Re: International regroupment discussion

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

Steve Painter wrote:
> The Internationalist League of Norway (Forbundet Internasjonalen i Norge --
> sympathising group of the Fourth International) has published some texts
> from a public International Socialists/British SWP bulletin in which the
> United Secretariat and the IS currrent discuss possibilities for
> international regroupment. There are articles by Alex Callinicos, Salah
> Jaber (USFI), Murray Smith (French LCR and ex Scottish Socialist Party) and
> Munyradazi Gwisai (Zimbabwe ISO). The articles are in English. Look through
> the list at
> www.fi-norge.blogspot.com

CALLINICOS:
In an authentic democratic centralist party, then, open discussion is 
encouraged, but as a means of allowing the party to intervene more 
effectively. Discussion therefore terminates in a democratically arrived-at 
decision, after which all members, whatever their views on the issue, work 
together to implement the policy that has been agreed on. What this means 
organisationally is a matter of some controversy. The practice of the 
Fourth International is normally to permit the permanent existence of 
organised tendencies within their sections. Munyaradzi Gwisai of the 
International Socialist Organisation (Zimbabwe) also defends a conception 
of the Leninist party as a multi-tendency organisation in his contribution 
to this Discussion Bulletin.

COMMENT:
Although I might quibble as usual with the infelicitous use of the word 
"intervene", my bigger problem is that Callinicos does not seem to 
recognize the way in which "democratic centralism" has tended to foster 
ideological conformity in outfits like the British SWP. For example, it is 
highly unlikely that a revolutionary party capable of seizing power in 
Great Britain will be united ideologically around a question like the class 
character of Cuba. By making such questions a litmus test and forcing party 
members to defend this ideology in public, you tend to create an 
organization that consists of true believers. It is a step forward that 
Callinicos and the ortho-Trots are having regroupment type discussions but 
I would not hold out much hope.

CALLINICOS:
The problem with permanent tendencies is that they institutionalise 
internal disagreements within the party. This often has the effect of 
turning the organisation in on itself and creating an introverted 
atmosphere in which the latest internal bulletin is a bigger event than 
developments in the class struggle. Even where this does not happen, the 
existence of permanent tendencies is likely to encourage a situation in 
which specific issues are viewed through the lens of the internal 
differences. Decisions emerge, less through the weight of the strongest 
argument, but as a result of the balance of forces between the different 
factions, a situation that can encourage coalition-building and 
unprincipled deals. Bensaïd describes such a situation at the 10th Congress 
of the FI, which met in 1974, deeply split between two international 
factions: "the logic of factionalism set the boundaries and the Congress 
resembled a diplomatic meeting of delegations rather than a collective 
discussion. The important questions were settled separately and in private".

COMMENT:
This is merely the reflection of a deeper problem. There is a built-in 
tendency toward "group think" in organizations like the British SWP that 
revolve around highly charismatic figures like Tony Cliff or James P. 
Cannon. Comrades tend to either nod their head in knowing agreement at the 
latest line resolution presented to the party convention by a Cliff, a 
Cannon or their heirs, or look to a counter-bloc that has figured 
out--rightly or wrongly--that something is wrong in that line. What seems 
to be missing is the presence of strong and independent thought such as 
that which prevailed in the Russian Social Democracy before "democratic 
centralism" of the Zinovievist type was instituted. If you study the career 
of Rosa Luxemburg, Trotsky, Preobrezhensky, Bukharin et al, you will note 
first and foremost that they tended to *THINK FOR THEMSELVES*. This 
practice does not characterize groups like the British SWP. If one did not 
know the author of a British SWP journal article, one would be hard-pressed 
to figure out whether it is Harman, Callinicos or whomever. This is what we 
used to call "team leadership" in the American SWP. It should be flushed 
down the toilet.

CALLINICOS:
A revolutionary party should seek to promote this kind of fluid, open 
debate rather than institutionalise factional differences. This conception 
of the Leninist party has important implications for how revolutionaries 
operate within the broader movement. The kind of sectarianism displayed by 
LO or the American ISO when they counterpose their organisation to the 
movement is utterly bankrupt.

COMMENT:
How unseemly to take a swipe at the American ISO in this fashion. Whatever 
is gained by reaching out to the Mandelistas is undercut by this gratuitous 
attack on people that are doing nothing except to emulate the British SWP 
in their own fashion.



~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.