US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC :
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | View comments | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News ::
ISO Hijacks San Francisco AND Boston Campus Anti-War Conferences
14 Nov 2001
Modified: 18 Nov 2001
Last weekend, the International Socialist Organization (ISO) co-opted not only the Boston Campus Anti-War Conference, but the Anti-War Conference on the west coast as well.
As submitted to a local organizers list:


As many of you may have already heard, the Boston Campus Anti-War Coallition (BCAWC) Conference was hijacked by the ISO last weekend. In response, I'm compiling a packet to distribute to the BCAWC on the ISO and "Why Authoritarian Vanguardist Groups Demand and Assert Hierarchy Within Coalitions"

I began constructing this packet yesterday, mostly from info available at's "What you should know about the ISO" and testimony from delegates to the conference.

Today I found out that an IDENTICAL co-opt had been pulled at the San Francisco conference. For more info, please check out, San Francisco.

In any case, the BCAWC, for all its short-comings, is pretty aware of what happened/what the local ISOers are trying to pull here. Nato and a few others on this list can probably give more details on what happened here in Boston this weekend. We called them to task on their tactics and threw a wrench into their plans when Nato voiced a grievance demanding adequate discussion of a prior resolution establishing the group as non-partisan and non-hierarchical and it split the room just about 50/50 between supporters of the resolution, and ISOers. This led to the complete breakdown of the conference, although the ISO continued to pass resolutions and plans of actions after dissenters broke off to discuss "what to do next". People are generally unsure where to go from here - whether to splinter, boycott the next conference the ISOers rammed through (in their homebase, Chicago), or what.

So, below is a letter I plan to include in the packet I am assembling of articles from, Retrogression Magazine, and testimony from the Boston, San Francisco and Chicago (which seems to have been co-opted as well) conferences.

Just a heads up that this is going on. The good news is there is a STRONG, in fact, overwhelming anti-hierarchical sentiment in the Boston Campus Anti-War Coallition, but more help/advise is definitely needed. Meetings are 5:00pm, Sundays, at the Emerson Student Union, 96 Beacon Street, intersection of Beacon and Arlington Street. All are invited to the meeting, especially if you're a sincere activist or anarchist working at a campus, taking classes on a campus, or doing any sort of organizing on a campus.

Jeff H.

November 12, 2001
Dear friends,

The effective co-opt of a coalition, systematic disenfranchisement of dissenters and consolidation of authority (which should not exist within an anti-war coalition in the first place) into the hands of partisan committees and simple majorities which we witnessed at the Northeast Regional Conference Against War and Racism during the delegates meeting, November 11th, mirrors the war we are opposing because it is not an isolated incident, but part of a cycle.

Our criticism of the International Socialist Organization and their deliberate hijacking of the conference need not suffocate within the whispers of the disenfranchised.

Both the anti-war and anti-globalization movements are evolving in ways conducive to full democratic representation of all voices, including those of the minority, through means such as consensual democracy and modified consensus that authoritarian leftists groups like the ISO have always opposed, and will continue to oppose according to their Party Lines, despite the fact that the majority rules decision-making model has become obsolete within modern global justice activism.

We must examine the ends embraced by authoritative vanguardist party groups and understand that "party-building" and gaining a foothold of power for their party within activist coalitions systematically supersedes their concern for the group's productivity and democratic viability as a whole.

This is why they insist on a hierarchical and partisan coalition. They want, for their party, positions of authority within a pecking-order of committees and executive structure. The non-authoritarian working groups that were used to organize the Northeast Regional Conference Against War and Racism, and much of the social justice direct action we have witnessed since the WTO protests in Seattle, have been highly effective and democratic. There is no need for authority or exclusion in the anti-war movement. Yes, the anti-war movement needs leadership, as contributed by everyone in their own unique ways, but it does not need leaders with authority to make resolutions, policies and plans of action that do not have the full consent of the group they "represent".

If twenty some odd ISO party members ganging up on three non-party delegates and bringing them to tears in an informal meeting regarding conference protocol is not coercive, opportunistic and divisive, I don't know what is. If ISO party members blatantly lying to the general assembly about how many party members and sympathizers were present isn't deceitful and coercive, I don't know what is. If the ISO regional pay-rolled supervisors presence and consistent conferring with ISO delegates who were supposed to be acting as representatives of their campus is not a sign of an ulterior party agenda, I know not what is.

ISO members fool themselves into thinking that 51% of a body has a legitimate right to undermine the voices of 49% of a body for the sake of efficiency because that sort of mentality is inherent within their vanguardist organization where dissenters are expected to tow and preach the party line, "until it is changed."

They call this opportunistic acquisition of power-by-majority tactic, "building the socialist alternative," so they can move forward with agendas through broader coalitions without the mandate of the individual members of that coalition.

Of course, by beating back dissent they usually turn enough people away from the task at hand that there isn't much opposition left for them to reckon with, and they subsequently establish a front group that speaks not for a wide range of students, or minorities, or workers, or whatever the case may be, but a highly centralized ISO puppet group that lacks legitimacy in numbers and purpose as people do not care to partake in a process which they have been ostracized from by majority-rules bully tactics, stacked-deck facilitation or partisan "group" objectives.

Again, the ISO co-opt of the Northeast Conference against War and Racism is not an isolated incident, but a recurring pattern within the "left" instigated by authoritarian party groups who muscle their own desire for positions within a hierarchy above the values of democracy, freedom of association and the pressing need to cultivate an activist unity that is based on cooperation and equality, rather than competition, coercion and the twisting of arms.

These archaic tactics of manipulation had no place at the conference and have no place in the future of the anti-war movement. This is not meant as a letter debating the pros and cons of democratic consensus versus majority rules, as there remains no legitimate justification for having opened the conference with that debate in the first place.

This packet was assembled to share the idea that what happened November 11th was not an isolated incident but part of a cycle of authoritarian vanguardist parties defusing the effectiveness of groups and coalitions that should be inherently non-partisan and united by inclusive decision-making, rather than crushed by backwards centralist domination and partisan competition for authority over other members of the group.

How ironic that after hijacking the conference, the ISO proceeded to steer the process to an end that did not inspire or unify, but rather one that crashed and burned against a wall of partisanship.

Power to the people, NOT the party.
Jeff Hall
Add a quick comment
Your name Your email


Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.


It's a shame...
14 Nov 2001
You know, as a minor member of BCAWC I watched this whole thing happen with my own view. I'm new to Boston, and new to organizing.

It was very sad for me to watch this happen. In BCAWC it seems we've managed to keep things working pretty smoothly, without any one group taking too much control. However, it's interesting to point out that the one person _I_remember_ suggesting that we have this conference to coincide with the conference in Berkeley is an ISO member. This makes me wonder if our whole BCAWC group was unknowingly high-jacked into organizing this conference for the ISO so that it wouldn't look so obvious when they did what it appears they have done.

Oh my my!!!

So we go into the review phase to look at how we (BCAWC) can go on as a non-exclusive group and still keep ISO members in check (as in, preventing them from taking control again). Just like they used our group to help organize something for them, we need to learn how to use their organizing skills/energy to help organize things _with_ us (without taking control of our group).

On another note: I think meetings actually start at 5:30
Anti-ISO propaganda
15 Nov 2001
Why dont you get the facts straight before you start spouting anti ISO propaganda just to strengthen your own cause. There were over 110 delagates in the Boston conference, and only about 16 were ISO members, and not all ISO members even voted the same, I watched.

Why dot you talk baout how the Anarchists tried pushing their own agenda very hypocritically. They wanted a resolution that said the conference was non-partisan and non-hierarchial, which to me seems one sided. How can the group be non-partisan and non-hierarchial. Anarchy is all baout no hierarchy, so why did they plan on pushing their own agenda in a statement that should have been completely neutral?

Isnt the point of journalism to give the truths and not a slanted view of what happened?
18 Nov 2001
"Authoritarians and anti-authoritarians have nothing in common!"

The above statement should be self-evident. The fact that so many of find this a difficult problem to analyse, is indicative of

What we are fundamentally fighting is centralized power. Were capitalism overthrown tomorrow, we would still go on fighting whatever centralized power might have sprung up from the detritus. Capitalism is the currently dominant form of centralized power, and we thus properly attack it most strongly. However, the ISO, the WWP, the CP, the RCP, etc., etc. ad nauseam - who are explicitly anti-capitalist - also seek centralized power. In fact, they actively seek to replace the plutocratic and military power of the capitalists with their own bureaucratic and military power. All too often, though, we have fallen to the "enemy of my enemy" fallacy and wrongfully believed that these authoritarians are our friends. This mistake has cost us dearly. In every case where the vanguardist authoritarians have achieved supremacy, their first act has been to consolidate their power through the massacre of all dissidents. If we are able to actually achieve revolutionary momentum and are surrounded by these bastards, wrongly identified as our "friends", then we will again be butchered in the streets.

I also tire of this talk of "sectarianism". In light of the history of revolutionary movements through hundreds of years and throughout the whole of the globe, to believe that these specific authoritarians would soemhow deviate from the pattern of behavior that has been followed in EVERY other historical instance is not "non-sectarian", it is frankly insane, as it involves "doing the same old damned thing and expecting different results".

For a world without bosses!

Frank Little