Faction Perspectives
IMG and Socialist League pamphlets and documents1980sAndreTranscribed or corrected by hand from the printed page.
FACTION PERSPECTIVES
It is now time to draw together in a coherent perspective the lessons of the last year of factional struggle. Since the [ORGANISATION] conference it has become increasingly clear that the members of our faction face an insuperable contradication in their political work: namely that while we have progressively withdrawn from active involvement in the work and perspectives of the [ORGANISATION] leadership, we have not yet provided an alternative framework through the activity of the faction. The result is that many comrades find themselves in limbo. Part of this is a result of the summer, and indeed a natural and not altogether unhealthy pausing for breath after the [ORGANISATION] conference. Now we have to go forward, otherwise demoralisation will set in.
Much of what is said here has already been agreed, explicitly or implicitly. But given the organisational conclusions which flow, it is necessary for us to codify some of our *provisional* conclusions
1. The [blank] leadership
The basic fact about the [ORGANISATION] leadership is the growing ascendency, both organisationally and politically, of the pro-SWP (US) faction. Our characterisation of this faction is that it is *revisionist* and evolving in the direction of some crypto-Stalinist positions. especially in relation to the colonial revolution and attitude towards the workers states. While these programmatic revisions render it incapable of defending the revolutionary marxist programme, and hence of intervening effectively to construct a revolutionary international, this faction has thorougly wrong positions on the construction of the revolutionary party in Britain which render any organisation led by it incapable of intervening to link up with the recomposition of the left wing of the workers movement. However, we should not conclude from this that it will be a leadership incapable of 'party building' in the most narrow sense: indeed, in this period even the Healyites are going through a period of growth, but on the basis of thoroughly sectarian and frontist politics, but utilising narrow party-building 'stunts'.
The [JONES] grouping we characterise as an unprincipled clique, utilising degenerate organisational practices, and in a process of political and programmatic collapse. There is a real possibility that sections of [JONES]'s supporters will be won hook, line and sinker by the politics of the SWP. There is a growing political convergence between [JONES] and the [CLYNES]ites.
The result of the [ORGANISATION] conference means that it is not now possible to jointly defend the Trotskyist programme in a joint intervention with the leadership currents of the [ORGANISATION]. Indeed the growing dominance of the 'Pathfinder International' means that the anti-Trotskyist and non-Trotskyist politics of the SWP will be taken into the class struggle. Moreover, the result of the conference sounded the death knell for the youth organisation and for [the paper] as a useable paper for revolutionary marxists (it had been in the intensive care unit for some time).
The consequence of these developments is that the defence of the existing Trotskyist cadre, those committed to the defence of the democratic, internationalist and anti-Stalinist traditions of the [ORG'N] and the [WORLD ORG'N], assumes first priority. Our assessment is that this can no longer be best achieved through a long drawn out faction fight inside the [ORG'N]; that the defence of the Marxist[?] [line cut off at foot of page: illegible]
programme must now assume a public form[?]; that[?] we must fight to win new adherents to our programme.
2. How we define our faction
Our faction is in the process of becoming a public faction of the British section of the Fourth International. We set ourselves the task of the 'political regeneration and organisational reconstruction' of the British section of the Fourth International. More generally and less pompously, our task is to rearm the healthy elements of the far left in this country, to try to regroup the scattered adherents of revolutionary Marxism around both our programme and entry project.
We define ourselves as a public faction, rather than a new organisation, because the party we continue to belong to and politically defend is the *Fourth International* and because we are continuing the task of constructing its British section.
We should maintain this attitude irrespective of any random thoughts on the matter that might be put forward by the [ORG'N] or FI leadership. So long as the Ross-Grogan rump remains part of the FI, there are two public factions of the FI in Britain.
But we should avoid any ambiguity about the practical significance of a public faction. It amounts to a *split*. We function as a separate organisation, and fight to recruit people to our faction as opposed to the Ross-Grogan rump.
Immediately, the significance of this is that the discipline which binds us is the discipline of the faction and not that of the [ORG'N]; we pay dues to the faction and not the [ORG'N]; *the press we support is that of the FI and F1, not that of the [ORG'N]*. Any intervention into the branch meetings and leadership meetings of the [ORG'N] is entirely subordinate to our own meetings and our own discipline. The exact event which will signify the split is hard to define: probably it will be the production of our journal. But we should be absolutely clear: we are not an extremely ill-disciplined *internal* faction , but from an organisational point of view a new and separate organisation. It is conceivable that even the production of a journal will not lead to our immediate expulsion. In this situation do we *want* to remain within the structures of the [ORG'N] as long as possible, producing our own journal and organising our own intervention ? Despite the periodic advantages of being able to [speak] at this or that [ORG'N] meeting, essentially the answer must be 'no'. Such a situation would disorganise us from the point of view of getting our own forces and apparatus organised. In any event, if we aren't paying dues, selling the paper, regularly attending meetings and are moreover producing our own journal and aiding the production of 'Youth Fightback', our explusion must only be a matter of time.
Are there further gains to be made in the [ORG'N] ?
The [ORG'N] today must be the most completely factionalised organisation of the Fourth International, in the sense that virtually everyone adheres to one or other faction. Moreover, the divisions are hardening and crystallising all the time. Our assessment should be that there are few, if any, further gains to be made from the Ross base. There is another factor to be taken into account. If we were to adopt the stance of staying to maximise every concievable gain inside the [ORG'N], we would run the risk of losing the momentum, and some of the [line cut off at foot of page: illegible]
comrades an alternative framework for their activity.
The most urgent questions of potential SL[?] gains to be considered are:
a) relations with TD and TY
b) the outside chance that we might win the youth conference.
TD has no options: indeed in reality they have already made their choice, and this was publicly signalled by the Roberts' speech at the [ORG'N] conference. In the divide they are going to come with us, even if some of them don't realise it yet. Our attitude towards them is that we are for fusion with them, but on the basis of our perspectives.
TY on the other hand has announced its intention of implementing the perspectives of the [ORG'N] conference. [Their] stand-off attitude to us is *political*. It reflects the fact that they are much further from us politically than TD. On the other hand, on questions of internal democracy etc they are closer to us than Ross-Grogan. Our only hope can be to attempt to split these forces, to demand that they come with us in defence of the Trotskyist programme, internationalism and *internal democracy*.
Winning the youth conference would be a useful propaganda victory. But we are not in a position to lead a united youth organisation when the [ORG'N] has split - it would be an untenable situation, and indeed in some ways the split is already more advanced in the youth organisation than in the [ORG'N]. Eveh us appropriating the name 'Revolution Youth' would be of little significance, since our small faction will not have its own youth organisation, but rather a *youth fraction* to organise the intervention in the LPYS,YCND etc.
Our general conclusion must be that, yes, there are further gains to be made from the [ORG'N], but these do not require any modification of our move towards a public faction, and indeed are likely to be speeded up as the split approaches.
4. What are our crucial tasks ?
It follows from whate we have said above that we have to assemble the infrastructure of an organisation intervening separately in the class struggle. This must include:
1) the rapid publication of the journal
2) an office and technical facilities and equipment
3) a stable financial base and a development 'fighting fund'.
4) a functioning system of leadership and division of labour.
These have already been much discussed and I will not rehearse the different proposals here. The most important proposal from the point of view of the system of leadership is that of having a 'PC' - an elected, smallish body meeting on a weekly basis between full steering committees.
While all these preparations ar crucial, we must not be diverted from establishing the minimum political requisites for independent functioning. *These must* include:
a) Political discussion of areas where there are/potentially are outstanding political differences. These must include Central America/New leaderships - this is vital in relation to collective functioning vis-a-vis the [ORG'N]. We should also note that we have virtually no positions whatever on any international [line cut off at foot of page: illegible]
comrades agreed during the world congress debate. But given the direction taken by the FI leadership at the world congress, the 'Sandinista turn', this is going to hit us unless we adopt clear positions. Incidentally, we should not be afraid of having minority positions inside the faction on some of these things; we are not a monolothic sect.
More work has to be done on British perspectives, assessment of the latest stage of the class struggle etc. Some of this will be done around work on the journal. If we have a major national faction conference in the Spring, we would have to draw up perspectives, which could focus this discussion.
b) We should adopt, provisionally, a constitution or norms document.
c) We have to discuss our fields of work and draw up priorities. Do all our members function in the LP/LPYS - in my view they should, but I don't think they all do. Do we intervene in CND ? What CA solidarity work can we do ? What trade union fractions/ working groups can we or should we establish ?
d) We have to decide what branch structure to adopt. Where can we have viable branches, working groups ? How many in London ?
e) We must try to establish recruitment/education forums. I think in London we could establish a weekly or fortnightly political discussion forum, open to members and contacts, which would serve both the purpose of helping our own education and winning recruits.
f) We should try to get more information to cdes in the faction on the debates inside the FI, situation in the different minorities in the USA, situation in the French section, manoeuvres of the international leadership towards the American SWP etc.
Conclusion
The overall proposal of this paper is the recongnition than [sic] in the next period we shall be functioning as an independent organisation. Given our size, and our status as a public faction, it would be illusory to imagine that we can operate like a 'mini-[ORG'N]', [with] 73 fields of work, a weekly paper, a hectic pace of activity in the class struggle.
Our first and foremost priority is the public defence of the programme and *recruitment*. While this means a stable framework for activity in the class struggle, especially in the LP and LPYS, it also means that we are going to have much more of the profile of a *propaganda group*. Before we can engage in any discussions or manoeuvres with any other grouping (like the SG) we have to go through a period of building ourselves. This is why I have put some priority on educational forums, contacts classes etc. If we concieve of ourselves as working through Briefing/Youth Fighback plus sales of our journal, without the necessary infrastructure for recruitment ,we will soon stagnate.
Once we are public, the preparations for the 'first national conference' in the Spring must assume some importance. I would propose an agenda of 1) British perspectives 2) International perspectives 3) Womens Liberation and the Struggle [illegible: lower half of line cut off at foot of page] possible[?] a session on situation in the FI.