FI World Congress

  1. redphilly
    redphilly
    Hey folks, Just letting everyone know that the FI world congress is in February, 2010. Some of the docs are posted here. Of course not all.

    http://www.internationalviewpoint.or...hp?rubrique134
  2. A.R.Amistad
    A.R.Amistad
    Sounds great, I'd love to go, but where is it? Exact date, time, location? Also, any news on the Fourth International Youth Camp this year?
  3. redphilly
    redphilly
    The FI WC is in Europe - Amsterdam I think. I know our NATSEC is going as our representative. You know, of course, that reactionary US laws prevent us from being and actual member of the FI. This goes back to the McCarthy era. I'm not sure about the youth camp, but think SA should send some folks. //
  4. redphilly
    redphilly
    BTW, SA will be holding organized discussions of the documents in the branches. At-large folks should do their best to study the docs. The PC is generating something in response to the majority document.
  5. Mephisto
    I believe the World Congress will be in Brussels in February 2010.

    The youth camp should be in italy, but I'm not too sure about that. It would be very nice to meet some comrades of Socialist action there.
  6. A.R.Amistad
    A.R.Amistad
    You know, of course, that reactionary US laws prevent us from being and actual member of the FI.
    Whoa whoa whoa whoa WHATTTT!!!!??????
  7. redphilly
    redphilly
    Old anti-communist laws aimed originally at the COMINTERN, I think. This prohibits affiliation with revolutionary internationals.
  8. A.R.Amistad
    A.R.Amistad
    can you email me something on this law? Looks like I'm gonna have to join the FI for real as an act of civil disobedience.
  9. redphilly
    redphilly
    http://www.internationalviewpoint.or...hp?rubrique134
    Again, just to stress the FI discussion; the main documents are in here. The main one from the Bureau (Role and Tasks of the FI) plus amendments and contributions from sections. I would note the ones from:
    Socialist Action US http://www.internationalviewpoint.or...hp?article1769
    The RSB http://www.internationalviewpoint.or...hp?article1772
    and from Brown, Jette and Andreas http://www.internationalviewpoint.or...hp?article1768 (Brown is in the FIC US)

    Alos of note the draft on Women/Feminism, which I think is very good http://www.internationalviewpoint.or...hp?article1719
    and Climate change - there are more than one two documents plus some amendments and should be checked out. Perhaps each of these could be posted over the next couple of months as separate threads?
  10. blake 3:17
    blake 3:17
    My sympathy for the minority is growing.
  11. Zeus the Moose
    Zeus the Moose
    I've been thinking the same thing, Blake. Most of my contact with FI supporters is with the "FI majority" (I am a sympathiser in Solidarity, after all), and the characterisation they tend to give to the minority view is that they're opposed to broad anti-capitalist formations, and simply want to build FI sections. Fortunately, it seems like that's not the case; what the minority tendency is arguing is that FI sections should not have to dissolve themselves into these broad anti-capitalist parties.

    While I can kind of see the logic of dissolving the LCR into the NPA, it remains that this isn't something they had to do, as the examples of the Portuguese Left Bloc and Enhedslisten in Denmark seem to show.
  12. redphilly
    redphilly
    Folks might want to check out the German RSB document; Towards a Broad International at any price? http://www.internationalviewpoint.or...hp?article1772

    It lays out the problem fairly well - that the main document (Role and Tasks of the FI) is advocating a shortcut to mass party status. That the FI leadership is trying a one-size-fits-all approach to the party question. The document prescribes the building of broad parties, but most sections are not in that position. Also, the history of the FI in some questionable regroupments in the late 80s - with Maoists in Germany and Spain for example- makes this approach suspicious. It raises a /tactical/ question to the level of a strategy.

    This is very much like the IMT (Grant-Woods) making a principle out of entry in mass social democratic parties - what should be a tactical question is raised to one of strategy.

    I don't think it's accurate to say that any one of the "opposition" documents opposes the building of broad parties full stop, but they all raise the question to one degree or another of what the role of revolutionaries in these partis is. and should be. Do we liquidate our political line in order to regroup with forces to our right? I think this would be a mistake. The analysis of the multi-layered crisis of the system (ecological, economic, social, etc) is pretty close to right on, but the idea that we should try to fill the space vacated by a right-ward moving social democracy is incorrect.

    Also, just a note. It's shorthand to refer to the "minority" in the FI, but the reality right now is that there is no single, unified, minority tendency. Perhaps that is a step that will be taken in the future. Socialist Action is re-engaging with the FI after a period of inactivity which was imposed by a lack of resources available to us. As we continue to grow (tripled in size since 2000) we will be able to play a greater role.
  13. blake 3:17
    blake 3:17
    I was impressed by the RSB document.

    but the idea that we should try to fill the space vacated by a right-ward moving social democracy is incorrect.
    Haven't heard put quite that way. The "minority" I've been exposed to has been very sectarian and not very effective. I'm grateful to hear saner voices.
  14. redphilly
    redphilly
    Some of the pre-WC contributions. The Brown document represents a minority perspecive in the US FIC. As for SA we continue to develop relationships internationally outside of the FI. A true revolutionary internationa will be based on the eventual regroupment of what are now scattered forces. We just sent someone down to meet with the PSTU/LIT in Brazil.

    SA pre-WC document
    http://www.internationalviewpoint.or...hp?article1769
    RSB (Germany) Toward a Broad International at any price?
    http://www.internationalviewpoint.or...hp?article1772
    Brown (US FIC) Reject the draft
    http://www.internationalviewpoint.or...hp?article1768
  15. Crux
    Crux
    Well, again, to relate to the questions I raised in the other thread, if you are going to organize an actual minority tendency (and I think this particular question calls for it) you'd have to draw up a common, and thus present a real alternative to the present trajectory of the FI and effectively try to win the international to that position. If you have an international that is actually working as such. But these questions I posed in the other thread.

    I read the RSB statement, and while it raised many serious and important points it also had what I percieve as two main problems. One the international should not impose tactics on it's sections, well taken at face value I would agree, but I think this statement is an attempt to avoid that larger problem of the FI, if you believe the FI has the wrong tactics say so decisvely. If you are not sure on perspectives in other countries, speak exclusively of your own and let other comrades draw their own conclusions based on their own countries, don't be vague when levelling important criticism, be precise. And, if there is indeed an minority in the FI then make a common statement (I think there has been such before, no?) actively propagate your perspective, beyond world congresses, if this proves impossible seek regroupment elsewhere.

    My second critique would be a tendency in the statement to phrase-radicalism and "ourselfes-alone" thinking, now this is a question more of style than of substance, but no doubt defenders of the majority would jump directly on such thing's. Again, be precise. We, as in the CWI, did a common assessment of the social democratic (and some former communist) parties 20 years ago when we left them (in most cases we had already been expelled) to pursue our tactics in building new working class parties, on a mass scale and on a socialist program. And here's with the tendency towards phrase radicalism in RSB's statement, of course we mean to fight for a revolutionary program, but even the best revolutionary program is worth nothing if it doesn't reach the workingclass. That is why we try and build a new working class party and this by no means a straight and simple task. Further more, we have the dual objective of building our organization and training our cadres as well, because we believe the stronger our forces are, even if we succeed with our partial goal of launching a working class party with a socialist program, the easier will it be to make sure such a party keeps on that path and does not go down the dead end path's of stalinism or reformism.

    This said I again think the statement was very good in substance in so far as it questions broadness for broadness sake and the need to defend the trotskyist traditions.

    Except for a tactical disagreement regarding PRC in Italy, I would wholeheartedly agree with Socialist Actions statement.

    The final statements seems to put forward many of the smae points I just argued for, but is apparently only signed by a handful of persons and, like the german statement, but much less so, also runs the risk of counter-posing working in "broad anti-capitalist parties" with building the cadre, we can and should do both. Whetever working in new left formations, who don't necessarily start out with a rounded out program, should be determined by their base, potential and direction, of course there are more considerations as well, like the freedom to form tendencies etc but those are the main points. It's not an "oh we can't work in this party, they have no revolutionary program" or "oh we must work in this party because it is new and appears left wing" question.

    If you agree with these points I suggest you entertain the idea of starting up discussion with the CWI. The CWI and the USFI were in discussions, but unfortunatly this was at the start of the present trajectory of the USFI, i e after 92 so it did not lead anywhere. Again, we have a very practical experience with these problems you face as our then scottish section, while building the Scottish Socialist Party walked into precisely that dead end, we debated with them for several years and tried to bring them back to building an actual opposition but they eventually left our international, and not long after disbanded their own group as "the SSP was doing the work".
  16. Crux
    Crux
    I've been thinking the same thing, Blake. Most of my contact with FI supporters is with the "FI majority" (I am a sympathiser in Solidarity, after all), and the characterisation they tend to give to the minority view is that they're opposed to broad anti-capitalist formations, and simply want to build FI sections. Fortunately, it seems like that's not the case; what the minority tendency is arguing is that FI sections should not have to dissolve themselves into these broad anti-capitalist parties.

    While I can kind of see the logic of dissolving the LCR into the NPA, it remains that this isn't something they had to do, as the examples of the Portuguese Left Bloc and Enhedslisten in Denmark seem to show.
    I think the question goes deeper than that, what effective opposition does the FI present where it is engaged in broad formations? Since there seem to be varying tactics even here this seems to differ from country to country. Did the portugese FI section,who after all helped found the Bloco de Esquerda, actively oppose the vote in favour the IMF and EU loans (or rather blackmailing) of Greece? What about the expulsion of the IMT in denmark from Enhedslisten based on the very suspicious (for enhedslisten not the IMT) of "building a party within a party"? Now I am just taking little bits and pieces here. Also, is international viewpoint the only international website of the FI?
  17. Crux
    Crux
    The CWI comrades attending the world congress of the FI says that the critical statements made by SA and RSB were not distributed throughout the congress participants. Now I know none of you comrades were present there, but what do you make of that?
  18. redphilly
    redphilly
    Can't say for sure. The report given by our NatSec did not mention this as far as I remember. I *think* he met with the CWI folks at one point or another.
  19. Crux
    Crux
    Can't say for sure. The report given by our NatSec did not mention this as far as I remember. I *think* he met with the CWI folks at one point or another.
    Cool, do you have any comments on the other stuff I mentioned?
  20. redphilly
    redphilly
    Cool, do you have any comments on the other stuff I mentioned?
    Insofar as how to build a united minority tendency? It's a process. back in the early 90s there were attempts to do this, but now we are back to square one --in the sense that the base for such a minority is weaker. Building a tendency internationally is a political process and can't just be pulled out of a hat.

    I think you will see a more concerted attept to build a pro-party building tendency in the FI - one that defends the traditions of Trotskyism.
  21. redphilly
    redphilly
    Jeff Mackler (SA NatSec) report on the World Congress.
    http://phillyworkersvoice.wordpress....ding-strategy/