Members were given an explanation of branches, the national congress, and the world congress after joining. However, many details were not spelled out unless members asked. I did not understand the function of regions until I asked. An older member explained that various regions of the organization use different systems depending on their size. I was also completely unaware of the slate system for several months. Newer members were expected to ask older members and the full timer for these details. This lack of transparency about basic structure seemed unnecessary. The IMT formalized certain rules such as the slate system, but other rules were vague or unwritten. Supposedly, this allowed for flexibility, but, in practice, it presented problems for inner party democracy. I did not fully understand the structure of the IMT as a member, but I will attempt to explain and reconstruct it as best I can.
The RCA was the US section of the IMT. It had its own bulletin, newspaper, and social media account. The IMT had several other sections across the world, but the most important one was the British Section. The IMT was founded in Britain, and the British section had the highest membership, over 1,100.$^{1}$
The RCA held a national congress every two years. I didn’t attend any congresses, so I cannot explain all the details, but I understand the basic structure. The outgoing central committee (CC) proposed a new slate of members to be chosen for the new CC. At congress, members could approve of this slate or propose alternative slates. I can’t be sure of how this worked in practice, but it seemed to create the conditions for a system of self-nomination. There was also a lack of transparency about disagreements within the CC, which could serve as a barrier preventing members from proposing alternative slates..
The CC coordinated most organizational work at the national level. It connected directly to the Editorial Board of The Communist, and it controlled the national finances, which paid full timers. Most of the CC was located in New York at the national headquarters, but the Phoenix region had a couple CC members, including our local full timer.
The highest body of the US section was the Executive Committee (EC). The EC was appointed by the CC, and it made short term decisions for the RCA. For example, the EC made decisions about the IMT’s intervention in the Palestine solidarity encampments across college campuses.
I didn’t understand how the higher bodies functioned internally, such as how the Editorial Board was chosen. The CC sent reports from their meetings to all members, but these reports only contained unified decisions and justifications for those decisions. The CC presented a united face to the membership, so disagreements were not transparent. This lack of transparency and the slate system created the conditions for bureaucracy as opposed to real, participatory, internal democracy.
As a newer member, I mainly attended branch meetings. Branch was the lowest level of the organization. In Phoenix, the IMT had between 5 and 8 branches which held weekly meetings in different places at different times. In branch, we discussed theory, current events, and planned initiatives such as paper sales and interventions at protests and strikes.
Each branch had a branch committee (BC) composed of a press officer, finance officer, and branch secretary. Press officers took newspapers and booklets to protests and tabling events. Finance officers collected money for the branch’s “fighting fund” near the end of every branch meeting. Branch secretaries discussed the overall situation of the branch. They were older, more experienced members of the organization, who brought their skills to branches.
The BC had its own meetings separate from the branch meetings. At BC meetings, the BC wrote the outline for branch meeting minutes and came up with ideas to propose during the branch. The BC also came up with both the agenda and proposals. At branch meetings, members chose to adopt the agenda and proposals or propose alternatives. I was not involved in any of these meetings. The BC does achieve necessary tasks, but it seemed unnecessary to have a completely separate meeting for this.
All branches across Phoenix were united as the Phoenix Region. It had its own office for storing press and hosting aggregate meetings. The Region had a slack for internal communication. It also had social media accounts and a full timer, who was on the CC.
The Phoenix Region had two main bodies, the Regional Committee (RC) and the Regional Executive (RE). The RC appointed experienced members on an ad hoc basis as the organization grew in size. The part of the RC which enforced decisions was the RE. It enforced CC decisions, and the rest of the RC guided new branches as the organization grew.
The RE also had the power to call aggregate meetings for the region which all members were supposed to attend. The RE called an aggregate meeting for making decisions about the Pro-Palestine encampment at ASU. A couple of RC members gave speeches, and then members could stand at the front of the meeting and raise their own proposals and concerns. At the end of the meeting, members voted and the decision of the majority was imposed on the region. I liked this meeting because members were able to participate outside of branch. This structure gave the region a degree of autonomy from the National. However, only the RE had this power, and it rarely called aggregate meetings.
All national sections were united by the International. Its functions were less transparent to members than the National, but it functioned in a somewhat similar way. The International Executive Committee (IEC) was elected at the World Congress with delegates from each section. As far as I know, this body was proposed as a slate by the outgoing IEC. The IEC appointed the International Secretariat (IS) to make quick decisions for the International. Despite the confusing names, the IEC was analogous to the CC, and the IS was analogous to the EC.
The British Section of the International seemed to have the most influence. The British experience of AYAC was spread across all sections of the IMT. The theoretical journal, In Defense of Marxism, was written and published in Britain and spread across the International.