USFI SPLIT: THE FORM A letter from the IMG

Scan page 8

• AND THE CONTENT USFI's 'no-go' area for Bolshevik Faction FSLN leaders uncritically supported by USFI London November 28 Dear Comrades, • Please find enclosed our reply to your article in Socialist Press on the split in the Fourth International. We hope that this can be published as soon as possible in order that the record can be put straight on questions which you evidently had inadequate information about when you published your article.

Comradely greetings Phil Hearse The article published in Socialist Press (14.11.79)

contains allegations against the Fourth International and members of its. British section, the IMG, which are quite untrue.

We protest, in the strongest possible terms against the publication of what amount to crude falsifications in this article.

First, you state that members of the Leninist Trotskyist Tendency were "bureaucratically expelled" from the International and that the Bolshevik WE REPLY:

It certainly appears to be the case that there were some factual inaccuracies in our article in SP 175, for which we apologise.

The decisive events in pressing through the split in reality took place at the October 1 meeting of the United Secretariat, in which a series of truly horrific political positions were adopted as policy by the USFI majority, against the opposition of the Bolshevik Faction (led by Nahuel Moreno) and the Leninist Trotskyist Tendency.

overturning the inadequate. but comparatively «orthodox» Faction "pointed to the expul sions from the USFI as unmistakeable evidence that the majority would not allow a democratic world congress"

The fact of the matter is that the expulsions from the French section of leaders of the LTT and the Bolshevik Faction took place only after these people had signed a public appeal together with the OCRFI for a conference to "re-organise" the world Trotskyist movement.

This action, taken after the comrades had disloyally attended a meeting of the "international bureau" of the OCRFI, was quite incompatible with continued membership of the International and its French section.

How is it possible to consider as loyal members of the International people who sign a public appeal together with an opponent organisation aimed at attacking and splitting the International, and who refuse to rescind this action in front of the Congress of the French section?

Would the WSL, for example tolerate in its ranks members who signed a public appeal against the wishes of the WSL resolution on Nicaragua passed by the USFI on July 4, the Secretariat made it unmistakeably clear that it opposed the building of a Trotskyist party or even a Trotskyist faction within the petty bourgeois FSLN in Nicaragua, declaring instead that "By explaining its prog ramme and ideas the Fourth International [USFI] places itself firmly on the side of the FSLN's battle to ensure the victory of the socialist revolution. " (emphasis added).

Indeed the USFI also declared itself opposed to the agitational demand for the removal of the capitalist ministers from the Nicaraguan Government of National Reconstruction:

"To focus political intervenleadership attacking the WSL and calling for a conference to reorganise the British Trotskyist movement because the WSL was "dead"?

Would you consider that a loyal act? Would you tolerate such people in your organisation? Obviously not.

Then how can you attack the leadership of the French section for defending the elementary norms of democratic centralist functioning? What is "bureaucratic"" about that?

Second, you argue that cde John strawson, a leading member of the LTT in Britain carried out an "eleventh hour climb down" which prevented "mass expulsions" from the IMG.

This too is a crude falsification. John Strawson did not "climb down" on his political positions; he defends identical positions today as he did before the split.

What he did do was refuse to go along with the splitting act of the French LTT and Bolshevik Faction leaderships, and oppose their flagrant breach of national and international democratic centralism.

CO EL SALVADOR No r Nadu " her wher Pacific Ocean tion today on the slogan "all bourgeois ministers out of the government!" would likewise succumb to the sectarian temptation of applying an abstract schema."

The USFI went on expressly to declare its support for the bourgeois GNR and its faith in its ability to carry through the necessary policies.

Not content with political support for a bourgeois government, the sane meeting of the USec went on to supportalbeit with formal reservationsthe FSLN's expulsion of the Simon Bolivar Brigade.

The Brigade had been organised by the Bolshevik Faction, and was accused by the FSLN of organising trade unions and calling for independent workers militias.

The USee position in effect echoed the statement which had been handed by a USFI delegation to FSLN leaders in Managua on September 3, which declared:

"All activities which seek today to create divisions between the mobilised masses and the FSLN are contrary to the interests of the revolution.. the FSLN was right to demand that the non-Nicaraguan: members of this group-which Comrade Strawson pointed out, correctly in our view, that the differences over Nicaragua were not differences of a fundamental programmatic nature.

To be sure, turning a sectarian face against the Nicaraguan revolution poses big dangers of being drawn behind pro-imperialist forces.

But the political line actually defended by the Bolshevik Faction amounted to an ultraleft sectarian position, not fundamental programmatic breaks with Trotskyism-whatever the future course of those comrades who have separated from the FI.

Therefore the split is an unprincipled split, which flows from incorrect positions on the programmatic basis of the unity of the party.

•As the World Congress.

showeo, the LT was able to detend its positions. This gives the lie to the accusations that the leadership of the Fl is a "rotten bloc"

The Fourth International is the only democratic centralist International where differences can be discussed out, including between components of the majority leadership.

Caribbean Sea at so bet me lel u Managua COSTA RICA defined itself above all as a military organisation-leave the country."

The October 1 USec meeting also went on to instruct Trotskyists in Nicaragua to "cease all activity", , liquidate their organisation and to act:

which led the overthrow of Somoza and., leads this revolution [the FSLN]. : . to defend the fundamental ideas of revolutionary Marxism."

It threw out a resolution from the LTT, which condemned both the USFI's failure to attack the Nicaraguan bourgeois junta, and the grovelling endorsement by the Amerirenece.

And, in another resolution, the USec specifically raised the threat of expulsion against the Bolshevik Faction should it refuse "immediately" to implement these liquidationist policies.

Repeating its condemnation of the Simon Bolivar Brigade, the USec's resolution on this issue laid down the ultimatum:

"The members of the BF and the organisations they lead must immediately halt any This brings up the col iference being organised by the OCRFI, the LTT. and the Bolshevik Faction.

This conference has no political basis of agreement. The only thing which brings these forces together even for a conference is. hostility to the USFI and a desire to split up and destroy the Fourth International.

• Since there is not the slightest possibility of this conference setting up a new organisation, it represents not an attempt to "reorganise" or "reconstruct" the Fourth International but a simple retreat into "national Frotskyism"

How is it possible to "reconstruct" the Fourth International by attending a conference which is simply a cynical manoeuvre, an unprincipled conbination with no future? What construction of the Fourth International is taking place outside the ranks of: the Fourth International itself?

We have seen a number of conferences of "all those adhering to Trotskyism" before, organised by Lutte Ouvriere.

They always finish with no activity in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras except for that decided upon by the leading bodies of the Fourth International. They must place themselves under the discipline of the United Secre tariat." (emph. added)

It was in the wake of these decisions by the USFI that Moreno, speaking both for the BF and the LTT, made a statement-at that same October 1 meeting-denouncing the liquidationist policies of the majonty, and the aumpt to use the facade of "democratic centralism" in order to impose them upon militants of the USFI, arguing that:

"Trotskyist militants can under no • circumstances abandon the fight for class political independence against petty bourgeois currents which, like the FSLN, practise collaboration with the bourgeoisie, or give political support to a bourgeois government of any sort.

"Under no circumstances is there justification for abandoning the absolute imperative to build, in whatever tactical way, a section of the Fourth "Democratic centralism can find its political content only in the building of the Fourth International in every country, and cannot give political authority to administrative measures tending to the pure and simple destruction of political positions and positions gained in struggle which constitute gains of the battle for the Fourth International."

In our view such a political stand-for all our differences with Moreno's positions on a host of other issues in the near and more distant past-is a legitimate one.

Public factions

In particular it is worth noting that while the IMG and the USFI now rather incongrously beat the drum for democratic centralism, the USFI for years tolerated a situation in which contending public factions (the Mandelite International Majority Tendency and the pro-SWP Leninist Trotskyist Faction) argued and fought for opposing policies in the class common resolutions, no agreement on action. This new conference, like those organised by LO, is merely a smokescreen:

for those who want not an International, but a situation where they maintain absolute freedom from international constraints in their own country, "national Trotskyism" pure and simple.

The expulsions and split in the Fourth International were in fact provoked by grave breaches of democratic centralism.

For us, the building of an international democratic centralist organisation is a fundamental . point of the Trotskyist programme.

Is this not also a fundamental plank of the WSL's programme?

And if so, how can you possibly continue to give public support to an operation:

precisely aimed at not forming an international organisation and designed as an alternative to doing so?

In this light we urge you to withdraw your public support for this conference. struggle, sold rival newspapers, and recruited to mutually antagonistic, competing organisations-each of which claimed adherence to the USFI!

The new-found and touching respect for democratic centralism-for all cde. Hearses's rhetoric-has nothing whatever to do with Leninism, and everything to do with imposition of a reactionary and liquidationist political line on dissenting USFI militants.

There seems little doubt from subsequent information that, with regard to the form of events cde Hearse is correct.

The expulsions from the USFI took place within the letter of democratic centralism, and only after they had signed a joint declaration with the OCRFI.

But in reality, the refusal of the USFI to postpone the XIth Congress to allow a discussion on the Nicaraguan events. the expulsion threats-raised. less than a month before the Congress-and the attempts to forcibly liquidate Trotskyist forces in Nicaragua into the FSLN, amounted to bureaucratic and organisational measures to suppress discussion and force through a revisionist policy.

Starting point Nor do we agree that the issues at stake were "not diffe rences of a fundamental programmatic nature."

For us the struggle for independent Trotskyist parties is the very starting point of the Marxist programme, and the defence of the political independence of the working class a central issue of principle.

It is completely disingenuous of cde. Hearse to attempt to turn the tables and argue that the "sectarian" positions of the BF did not amount to a fundamental break with Trotskyism.

He knows that the issue at stake throughout has been the rank opportunist capitulation of the USFI majority to the FSLN leaders, which does, in our view, amount to a Class betrayal.

As for the political line subsequently argued by John Strawson within the IMG, Or by the remnants of the LTT

Scan page 9

The role of police it to beat up Mods-and cde. Tickell they. do! They don't appear as a joke' in the film although obviously not strength).

In fact to a communist the question must be the inability of spontaneous, (un)conscious movements

----- pull-quotes -----

MEXICO BELIZE

"as loyal militants in the framework of the organisation

can SWP of Castro's speech to the Havana non-aligned confe-