also see an interdependence between the US and China, which remain the central axis of the world economy, as described by Hannah Sell in “The End of the Golden Era” (https://www.socialistworld.net/…/the-end-of-golden-eras/).
The political and economic situation, dependencies, conflicts and contradictions are complex and see not only cooperation but also contradictions between and within the two blocs, when parts of the ruling classes put their own interests first. The ruling class is anything but homogeneous; different capital interests clash between the blocs, within the blocs and also within individual states. We are currently also seeing this in relation to the Gaza war, where the Israeli regime, with its genocidal war against the Palestinian masses, is even contradicting the interests of its main ally, US imperialism, as well as parts of its own ruling class, and where various Israeli allies are distancing themselves.
The background to this is the tense economic situation. The consequences of the 2008/9 crisis – especially in the form of massive debt – have not been overcome. Added to this are the economic effects of corona, including supply and production shortfalls and the inflation of recent years. The next economic crisis is already just around the corner. In times of economic problems, capital strengthens the position of its “home base” and uses its own state centrally: economically through state support in the form of upward redistribution, tax reforms, protectionism, subsidy policy, etc. However, capital also uses the military means of “its” respective state to enforce or support its economic interests. Each national capital is closer to its own shirt than the pants of the respective bloc.
The example of the war in Ukraine shows that special regional imperialist interests can also play a role in conflicts that cannot simply be classified in the basic overall view of the two blocs, even if they are a central factor. For example, the US imperialist bloc successfully used the war to get NATO out of the crisis, stabilize it (at least temporarily) and expand it. Chinese imperialism (although officially very reserved about the war) is also taking advantage of the concentration and commitment of US bloc resources (financial aid and arms supplies) in Ukraine in order to more easily expand and consolidate its economic and political power in other parts of the world (especially Latin America and Africa, but also partly in Asia). At the same time, Russian imperialism has its own economic and geopolitical interests, which do not simply coincide with those of China. The economic consequences of the war will have dramatic consequences for the global economy and therefore also for China’s sales markets – which is by no means desirable.
In Europe, too, we are constantly experiencing tensions between countries – while at the same time maintaining the EU bloc. The “old continent” is increasingly being left behind economically: in terms of productivity, technology and investment. Added to this are the electoral successes of right-wing and far-right forces. Against this backdrop, conservative forces are also increasingly relying on nationalism and racism. This is not only evident within countries, but also in the different, sometimes controversial positions of EU and NATO states in the Ukraine war, on China, on Russian gas/oil, etc.
In view of the horror of the wars for the civilian population and the fact that elementary national and human rights are being trampled underfoot, many on the “left” have adopted a tacit policy of peace or an alliance with imperialist forces. A political approach that relies on emotional consternation leads to such alliances. The situation in Palestine is catastrophic, every murder of a woman because of her gender is shocking, the misery of the refugees is outrageous – all this is true and it is important to feel the anger about the madness of capitalism. And then?
When the crimes, mass murders, human experiments, killings, gassings and the entire horror became known during the Second World War, “the left” was faced with the question: what to do? Many knew about the responsibility of Western “democratic” imperialism for the rise of fascism. Nevertheless, they felt that, in the face of unspeakable horror, it was necessary to do everything, absolutely everything, to stop it. That was the basis for rolling back the achievements of the Spanish Republic in the hope of support from bourgeois forces against fascism. That was the basis for fighting in imperialist armies for imperialist war aims. That was the basis for renouncing class struggles against one’s own “democratic” ruling class. It was the basis for truce and popular front politics. But the enemy was not the German workers, not those who were bombed in Dresden and not even those who wore the uniforms of the Wehrmacht. They were the instruments of one imperialism against another (or against the Soviet Union).
Putting the class struggle behind an alliance of all “democratic” forces against fascism (in reality against German imperialism) was perfectly understandable out of a desire to end the horror. But the medium and long-term consequence was that the capitalist system that created the horror remained. And with it apartheid in South Africa, the exacerbated national question in the Middle East, the destruction of the environment, the systematic objectification of half the world’s population, the enslavement of children, human trafficking – to name but a few. The comparison may seem stark, but it is always important to consider the full consequences of a position or development.
As revolutionary socialists, we need a position against any war between imperialist states that is rooted in the understanding that the division is not between peoples, but between classes. This is not a moral question. In both of the world’s current main flashpoints, we see that the national problems of Ukraine / Russia / Crimea and Israel / Palestine could not be solved with a military victory on either side (which are unlikely anyway). Any solution within the framework of capitalism can at best bring a respite, or one that involves massive repression and ethnic cleansing. A socialist solution that respects full national and minority rights is necessary to create lasting peace.
We therefore base our struggle against war on the best traditions of anti-war politics of the international revolutionary workers’ movement. This opposes the imperialist war under the motto “the main enemy is at home” with intensified class struggle with the aim of overthrowing the entire ruling system, but directly its own. In addition to agitation and propaganda against the war on an international level, the defence of democratic, trade union and political rights in the belligerent countries, the call for strikes and blockades in the arms factories and during the transport of armaments, we fight against the increased armament and increase in military budgets, especially in our own imperialist countries, and demand the nationalization of the arms industry under workers’ control.
The working class is entering the stage – but with low consciousness and little experience.
The necessary struggle for ideas in and around the trade unions
Capitalism is in crisis at all levels, from the economy to politics to its very legitimacy. The economic crisis is not only increasing tensions within and between the blocs, but also the need to increase the exploitation of people and nature from the perspective of capital. Climate policy is increasingly being put on the back burner again by those in power (Von der Leyen’s change of position is typical here) and this will further exacerbate the ecological crisis.
The exploitation of the working class will also continue to increase. Capitalism has long since returned to its normal state worldwide, in which the achievements of the special post-war period have largely been destroyed. This is happening against the backdrop of a changing consciousness. Corona has made it clear who keeps everything running. This has created self-confidence in the working class. It also became very clear how much money there is when and where those in power deem it necessary. The understanding that there was supposedly “no money” for the needs of the working class was correspondingly limited. In combination with the inflation crisis, all of this was the reason for an increase in class struggles. The concrete form, which strata of the class, to what extent and in what form these struggles take place vary from country to country and also change – but the fact that the working class has entered the stage of class struggle is a fact.
However, the new class struggles are taking place under difficult conditions. Compared to the 1920s/30s, but also to the 1960s/70s, class consciousness is still lagging behind. There is a lack of experience and class struggle know-how. But all of this is on the rise again and a reversal is not currently to be expected.
The fact that this process is being delayed is also a consequence of the bourgeoisification of traditional workers’ parties and thus the fact that most countries lack political organizations of the working class and the trade union leaderships are generally hesitant, slowing down and deeply trapped in social partnership logic.
This makes it necessary for revolutionaries to be part of the class struggles and to fight for the heads in and around the trade unions. This is not rooted in a romanticism towards the trade unions, but in the understanding that class struggles arise with and around the trade unions, that struggling workers orient themselves towards the trade unions (even if it is only in an angry “where is the trade union when you need it”). To stand aside here would be fatal. First of all, this work means dealing with developments in and around the trade unions, including (supposedly) new methods such as the organizing concept from the USA (see: https://www.socialistworld.net/2023/03/04/a-collective-bargain-unions-organizing-and-the-fight-for-democracy-a-critical-review/). The struggles are also about putting forward proposals on HOW struggles can be won, drawing attention to the wider context of capitalism, warning against the limitations of reformist concepts, pointing out the role of the state and putting forward system-breaking alternatives such as social planning, workers’ control and management, etc. Calling for “militant and democratic trade unions” must be more than just a propaganda demand. Rather, it must be explained as a necessity and a possibility in the concrete struggles, broken down to the concrete situation and become the battle cry of the workers. This is currently one of the central tasks of socialists. For many on the left, this task is too arduous and does not promise immediate success, especially not in building up their own organization. However, the development of class struggles and class consciousness will be expressed significantly (even if not exclusively) in and around the trade unions. There is also no way around the class organizations in combating the various divisions in the working class, even if conservative “values” often dominate in these organizations themselves.
There is no easy or more pleasant shortcut to this arduous path of struggle for socialist ideas in the working class, nor is it a task that can be put off until “later”.
For the unity of the working class and the fight against all forms of oppression and discrimination
The reawakening of the working class against the backdrop of the system’s multiple crises is a potentially fatal problem for the ruling class. It is responding by expanding repression – and with “divide and rule”. The working class was and is anything but homogeneous. It has always been colourful/diverse with different cultural, religious, national and ethnic backgrounds, with different genders and sexual orientations. This diversity has always been high and it was actually only during the special period of the post-war upswing in the developed capitalist countries that parts of the class were able to experience elements of middle-class lifestyles. This inhomogeneity has always been a starting point for the ruling class to use various instruments of division – racism, sexism, homophobia, chauvinism, religious and national divisions. At the same time, parts of the ruling class have always presented themselves as supposed “allies” and wrapped themselves in a progressive cloak – from the bourgeois women’s movement to liberal anti-racism and rainbow capitalism. Supposedly precisely because they largely rely on symbolic politics and formal improvements or improvements for the ruling class, but do nothing to change the causes themselves, namely the capitalist system that requires this division, and instead defend it tooth and nail. The lower the class consciousness in the working class is, or in those sections that have a lower consciousness, the better these instruments of division can work. The working class is not immune to this, but – unlike the ruling class – it has no natural interest in division.
These are general statements that must nevertheless form the basis for socialist politics. For a central task is to overcome the divisions in the class and to counteract attempts at division – regardless of whether they come from outside or from within the class itself. At the same time, it is the task of socialists to take up movements and struggles against oppression and offer a program, even if this only appears to affect a part of the class. Because the class as a whole cannot be liberated as long as parts of it are not yet liberated. What does this mean in concrete terms?
In almost all surveys (as of 2024 for Austria), fear of war and concern about the social situation and inflation dominate. Migration is usually not among the first concerns mentioned. (ORF survey in 6th place, even after climate change; in Gen Z, concerns about the cost of living dominate in a Statista survey with 42%; In a survey for the Austrian Kurier newspaper, inflation is the main concern for 31%, migration for only 20% and even in a survey for The Standard, another Austrian newspaper, more people are somewhat or very concerned about social issues than migration issues).
The established parties, however, say little about social problems, but a lot about migration and “special oppression”. Either in a pseudo-defence or a scandalizing scaremongering about an alleged loss of “our culture and normality”. In both cases, questions of oppression are separated from social issues and turned into questions of “culture” or “morality”. People are categorized according to their gender (“all women”), their religion (“all Muslims”), their nationality (“Turks”) or whether they are transgender. However, this (idealistic) pigeonholing falls short and ignores the fact that we all belong to a social class and that our resulting position in society is central to our opportunities. Large sections of the “left” are also stuck with this pigeonholing. The effects of postmodernism are still strong today, especially in academic circles. This coincides with the regressed ideological consciousness of the working class. The understanding of the necessity of a materialist analysis and perspective is also hardly represented in the organizations of the working class. In political practice and theory, there is an absolute dominance of idealistic views – the radical left and even “Marxist” organizations are not exempt from this.
The focus on immediate concern is a strength – and a weakness, as it often leads to the divisive being placed above the unifying. The task of revolutionaries is to support people in their struggles and to place these struggles in the wider context of capitalism and its modes of action. There is no place for abusive behaviour and discrimination in socialist organizations. At the same time, it must always be clear that everyone is shaped by the society in which we grow up and live. Any idealistic representation that white people cannot understand racism because they are not affected by it themselves, or that women can better understand sexism per se, is essentially reactionary. This is because it presents these forms of oppression (consciously or unconsciously) as a biological fact and therefore insurmountable.
In contrast, we must patiently explain why such behaviour harms those affected and the class as a whole. However, we must also show that the causes lie less with the individual than with the system – and the solutions accordingly. The analysis must therefore be based on a materialistic understanding and the solutions must not stop at immediate help. Of course, most leftists also refer to the larger social framework. In practice, however, it often remains practically a minimum demand in the struggle for one improvement or another (which is not wrong, but can only be a starting point) and the maximum demand of a necessary different society is attached – without any connection and thus without consequence. Lenin describes how we should deal with religion as follows: “Under no circumstances should we allow ourselves to be tempted to pose the religious question abstractly, idealistically, ‘for the sake of reason’, outside the class struggle, as radical democrats from the bourgeoisie often do.” If we replace “religious questions” with “questions of sexism/racism/national chauvinism/homophobia/transphobia” and “radical democrats” with “progressive bourgeois like the Greens etc”, then we see the topicality of this text.
One of the greatest immediate threats is the recent rise of right-wing extremism. The current development and the associated debates and tactical moves by the left in France show the explosive nature as well as possible pitfalls. The government policies of these parties and the violent activities of their activists pose a serious threat to the working class as a whole and to individual sections in particular. A differentiated look at why these parties are gaining strength, what role they play for capital, where their voters come from and what role they play in the working class is central to being able to wage an effective struggle against this threat.
Right-wingers and conservatives are waging an aggressive “culture war” in which they try to impose supposedly “traditional” values, roles and gender images. This is nothing new. What is increasing, however, is that they are gaining support from relevant sections of the ruling class and capital – because these “values” fit in with capitalist necessities. The voters are largely drawn from insecure sections of the petty bourgeoisie who are afraid of falling behind or have already been downgraded. Of central importance for socialists is the role played by reactionary ideas and organizations in the working class.
In the “left” as well as in the “progressive” petty bourgeoisie, the xenophobic, racist and chauvinist prejudices of the “unreflective” working class are deplored. This is often followed by moralizing or arrogance (e.g. the call for “German courses” for those voting for the right populist FPÖ). However, this does not take into account that the susceptibility to xenophobia in particular a fear of “foreigners” in general) is rooted in a regressive consciousness and is the result of fear of economic/social difficulties. If workers’ organizations do not clearly put the common interests of the whole class first and organize struggles against social problems, then xenophobic and sexist ideas can also find support in the working class. Decades of state racism and a trade union that focuses on “Austrians first” are centrally responsible for the fact that right-wing statements that portray people with a migration background as competition and wage oppressors are taken up and repeated. However, very few of them have deep-seated ideological racism.
A stand must be taken against xenophobia, sexism, racism and nationalism, but not through moralizing, but by pointing out the potential for division and the need for all workers to fight together for a better life. Through these common struggles, racism, sexism and xenophobia can be dismantled much sooner than through moral appeals or attempts to “show how nice they are” – numerous examples prove this.
It is therefore highly likely that the FPÖ’s electoral successes are not primarily due to the “backwardness” of the Austrian population, but are primarily based on the fear of social decline. The FPÖ is the only one of the bourgeois parties to tap into this fear – and in doing so, covers up its neoliberal policies directed against the working class. Dissatisfaction with established politics, the establishment and, diffusely, “the system” has grown, especially in the wake of coronavirus. This mood could have led to a strong rise in anti-capitalist ideas if there had been a corresponding offer from the left or from the workers’ movement. But these offers were lacking and so this vacuum was filled by the right and conspiracy-mythical concepts.
But basically, the FPÖ is not qualitatively different from other bourgeois parties, although it is more populist and aggressive in its xenophobia and sexism. Fear of the FPÖ will be a central factor in domestic politics in the coming months. FPÖ participation in government or even its leader Kickl becoming Chancellor (prime minister) are rightly frightening – but the alternatives from combinations of the other bourgeois parties are not much better. These also stand for deportations and racist policies and the exclusion of everything that is not “normal”. The attacks on democratic rights are currently not only being carried out by the far right, such as Orban or Meloni, but also by traditionally bourgeois parties and politicians, such as Macron or the CDU/CSU. In upcoming elections and protests, socialists must clearly point out the causes of the rise of right-wing extremism: the crisis of capitalism, the weakness of the workers’ movement and the lack of a workers’ party with militant policies and a socialist program. This has created a vacuum that the extreme right can fill. Any coalition without the FPÖ that essentially continues current policies (and all established parties will) will only prepare the ground for future right-wing electoral successes. Any fight against the FPÖ that remains stuck on the superficial moral and arrogant level is doomed to failure. As socialists, we support every protest by people with a migration background, trans people and women against attacks. In these protests, it is our task to show the larger context of capitalism, the responsibility of the workers’ movement and the commonalities and necessity of common struggle. In social struggles, we must emphasize the need to integrate the whole class into the struggle and thus push back all divisive influences. We must always attack all bourgeois parties centrally because of their responsibility for capitalist madness and involve the broadest possible sections of the class in the struggles against this madness.
If the FPÖ performs well in the coming Austrian elections in September – which is to be expected – it will be necessary to take up the danger posed by FPÖ participation in government in an offensive manner: The dangers to the working class as a whole through attacks on trade unions and the ‘Workers’ Chamber, on occupational health and safety, working hours and workers’ rights. And the immediate specific dangers for parts of the working class through the racist, sexist and homo/transphobic agitation of the FPÖ, which can also entail attacks on acquired rights and, in particular, can be the background to an increase in physical assaults. This threat is very real and ultimately affects all sections of the working class, as it begins with divide and rule in order to weaken and attack everyone. This is because bourgeois and right-wing forces also use attacks on individual groups quite deliberately as a diversionary manoeuvre from direct attacks on the class as a whole. The answer here cannot be either/or, but must be both/and. However, this is only possible with an uncompromisingly anti-capitalist position that recognizes the working class as the force in society that is capable of leading – and winning – the struggle against the capitalist class.
The most central task of socialists in the struggle for the rights of the working class as a whole and against discrimination against individual sections is to rebuild the working class movement itself. This means fighting in the trade unions for a class-struggle and democratic orientation. And that means the struggle to build new parties of the working class. Over the last 25 years, this construction has been far more complicated and marked by greater setbacks than hoped for. However, important lessons can be learned from the mistakes of the various left formations (Syriza, Podemos & Co.): the need for an anchoring (not just abstract orientation) in the working class and an orientation towards class struggles and not primarily towards elections are two cornerstones. The CWI’s recent article on the experience of New Left formations, the double task and new workers’ parties is a long-needed review that summarizes a number of important points: https://www.socialistworld.net/2024/03/29/tasks-and-challenges-for-the-working-class-and-revolutionary-socialists-today/
Re-organizing the working class as a central task – and building the revolutionary backbone
The building of new workers’ parties is a central task and is inextricably linked to the need to build revolutionary parties. The former will remain politically and organizationally without backbone without the latter – even if they play a militant role for a period, they will give in to the objective pressure of adaptation to capitalist necessities if they remain without revolutionary analysis and orientation. The latter need the link to the former, as the working class will also go through a phase of reformism organizationally in the development of consciousness. How exactly this process will take place depends on a number of factors. The relationship between these two tasks will also have to change again and again and there will also be individual cases where revolutionary mass parties emerge before reformist mass formations. It is clear that – precisely because the economic framework is so unstable – such new formations will not be as long-lived and stable as those of the post-war period, for example. But the task of challenging and exposing reformist or even further left centrist ideas cannot simply be skipped.
Revolutionaries today face a task similar to that at the beginning of the workers’ movement, with a confused consciousness, no mass organizations and a bourgeois-idealist ideology that is also widespread in the working class. Keeping the balance in this dual task is difficult and the focus can shift – and must be corrected again and again. In many cases, this struggle will take place between different organizations, in some cases even within one organization. It requires a great openness to fresh layers entering struggles, to sections of the class pushing forward and the desire to organize. But openness does not mean opportunism, i.e. “telling it like it is” or not losing sight of the larger goal above the immediate next steps and also speaking uncomfortable truths are absolutely necessary. A critical position that rejects seemingly easier paths can immediately put revolutionaries in a strong minority. But as processes develop and our warnings are realized, the best parts of the working class will understand our positions and political trust and anchoring will emerge.
Building a revolutionary world party has been the top priority of revolutionaries for over 200 years. It is a hard and rocky road with many setbacks. The pressure from various bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideologies, from a social and professional environment, from repression and fatigue is great. A revolutionary party is also an instrument for collectively warning individual members of these pressures and making them aware of them. If this is not done, it quickly changes the character of the entire organization and leads to a slide into opportunism or sectarianism. For a revolutionary organization, internationalism is a living necessity and means more than international solidarity. It means jointly analysing, discussing and working out the next steps on a national level, but within an international framework and also on an international level. It means taking initiatives and jointly implementing jointly developed priorities. National/regional differences must be taken into account and there can be no enforced homogeneity. However, when it comes to international developments and trends, to wars, crises and movements, there can and must be a common international response and we must all pull together.
We all have years, sometimes decades, of political work behind us. These have often been exhausting and yet we are not exhausted, but look with optimism at the new developments, the anger and commitment of young people around the world, the protests and strikes and the return of the working class as a class. We have put a lot of energy into building the ISA experiment in recent years and have gained many important experiences in working with committed and courageous fighters. However, we must also take stock of the fact that the ISA has not even begun to overcome its birth defects. While at the beginning of the ISA it was emphasized that it was about securing and reviving the best traditions of the CWI, it is now about throwing them overboard and replacing them with an idealistic new course. In recent years, we have witnessed a process in the ISA that is contrary to what we consider to be a revolutionary Marxist international. In the third year of the war in Ukraine, there are at least three different positions in the ISA. A number of sections and at least parts of the international leadership have replaced materialist analysis with emotional showmanship. ROSA, with a politically broader programme and appearance and with growing influences from an Identity Politics camp, is increasingly replacing the organization as such. The ISA as a whole began as an association without a political or programmatic basis. We were well aware of this – but it was not overcome and no offensive attempt was made to overcome it. However, because there were different objectives, this has led to numerous splits and permanent crises and will probably mean the next split in the near future. We see no prospect of turning the tide here and turning the ISA into the international that is needed. In contrast, we see continuity in the CWI but also a willingness to discuss open questions from the 2018/19 split. We would like to positively emphasize a differentiated position on the question of growing intra-imperialist contradictions, a clear position on the Ukraine war and the Middle East, a concrete orientation towards the trade unions and a clear rejection of divisive approaches to identity politics.
The danger that many valuable ISA activists will throw in the towel in frustration is great in view of the expected further splits and divisions. The ideological weaknesses of the workers’ movement and the dominance of idealistic, petty-bourgeois ideas in the left and the working class have long been underestimated. The crisis in which many left organizations found themselves and still find themselves is the price for this. We must return to a comprehensive materialist-dialectical understanding, a revolutionary world party and an orientation towards the working class in its diversity and its totality.
When the CWI split in 2018, for those of us who were part of the dispute at the time, the focus was on organizational criticism and we missed debates on some issues. Our aim at the time was not a split, but rather we hoped for a debate and correction within the CWI. Even if these points have not all been resolved, we can see that many of the CWI’s warnings at the time regarding political development and degeneration have turned out to be correct. We also see in the CWI a political clarity regarding international developments which we consider to be a necessary basis for future political work and which make it possible and necessary to lead the struggle together and not to capitulate as individuals. We invite all those who share this – admittedly brief and incomplete – analysis to get in touch with us or, like us, to seek discussion with the CWI about (re)joining.