DOCUMENT
Building the
International Unless action is reduced to sterile activism (which cannot last for very long), any revolutionary organisations must have a strategic conception of the struggle it is waging for the creation of socialism. As we will see, this strategy only has sense if, from the outset, it is in the context of the international class struggle. Whether we like it or not, the internationalist point of view is not a luxury that is acquired once the revolutionary struggle has passed a certain threshold. It is a condition of its historical development. (Of course this does not mean that it is the condition for the outbreak of struggles; the internationalist point of view is not an immediate factor.)
Internationalism is not simply an attitude of mind which makes it possible to produce the best analyses; it is not only the internationalist point of view. It is Marxists' understanding, that is the expression in practical terms, of the objective interaction of the different sectors of the world revolution. Obviously there is no conception of proletarian internationalism 'as such'. They are all attached to the main currents of the workers' movement.
We admit therefore straightaway that we are incapable of producing an 'objective' analysis of proletarian internationalism in order to then arrive 'naturally' at the conclusion that we must affiliate to the Fourth International. In a certain sense, many of the conclusions will be present in our arguments: we will develop the Trotskyist conception of proletarian internationalsim and its active implications. In other words, we are not afraid of having 'preconceptions'. This is a condition of any scientific approach. The question is not to know whether they exist but whether they are correct or not, not in abstract logic but in historical proof.
The objective of this text is limited: it is to demonstrate the present function of the International as an indispensible tool for building a 'mass' revolutionary International... We have deliberately limited ourselves to the organisational aspect (in the broad sense of the term) of the question
As we are good materialists, we are profoundly convinced that the forms of organisation (the ways in which people co-ordinate their activity for a particular goal) are very closely linked to the objective conditions in
But Leninism teaches us that people are not passive in the historical process; a particular situation often has several 'possibles' as is the case of a revolutionary crisis; therefore, within certain objectively fixed limits,
In sum, the sole aim of this text is to study the theoretical and organisational implications which flow from this fundamental idea. This text therefore only illustrates one single idea which is far from being original:
it is that, including from the point of view of the organisation, in the end
For us, the objective basis of proletarian internationalism is the existence
Marxism takes its point of departure from world economy, not as a sum of national parts but as a mighty and independent reality which has been created by the international division of labour and the world market, and which in our epoch imperiously dominates the national markets. The productive forces of capitalist society have long outgrown the na-
It is false that the world economy is simply a sum of national parts of one and the same type. It is false that the specific features are 'merely supplementary to the general features', like warts on a face. In reality, the national features represent an original combination of the basic features of the world process. This originality can be of decisive significance for revolutionary strategy over a span of many years. Suffice it to recall that the proletariat of a backward country has come to power many years before the proletariat of the advanced countries. This historic lesson alone shows that in spite of Stalin, it is absolutely wrong to base the activities of the Communist Parties on some "general
, that is, on an abstract type of national capitalism. It is utterly false to contend that 'this is what the internationalism of the Communist parties rests upon'. In reality it rests on the insolvency of the national state, which has long outlived itself and which has turned into a brake upon the development of the productive forces. National capitalism cannot be even understood, let alone reconstructed, except as part of world economy.
The economic peculiarities of different countries are in no way of a subordinate character. It is enough to compare England and India, the United States and Brazil. But the specific features of national economy, no matter how great, enter as component parts and in increasing measure into the higher reality which is called world economy and on which alone, in the last analysis, the internationalism of the Communist parties rests.
If we take Britain and India as polarised varieties of the capitalist type, then we are
84 International Marxist Review of the International.
which they operate.
'it is existence which determines consciousness'
Proletarian internationalism of the world market.
tional boundaries. (...)
features'.
(...)
the question of organisation is completely determinant.
obliged to say that the internationalism of the British and Indian proletariats does not at all rest on an identity of conditions, tasks and methods, but on their indivisable interdependence. Successes for the liberation movement in India presuppose a revolutionary movement in Britain and vice versa. Neither in India, nor in England is it possible to build an independent socialist society. Both of them will have to enter as parts into a higher whole. Upon this and only upon this rests the unshakeable foundation of Marxist internationalism. (Trotsky 'Preface to the German Edition of the The Permanent Revolution 1930, published in The Permanent Revolution, 1974, Pathfinder Press, New York).
For revolutionary Marxists, it is not therefore in any fashion denying the autonomy and the specificity of the 'national' class struggle; it is a question of understanding the ins and outs, and the limits.
Two new factors have arisen since the time Trotsky wrote these lines:
the extreme centralisation by US imperialism of the counter-revolutionary struggle, and the anti-bureaucratic revolution in the workers' states.
While inter-imperialist contradictions have not disappeared (for example the international monetary crisis) it is now not very probable that they would provoke world wars of the 1914-18 or 1939-45 type. Faced with the relevance of the proletarian revolution on a world scale, the capitalist world now has an 'international gendarme': the United States. This is obviously not a decision made democratically by the different bourgeoisies but it corresponds to the exceptional penetration of the interests of US
American imperialism has understood the significance of the 'permanent revolution' (thanks mainly to the Cuban experience), it knows that in the present conditions of imperialism any revolutionary movement of any size
We should thus be persuaded that, whatever the local economic interests, US imperialism will intervene with all the violence possible. Latin
America is perhaps the best example: this means to wager in the short term on the success of a second Cuba (for example in Bolivia where the national situation is 'more than revolutionary') is utopian. It would be irresponsible, indeed criminal, to wait for the 'practice' of the masses to prove it.
In practice, and, without wanting to go in for 'world-wide Blanquism', the task for Latin Americans is to prepare the conditions for prolonged con-
In the workers' states internationalism is expressed at two levels:
• The objective solidarity which links the Russian, Czech, Slovene, workers and intelligentsia is obvious. Intervening in
Czechoslovakia in a militarily crushing way 'in the name of the socialist
', the USSR has given an international dimension to the anti-bureaucratic revolution. The revolutionaries of these countries understand that the Soviets will not leave Czechoslovakia simply under the pressure of Czech masses, but only if they have to be called into other countries at the same time (including the Soviet Union). From this point of view, the co-ordination of the anti-bureaucratic struggles is not in the least an abstract perspective, it is on the contrary a necessary condition for capitalism in different regions of the world.
poses objectively the question of socialism.
tinental civil war.
Polish etc camp as a whole'
Building the International 85
86 International Marxist Review the development of any national movement that is in the least responsible. • The second point concerns the relations which exist between the anti-bureaucratic struggle and the anti-capitalist struggle. While for us it is easy to understand that any anti-capitalist struggle which is not also an antibureacratic struggle is doomed to failure (if only because the main support for present bourgeois ideology is the revulsion for Stalinism) the inverse is absolutely the case. The bureaucracy is not very worried about simply 'anti-bureaucratic' attacks in the name of general freedom. The example of what happened in Poland is interesting from this point of view. A few years ago, a small group broke with Modezelewski and Kuron on the theme 'of realism'. . What they said was :' Anti-capitalism and Marxism are very important things. This being so, let's start from the real forces which exist in Poland and which are opposed to the bureaucracy. They cannot understand the significance of the anti-imperialist struggle and even the word "Marxism" horrifies then (how could it do anything else?); therefore, let's forget for the time being what divides us (references to Marxism) and unite all good Poles against the bureaucracy.'
In practice, this meant attempts at unprincipled alliances with reactionary clerical forces (which was easy to foresee) and, even as realism, it was a failure. The Polish bureaucracy was absolutely capable, if necessary, of making compromises that were much more advantageous for these reactionary forces.
On the other hand, this same bureaucracy was completley disarmed faced with Marxist criticism, it could only resort to armed repression. But it is not simply through their 'practice' that the masses in the workers' states can acquire a clear consciousness of the need for a struggle against capitalism and imperialism. The existence of clearly anti-bureaucratic revolutionary currents in the capitalist countries, and an organic link when possible, is a factor of capital importance in their coming to maturity. In conclusion, we should see that what the results from the general conception that we have of proletarian internationalism, taking into account the fact that the proletarian revolution on a world scale has followed a lot less direct path than Marx or Lenin would have thought, can be summed up as follows: to understand the revolutionary reality of today is to understand the reciprocal (dialectical) relationships which exist objectively between the anti-capitalist revolution, the colonial revolution and the political (anti-bureaucratic) revolution; the consciousness which the masses can have at any given moment if far from being irrelevant, but it is only an aspect of this analysis. For a mass revolutionary International Nobody denies the necessity of a mass revolutionary International which alone would be capable of translating into action Che's slogan, 'create
one, two, three, many Vietnams', which is the best summary of the strategic tasks of the revolutionary movement. Nobody denies that such an
International should obviously bring together the main revolutionary forces which exist (Vietnamese, Cuban, Chinese, Arab revolutions...).
Unfortunately, if we want to get away from "journalism' avoid remaining perplexed and powerless in front of the gigantic gap which separates this "ideal' conception and the reality of 1969, we cannot
To state that building such an International is the number one objective of revolutionary Marxists is not making a fetish out of organisation, but expresses the fact that today the crisis of humanity, in the period of decay
This being so, such an International today does not exist. And therefore the problem which is posed for revolutionaries is to see how, in practice,
To be content today with waiting for the masses to have understood the need for it, or even that the revolutionary movements have written it into their programme on the basis of 'their experience' is as naive a reasoning as saying: in France, the main revolutionary force is the working class;
today it is obviously impossible to organise big sections of it on the basis of a revolutionary programme; conclusion: the creation of a national revolutionary organisation is voluntarist, premature and bureaucratic.
Theoretically, such a position could appear 'realistic' (it starts from strengths that exist...), in practice it is purely and simply resignation hidden behind general verbiage. We have already shown that 'national spontaneism' turns into revolutionary reformism when it implies 'the objective
It is not a question of mechanically extending our criticism of national spontaneism to the international level (frontiers, we don't give a damn!).
One cannot deny specific national features (see above). But precisely, if we want to understand them and not be dominated by them, we have to start from the international point of view. Everybody agrees on this! But we should not not have a naive intellectual approach. Unless we are limiting action to writing excellent works in our studies, the fact that, in both analysis and action, we decide to start from the international point of view is not only a subjective question of good will. Individuals and organisations are not abstractions that evolve eternally independently from their existence and their practice. This is for two reasons:
• It is not true, for Marxists, that the international point of view can in the long term be separated from conscious action at this level.
• It is not true that, in a general way (outside revolutionary crises) the national daily class struggle fosters the internationalist point of view (it is remain at that point.
of capitalism, is the crisis of revolutionary leadership.
they can work towards its creation.
is nothing, the movement everything' even rather the reverse which is true.)
Building the International 87
, if we want to
88 International Marxist Review The dialectic of the roof and the walls For us, the International cannot be conceived as the necessary final outcome of the process of development and implantation of the different national revolutionary organisations. It is wrong to think that the first task is the building of the national revolutionary organisations (the walls) and that only afterwards will the question of international leadership be posed in practice. In fact, these two processes are dialectically linked. The internationalist point of view is not born spontaneously from national existence. To a certain extent it has to be brought in from outside. The whole question is to know how and to avoid, as far as possible, this contribution being simply ideological. The Fourth International is today the only revolutionary grouping which follows the same struggle as our grouping. It represents the only instrument that allows us to attain and conserve this famous theoretical and practical 'international point of view' . It has objectively played this role in France, it acts now in such a way as to take it on in a responsible way, which is not only a national but an international necessity.
Let us understand each other. It is not a question of playing with words and saying: there was the First, then the Second, then the Third. The Third is dead, but we are internationalists, happily there is the Fourth. Is is a question of understanding the present role of the Fourth International in the light of the strategic possibilities of the hour. To be content with saying: between the different Internationals there have been gaps, why should not there be today? Is reasoning by superficial analogy which, under the cover of realism, takes into account neither past reality, nor the reality of the present situation. It forgets a problem of great importance: the continuity of internationalist thinking and therefore action. It is true, between the Second and Third Internationals, some individuals and not simply any individuals: Lenin, Trotsky, Rosa Luxemburg ...) had to ensure this theoretical and practical continuity without any existing international organisation. From 1914 their goal was to create one. But today, world revolutionary reality is infinite, more complex than at the time of Lenin. It includes the reciprocal interaction of the crises of capitalism, neocolonialism, and of Stalinism. Who can believe that the continuity of Marxist revolutionary thought (which has not been put in the 'preprepared meals' freezer by our masters for conservation, but which requires a down-to-earth analysis of the real situation) could be the doing of a few individuals without the minimum of a centralised and democratic international organisation implying a minimum of responsibility for the result (and the origins) of its analyses?
The Fourth International is not the revolutionary mass International that we need, but it has nonetheless the essential role of ensuring the living continuity of revolutionary Marxism. From this point of view, for us it is beyond doubt that its existence as an international organisation is a
Building the International 89 necessary condition for this. That it is not sufficient is undoubted (above all because a series of its sections are still weak). But someone who seriously wants to challenge convincingly the essential role of the Fourth International has to finish with philosophical and Byzantine quarrels and take its essential political and theoretical analyses, prove that it is wrong and propose the outline of a different programme, in other words, have a political discussion. Up to this point, we have mainly developed rather general ideas based on the application of historical materialism, on the dialectical relations between ideas, actions, programmes etc. We are now going to take some 'practical' examples to back up our theses. Falce Martello: a negative experience This was at the start a nucleus of revolutionary militants in Milan working mainly in the Communist youth (students) organisations led by comrades of the Italian section of the Fourth International. Leaving aside the differences between the Italian and the French Communist Parties, this was an experience quite similar to that of the left faction in the Union of Communist Students (UEC) in France. There was even the possibility of bringing out a public journal Falce Martello. These comrades were among the best mass leaders in the student movement; they broke about a year and a half ago with the Italian section, considering the Fourth International was not only paralysed but paralysing.
We will come back to their arguments, but the point which interests us is to understand how relatively educated comrades, who left us without major political disagreements, could a few months later shout in the street "Long live Ho Chi Minh, long live Mao, long live Stalin, long live Beria!" Let us look first of all at their arguments about the paralysis of the Fourth International. In essence they said: whether or not we are members of the Fourth Internatonal, we should be capable of judging objectively (be careful not to make a fetish of one's own organisation!) and, like all other political organisations, the Fourth International cannot escape the fact that it is a product of its own history. Whether we like it or not, the Fourth International since it was founded—and despite itselfhas gone though a period of downturn in the international revolution. Perhaps it has played a positive role throughout this period (if only in handing down the "ideological heritage'), but its organisation, its programme and its comrades remain the product of this past. The situation today is radically new (student struggles, Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, even the Cultural Revolution, one never knows); it is no longer a question of preserving some ideological acquisition, but proving in practice that we are capable of leading mass movements. From this point of view, the Fourth International today seems an instrument which has outlived its usefulness.
There were of course long discussions with these comrades, explaining
to them that there was a very beautiful philosophical demonstration making it possible to understand possibly why the Fourth International could have become paralysed, but there was a vital link missing in the logical chain: a demonstration in practice of the paralysis. This demonstration was not made, and to make it it was necessary to have the courage to discuss politics. How? By taking all the new phenomena since the Liberation that had not been forseen by the masters and criticising if possible the analyses and intervention of the Fourth International. These phenomena
• the crisis of Stalinism which was not exactly what was predicted by
• the significance and the distinct role of the youth radicalisation (linked
What is more, these comrades made a confusion between the way in which the gains of revolutionary Marxism had been transmitted to them
(texts, conferences, schools), and the actual way in which it had been developed historically, which is inseparable from the struggles the Fourth
International has been involved in. While it is true that a new period is now opening, which gives us previously unknown possibilities for action, it is no less superficial to counterpose the past period to the present period than
These comrades left the FI, saying that their membership not only did not make any real contribution for them but it was a brake on their development by artifically dividing 'the movement' on a purely ideological question, Stalinism or Trotskyism. The main danger was
"deforming reality to fit theory' (sic). To the however essential question:
how will you be able to take positions on international questions, they replied that it was not necessary to be a member of the Fourth International to read such excellent reviews as Monthly Review, Pensamiento Critico,
Les Temps Modernes and of course the reviews of the FI, etc. This is true.
But unfortunately all these reviews do not say the same thing on the same question. Therefore one of two things: either it is considered not useful to choose and thus the movement is condemned to being only a spontaneous grouping, oscillating with every change in the situation, or there is meaning to proletarian internationalism and a choice must be made.
How can this choice be made? Through discussion of course, that is, in fact, by the lucidity and the greater or lesser knowledge of a few Milanese comrades. Then we are in a paradoxical situation: we wanted to chase ideology out through the door, and it has come back in force through the
What happened after the split? These comrades had two praiseworthy were essentially:
contradictions;
Trotsky;
to neo-capitalism).
window.
objectives:
90 International Marxist Review
• the present form of capitalist rule;
• the significance of the colonial revolution;
to counterpose ideology to practice.
and its neo-capitalism
• To build their organisation among Milanese students, and if possible
• Conserve a certain ideological purity (the famous international point of view), that is to maintain the essentials of Troskyism but not its 'negative'
The drama is that in the political milieu where these comrades work
(students) the widely dominant ideology was anarcho-Maoism. These two desires were contradictory. It was then perfectly understandable that these two wishes did not long count for the same weight in the balance: rather than conserving (in the name of what?) the ideological purity with all its inconveniences (doubt about the Cultural Revolution, disagreement with the NLF programme, etc) it was preferable to extend the movement at the price of successive compromises. The affair ended in a lamentable fiasco reduced the dience or the malian section which is negenera, in udich for the 'movement') and gave birth to some divided and ultra-sectarian
Maoist groupuscules (which is hardly any more positive).
Up to now we have only taken negative examples. It is interesting to see how the Fourth International plays its role in a situation that we know well:
in France. This has been done in an internal bulletin. We simply want to insist on a few points that seem vital to us, in the relatively recent past, which concern the history of organisations which are unhappily dissolved.
The fact that the UEC (an organisation which nobody thought of dissolving) broke up and gave birth to different revolutionary groups and tendento the action of the Fourth International. On the other hand, the fact that among all these groups the JCR was formed on the basis of its programme, cannot only be explained by the objective conditions. It is not true that an experience of struggles, limited simply to French students (see the ideology of the 'Italians') and in the historical period 1960-66, could make it possible to develop such a programme. The Fourth International obviously played a determining role. To think then that this is 'reality deformed to fit theory' is to think that the JCR developed not with the help but despite its programme, which is contradicted by the facts. Without even mentioning the demonstrations in Liège or Berlin or the Brussels conference, which were only possible through the theoretical and practical activity of the FI, and which played an important role in the development of the organisation, let us try to see what were the practical consequences
• We fought against the 'third worldist ideology' which prioritised the extend it.
(...)
A positive example cies, the "Italians' of this programme.
aspects, the organisation and the label.
, the JCR, the UJCML,? etc. was obviously not thanks
Building the International 91
92 International Marxist Review importance of the colonial revolution: we developed the relevance of a transitional programme for the developed capitalist countries. As far as we could, we capitalised on the experience of the Belgian strikes of 1960-61, explaining that this was not simply an unfortunate accident for a particular capitalist power. • At the same time, we fought against the tendencies which only understood the class struggle in terms of the struggle of a national working class against its own bourgeoisie. Without transforming ourselves into a subsidary of the Vietnamese press agency, we stimulated the growth of the National Vietnam Committee, thus breaking for the first time and on a broad scale the Stalinist monopoly over the organisation of struggles. • Having understood the basis of Stalinism and of the workers' bureaucracy, we did not fall into the trap of pure and simple denunciation of the traditional organisations. Precisely because we had a general understanding of the ins and outs of the CP's hold we understood its limits: as other international experiences had already suggested to us, we realised the relative autonomy and considerable political importance that could be acquired by a particular and apparently marginal sector: educated youth. All the other far-left organisations tried, including during May 1968 and using their own particular vocabularies to 'put the students to the service of the workers'. In this way one cannot consider the programme of the JCR (a political reference text, on sale at Maspero's) as an ideological relic, but well and truly as a gain of revolutionary Marxism. On the other hand, the considerable role played by the FI in the political and practical support to the May struggle give a guarantee that the gains of May will also be of use in other countries. And now? Up to this point we have examined the role of the Fourth International as assuming the continuity of the "international point of view' . We have also tried to show that this was only possible in theory because, every time that circumstances rendered it possible, the FI translated it into practice. Unfortunately, history does not know of any refrigerators making to conserve for later consumption the 'gains' of revolutionary Marxism. Those who believe that today can only come up with political ineptitudes.
This said, the present world crisis in all sectors is changing radically the possibilities for action of revolutionary Marxists. Today, 'new vanguards' have appeared in developed capitalist countries as well as in in underdeveloped countries and the workers' states. To understand the underlying, and not the immediate, meaning of the emergence of these new vanguards supposes an analysis of the objective factors in the present situation (and once again, from the outset at the international level), which we cannot do in this text.
• In the developed capitalist countries, the movements that bring together
• In all the under-developed countires, the new movements which have the strategic perspective of, or are already engaged in, armed struggle.
• In the workers' states, the section of the intelligentsia, and even a tiny section of the working class (Poland, Czechoslovakia), in open struggle
This ultra-schematic description is enough to show that these are very different types of vanguards. We should not be prisoners of journalistic generalisations. If we call these very different movements 'new
• Their existence is linked to insurmountable contradictions of the old
• They now represent in many cases a political (if not social) force capable of having an effect on things in a revolutionary direction.
• They broadly escape Stalinist or reformist domination.
These new vanguards have contributed, each in their own sector, a striking confirmation of the main Trotskyist analyses (on Stalinism, permanent revolution, the stability of neo-capitalism). And in each of these sectors, the sections of the Fourth International were actively involved.
The point that should be emphasised now is that these new vanguards do not bring together a particular social class and therefore are not capable of having their own ideology. This point is particularly true for the different student movements, which rather define themselves negatively in
Whether in Italy, Germany or the USA, the dominant ideas are of an structured political ideas exist, they refer to a reality that exists outside the
"movement' (pro-Chinese, Stalinist or Trotskyist). The student 'movement' as such therefore is not able to overcome the great divisions of the workers' movement; it expresses them in its turn, but on another scale and
If we think that these divisions are not artificial, and that sides have to be taken, it is clear that the role of the Fourth International is not reduced by these movements but, on the contrary, increased. Nobody for the time being has denied, given the advanced state of ideological decomposition
(particularly in Germany and in Italy) of the student "movements' only international meetings which can take place in practice are those of the Trotskyist groups active in this sector, which has happened. This is not a 'sectarian' attitude aiming to privilege the interests of one chapel. It is quite the contrary, the conditions for giving the movement itself the perspectives that make possible an increase in its political maturity in order to avoid its decline. From this point of view again, nobody can deny
What do we mean by new vanguards?
students.
with bureaucracy.
vanguards' it is because:
forms of rule.
relation to the classes present.
'anti-authoritarian' with a quite different degree of sharpness.
in a more or less structured way the 'radicalised youth' type (anarcho-Maoism, spontaneism, etc.) When
Building the International 93
, and particularly
', that the
94 International Marxist Review that the growth of a strong French section of the FI would have only positive effects given the confusion which reigns in the foreign student vanguards (not to mention the French 'movement').
As far as the under-developed countries are concerned, the most decisive struggle is in Vietnam. The Vietnamese Communist Party which leads this struggle cannot exactly be placed in the category of 'new vanguards'. There was quite a strong Trotskyist implantation in Indochina, but the combined blows of imperialism and the Stalinists destroyed the section. This being so, in all countries in the world our sections have always been at the vanguard of the practical and theoretical struggle for the defence of the Vietnamese revolution. The members of the Fourth International have played an important if not determinant role in the mobilisations of several tens of thousands of people in France, Britain, the USA, Japan etc.
For the Latin American Revolution, aside from the actions in defence of the Cuban revolution of which we had almost the monopoly in the USA and Canada, the questions we must deal with, in alliance with other revolutionary forces, are not simply related to the defence of other revolutions. We do not know what will be the place of the banner of the Fourth International as such in the Latin American revolution. But one thing we are sure of is that our sections will have a major role to play. Proletarian internationalism reduced to the simple although enormous limits of Latin America does not make it possible to understand all the ins and outs of the revolutionary struggle. This is obvious on the ideological level. Take for example the judgement made by Fidel and other revolutionary movements in Czechoslovakia3, or the underestimation of the May movement. But this sometimes takes a dramatic form in practice: generalisation of the Cuban example in different national situations and, above all, a changed international situation; and, what is more, a misunderstanding of the role of Stalinism (looked at simply through the Latin American experience) has led to the illusion that in certain situations one can force Stalinist parties to start a revolutionary process.
We will be very brief on workers' states (see the beginning of the text). The conditions of political work are very difficult in these countries although for different reasons in the USSR, Poland or Yugoslavia. But the considerable difficulties that revolutionary Marxist activity has encountered are on the level of the risks it poses for the bureaucracy, risks of which the bureaucracy is unhappily perfectly conscious. Apart from the fact that the Fourth International represents the continuity of Bolshevism in the Soviet Union (any activist seeking to understand the history of their country will fall upon the struggles of the Left Opposition; this is why it is still a taboo subject in the USSR), it is the only organisation capable of integrating the anti-bureaucratic and anti-capitalist struggle.4 Nobody would believe that the men of the Kremlin, who are 'solid realists' , would amuse themselves by fighting against shadows.
To conclude, we should admit that we do not know what will be the path real process which will bring into being the mass revolutionary International. But what we are sure of is that their development is linked (in both
What will be the future place of the Fourth International in this process?
Will there be a linear growth of the FI enabling it to become this mass International, or will there be a joining together with other revolutionary movements? Nobody can reasonably answer such a question. In any case, this regroupment of revolutionary forces should not be conceived as an end in itself, but as a factor in increasing the action of revolutionary forces. In this sense the question of programme which will be the basis for possible regroupment is not only a condition of its effectiveness, but is a question of its possibility. On this, the present role of the FI is irreplaceable, once we are persuaded of the relevance of revolutionary
To join the Fourth International, because of the tasks of revolutionaries in the present situation, is to translate into practice the understanding we have of the relationship which exists between ideas and action, programme
From this point of view, joining the Fourth International cannot be considered as simply formalising a de facto situation, a recognition of paternity in a certain fashion (what, moreover, would be the use of that?).
Therefore we should not consider this affiliation a passive thing, simply because of what it could 'contribute' to us, but also the importance of what
The Fourth International does not represent an end in itself for anybody, given once and for all, and independent of its active reality. Whatever its limits, which are not linked to its existence but rather to its too feeble growth, it is nevertheless the only organisational tool that makes it possible for us to work in practice towards building the 'mass' revolutionary
International. The need for this is not a pious wish but imposed by the reality of the world today. Our participation in its combat is an active participation which will strengthen our organisation and the International by associating us more closely, in practice, that is to say in a responsible way,
1. It is symptomatic that the first discussions with these comrades took place because of a headline 'Long live Ho Chi Minh! Long live Castro! Long live
Mao!' We reproached them for opportunism (tail-ending the mass movedirections!).
Marxist ideas.
and organisation.
to international revolutionary reality.
taken in practice by the world socialist revolutions this affiliation could contribute to the International.
Notes
Building the International 95
, and what will be the
Sandor for the
Ligue Communiste, France, 1969
96 International Marxist Review ment). They rejected this accusation as sectarian. 2. These were the different tendencies emerging from the Union of Communist
Students (UEC): pro-Italian CP (Eurocommunist); the Jeunesse Communiste
Revolutionnaire, pro-Trotskyist and Fourth Internationalist ('unhappily dissolved' in 1968); the pro-Maoist Marxist Leninist Communist Youth
(UJCML). 3. After all it is a very small number of international events taken together which have played a decisive role in the emergence of these currents: essentially the
Vietnamese revolution and the victory of the Cuban revolution and to a lesser extent (above all for the Arab countries) the growth of the Palestinian resistance. 4. The different sections of the Fourth International have of course defended our position and condemned Soviet aggression. This is not a position drawn from the 'practice' of Bolivian miners or Peruvian peasants. The 'natural' idea of any revolutionary not very directly concerned with these problems is, when in doubt, to adopt the position of Fidel. It is possible (but not very likely), that this difference is holding back certain forms of unity in action. The whole question is therefore to know if it is useful, including for the Latin-American revolutionary movement, that our comrades should take this position. To think not is to put into the question the relevance of proletarian internationalism. 5. For the last few years, the Chinese (of China) have made an effort to create new Communist Parties (Marxist-Leninist) in the 'people's democracies'. In a general way this has always resulted in a total fiasco, while 6 or 7 years ago the Chinese Communist Party had a lot of good feeling in relatively broad circles (the prestige of a real revolution affirming its independence from the
Soviet Union). There is no surprise in this: continuing to identify with
Leninism and Stalinism, whatever their intention, the Chinese identify themselves with a shameful past. They do not in the least help political artication in continuing to repeat, in their own words, a refrain which, pa cularly at the moment, is not very far removed from the official line. As fi the Cuban revolution, it is only known through the official propaganda (which does not help ...) and it is certain that the position Fidel took on
Czechoslovakia will not increase his prestige. 6. At the Liberation, no group, no Marxist, had foreseen the decisive importance which would be taken by the colonial revolution - particularly the colossal weight of the Chinese revolution — nor the relative stability which capitalism would achieve for almost 20 years.